# Political polling



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2013)

Today's YouGov:-

CON 29% (31), LAB 42% (40), LD 11% (12), UKIP 12% (12); Govt app -40

Fieldwork 4th & 5th March.

Mods, might it be a good idea to sticky a poll thread for the run in to 2015? Just a thought.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 8, 2013)

No?

Well, anyway...

This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of:-

* CON 32%, LAB 41%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 11%.*

Meanwhile (C)Ashcroft has done some considerable polling on the LDs:-
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/03/what-are-the-liberal-democrats-for/
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/03/what-are-the-liberal-democrats-for/



> Remarkably, only one in twenty British adults both voted for the Liberal Democrats in 2010 and say they would do so in an election tomorrow.


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 8, 2013)

I guess TV companies are already thinking about which of the redundant Lib Dem MPs they'll be able to use as anchors for documentary series following their almost-total clear-out at the 2015 election.  Any obvious candidates?


----------



## stavros (Mar 8, 2013)

Huhne? Lembit?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 8, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> I guess TV companies are already thinking about which of the redundant Lib Dem MPs they'll be able to use as anchors for documentary series following their almost-total clear-out at the 2015 election. Any obvious candidates?


 
LD MP Simon Wright, (Norwich South), will be free to take on media work if there is just a 0.32% swing to Labour. That's got to be a pretty good bet, thopugh whether or not he'd be any good on the TV I don't know? I can't recall ever seeing/hearing him speak on the media.











The MP is second from the right.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 8, 2013)

stavros said:
			
		

> Huhne? Lembit?



Neither of them are mps now mind.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 8, 2013)

Not forgetting David 'oy vey, my life already' Ward in Bradford East. He'll be available for media work with just a 0.45% swing to Labour. Though whether or not they'd want him is another matter.


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 8, 2013)

Apparently Clegg likes walking in the Peak District, I'm sure one of the regional TV companies will pick him up for one of those gentle series that they put up against the mid-evening soap operas, safe in the knowledge they'll always get shit viewing figures anyway.


----------



## stavros (Mar 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Neither of them are mps now mind.


 
I realised this immediately after posting. I suspect Huhne will just go and get some directorships now and maybe after-dinner gigs, but Lembit's always been hungry for publicity.


----------



## binka (Mar 8, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> Apparently Clegg likes walking in the Peak District, I'm sure one of the regional TV companies will pick him up for one of those gentle series that they put up against the mid-evening soap operas, safe in the knowledge they'll always get shit viewing figures anyway.


 





unfortunately i think we all know he's going to do ok for himself


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2013)

More polling from the bent Belize banksta:-

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/0...that-will-decide-the-next-election/#more-2052

Just how much money did he make from all that laundering for him to single-handedly keep the pollster industry afloat?

Anyway, here's the main thrust:-



> _Now that we are past the midway point in the parliament – and now that it’s clear that the constituency boundaries will not be changing before the next election – I decided it was time for a proper look at the marginal territory where it will be decided who enters 10 Downing Street on 8 May 2015 and whether or not they have an overall majority at their command._
> 
> _This study is based on over 19,000 online interviews in 213 constituencies throughout Great Britain – mainly those for which the Conservatives and Labour will be competing directly, and those the Liberal Democrats will be defending against either of the bigger parties._
> _At first glance the findings seem to offer little encouragement for the Conservatives. *Labour is ahead in all the clusters of Tory-held seats Ed Miliband will be targeting, and at this stage of the parliament the figures suggest there is little prospect of Cameron gaining further seats from Labour. With two years to go this study is a snapshot not a prediction, but on the basis of this poll Labour would be elected with a large majority. (*_Elsewhere the figure of 84 is mentioned)
> _It is notable, though, that the swing to Labour in the seats the party will be aiming to take from the Conservatives is lower than that implied by the national polls. In particular, *Labour are moving fewer voters in the Tory-held Southern Towns & Suburbs, London and parts of the North they might hope. The swings in different clusters of seats suggest that Labour would gain all but 16 of the 109 most marginal seats (those requiring a swing of up to 11%) the Tories are defending against them.* But if, as often happens, the race tightens as the election approaches, the evidence is that Labour will find it harder to move votes in these places than it does elsewhere._


 
and, of course, the obligatory...



> _The data will make uncomfortable reading for the Liberal Democrats._


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 9, 2013)

Latest from the Graun
Con 27% Lab 39% Ukip 17% libdem 8%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/09/ukip-opinium-observer-opinion-poll


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> Latest from the Graun
> Con 27% Lab 39% Ukip 17% libdem 8%
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/09/ukip-opinium-observer-opinion-poll


 
This is beginning to look interesting...


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2013)

Tonight's Guardian/ICM:-

This month’s ICM poll for the Guardian has voting intention figures of:-

*CON 31%(+2), LAB 39%(-2), LDEM 15%(+2), UKIP 7%(-2).*



> _The topline figures suggest a narrowing of the Labour lead, but this probably a reversion to the mean after what looked like a rogue poll last month. ICM have shown Labour with an eight point lead in four of their last six polls (ICM typically show lower Labour leads and higher Lib Dem scores than some other pollsters for methodological reasons to do with how they treat don’t knows). _
> _The rest of the poll is reported as showing that the Conservatives would do better if they were more anti-European, or were more anti-immigration, or were more on the side of traditional families (whether people thought being more supportive of apple pie would help them was not, alas, polled upon). _
> _ I shall only repeat my normal grumbles about polls purporting to show that people would be more or less likely to vote for a party if they did x, y or z. They really don’t, people just use the questions to show their opinion of the issues being asked about regardless of whether or not it would actually shift their vote or increase/decrease their likelihood of voting for a party. Hence what the poll actually shows is most people don’t like immigration or the European Union much and do like families._
> _http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7126_


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2013)

?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2013)

?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> ?


 
Stickied...for the run in to 2015?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2013)

aha a mod would have to notice the thread first you're best off pming one


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 14, 2013)

ipsos monthly poll

CON 27%(-3), LAB 40%(-2), LDEM 11%(+4), UKIP 13%(+4)

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/


----------



## brogdale (Mar 28, 2013)

"YouGov’s daily polling for the Sun this morning has topline figures of:

*CON 30%, LAB 40%, LDEM 12%, UKIP 13%.*

While we have seen much higher from other online companies, *it is the highest UKIP score that YouGov have shown so far.* All the usual caveats apply: one should never get too excited about a record breaking score as it will almost always be a bit of an outlier. What counts is the underlying trend, and these figures underline the ongoing increase in UKIP support, and indeed the recent modest recovery in YouGov’s Lib Dem support."


----------



## ymu (Mar 28, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Stickied...for the run in to 2015?


You don't want your thread stickied. No one will ever click on it again.

I'm not entirely sure I see the point of this thread, when it is essentially the same information as gets posted regularly on "Lib Dems: how low can they go". It would be a shame to see that one sink if this one took off, tbh.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 28, 2013)

ymu said:


> You don't want your thread stickied. No one will ever click on it again.


 
 true



> I'm not entirely sure I see the point of this thread, when it is essentially the same information as gets posted regularly on "Lib Dems: how low can they go". It would be a shame to see that one sink if this one took off, tbh.


 
Nah that's one of those long threads lots of people who haven't contributed to will never look at - it's good to have a specific polls thread and that one for different reasons


----------



## ymu (Mar 28, 2013)

Fair point. But there's a lot of discussion on it of some of the technical sides of polling (eg why ICM is so consistently high for the LDs). It's a lot of duplicated effort, and you never get the LD figures posted on it without the rest of them anyway. It's just a more amusing and poster-attracting title for the same thing.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 28, 2013)

ymu said:


> You don't want your thread stickied. No one will ever click on it again.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure I see the point of this thread, when it is essentially the same information as gets posted regularly on "Lib Dems: how low can they go". It would be a shame to see that one sink if this one took off, tbh.


 
Oh, OK; I'm a relative newb so I'm not up with the custom and practice here yet.

Fair enough, but I still think a specific polling thread will be quite useful over the next 25 months.


----------



## ymu (Mar 28, 2013)

I don't disagree, and I'm not intending to diss your thread. It's just that I would head to the LD thread to post up a poll result I wanted to share, which is maybe why I've only just seen this one. I don't think people want to post the same stuff on two threads, that's all.


----------



## 8115 (Mar 28, 2013)

I like having a polling thread. It's not really just for the lib dems, although obviously if their numbers are on the floor that's always a bonus.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 28, 2013)

ymu said:


> I don't disagree, and I'm not intending to diss your thread. It's just that I would head to the LD thread to post up a poll result I wanted to share, which is maybe why I've only just seen this one. I don't think people want to post the same stuff on two threads, that's all.


 
Yeah, I don't think it's a big issue; people will, of course, post specific poll findings about the parties in the respective Lab, Lib, UKIP are shite threads, but as the frequency of polling increases with proximity to the GE I think a general thread will get used.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 28, 2013)

Also it could be used for the county councils this year, and Euros and London boroughs next year


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2013)

brogdale said:


> LD MP Simon Wright, (Norwich South), will be free to take on media work if there is just a 0.32% swing to Labour. That's got to be a pretty good bet, thopugh whether or not he'd be any good on the TV I don't know? I can't recall ever seeing/hearing him speak on the media.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
He has what I believe is known as a good face for radio (sorry Simon...)


----------



## ymu (Mar 28, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, I don't think it's a big issue; people will, of course, post specific poll findings about the parties in the respective Lab, Lib, UKIP are shite threads, but as the frequency of polling increases with proximity to the GE I think a general thread will get used.


That's my point really. There is no such thing as a party-specific poll. The "LDs, how low can they go" thread is not the "why the LDs are shit" thread. It contains precisely the same sort of information as this one, and has a lot of useful technical discussion on polling which need not be duplicated.

I don't care either way. I just think that one thread will sink and one thread will swim.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 1, 2013)

So the County Council elections this May, only a few weeks away now.

What are people's predictions and where is the polling?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 6, 2013)

Tonight's Observer poll:-



> The fortnightly Opinium poll for the Observer is out tonight and has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 28%(nc), LAB 38%(nc), LDEM 8%(-1), UKIP 17%(+1).*
> 
> Voting intentions are pretty much identical to a fortnight ago – the UKIP score looks startling but Opinium have had them this high for a month (they tend to prodce one of the higher scores for the party, which Opinium themselves put down to the fact they don’t use any past vote weighting.)


----------



## brogdale (Apr 7, 2013)

Today's YouGov...



> The weekly YouGov poll for the Sunday Times is now up here. Topline voting intention figures are :-
> 
> *CON 30%, LAB 40%, LD 11%, UKIP 13%.*
> 
> *http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7248*


 
The same poll included a number of 'welfare' questions and the findings make pretty grim, if unsurprising, reading...



> Looking at the broad findings, a chunky majority of people think that the present benefit system needs reform in some way. *Overall, 70% of people think the current system works badly and needs significant (38%) or major (32%) reform.*
> However, looking beneath that concern seems to be more widespread about _who_ benefits go to, rather than the _level_ of them (though it would be wrong to deny many were not also concerned about that!). *63% think that the benefit system is not strict enough and too open to fraud, 22% think it is too strict, 9% about right.* *Compare this to 37% who think it is too generous and benefit payments are too high, 21% who think they are too low and 26% who think they are about right. I*n previous polling we’ve often seen that overall people want to see less spent on welfare, but are actually well-disposed towards benefits for some groups like the disabled or the elderly – the driver of disatisfaction with the system does seem to be exactly _who_ it goes to.
> The YouGov/Sunday Times survey asked people what proportion of welfare they thought went to people who genuinely needed and deserved support, and what proportion went to people who did not deserve it and were taking advantage of the system. *36% of people think that half (23%) or more than half (13%) of people claiming benefits do not deserve help and are taking advantage of the system. A further 42% of people think there are a minority of claimants who are not deserving help.* (Again, we’ve seen previously that people vastly overestimate the level of fraud in the system, but this is not actually the same question – people may well think that people are perfectly legally claiming benefits within the current rules, but that the rules should be tighter).
> Asking more specifically about some of policy proposals and whether they are fair or not, *78% of people think it is fair to put a £26,000 cap on the benefits a household can receive each year (10% think it unfair) and 59% think it is fair to limit the increase in working-age benefits to 1%, less than the rate of inflation. People are more evenly split over the “bedroom tax” – 47% of people think it is fair that people have their housing benefit reduced if they are considered to have more rooms than they need, 40% think it is unfair.* The survey in the Sun had a similar batch of questions that asked if people supported changes, rather than if they were fair/unfair – the results were very similar though – 79% supported the cap on total benefits and opinion on the “bedroom tax” was 49% support/44% oppose.
> Asked about the challenge made to Iain Duncan Smith to live on £53 pounds a week, only 26% think it would be reasonable to expect someone to live on this amount of money. However when asked about whether it would be reasonable to live on £71 – the current rate of income support or jobseekers allowance for a single adult over the age of 25, 57% of people think it would be reasonable to expect someone to live on this compared to 31% who do not . That said, people are slightly less optimistic about whether they themselves could live on that much money! Only 44% say they could, 48% say they could not.


 
Hmmm..... tory press; job done.


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 7, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> So the County Council elections this May, only a few weeks away now.
> 
> What are people's predictions and where is the polling?


Any idea when the elections are for greater london


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 7, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> Any idea when the elections are for greater london


2014.

Here's the list of councils where elections are taking place this May. Vast majority currently under Conservative control.

I don't think UKIP will take many council seats (though I think they'll probably gain a few unlike the last two years) but they could cause serious damage for the Tories - and help out the LibDems.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 8, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> 2014.
> 
> Here's the list of councils where elections are taking place this May. Vast majority currently under Conservative control.
> 
> I don't think UKIP will take many council seats (though I think they'll probably gain a few unlike the last two years) but they could cause serious damage for the Tories - and help out the LibDems.


 
Yep, the 2014 elections are the next real test for the Libdems (especially with the added pressure from the Euros), this one could be a blwo for the Tories, however I don't think they will hugely suffer in terms of seats held as so many of them are fairly safe Tory seats, it all depends on how well UKIP organise. I think Labour are right to talk down their chances this time.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 8, 2013)

There's also the mayoral elections in Doncaster and North Tyneside this time, I think a divided field in Donny could let Labour through (but might not they are loathed by so many), and Labour should take North Tyneside off the Tories.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 8, 2013)

I think there's a pretty good chance that the Tories will lose control of a number of councils, but I can't see Labour gaining control of that many.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 9, 2013)

Can't even escape it here..



> On the day of her death, half of all respondents, 50%, told the pollster that they look back on her contribution as a positive one for Britain. That is 16 points more than the 34% who say she was bad for the country.
> Opinions remain strong on both sides: half of her admirers, 25%, rate her record as "very good", and most of her detractors, 20% of the overall sample, deem it to have been "very bad". Indeed, only 11% sit on the fence and say she was "neither good nor bad"; an even smaller slither of opinion, just 5%, told ICM that they didn't know.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/08/britain-divided-margaret-thatcher-record-poll


----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2013)

The fortnightly Opinium poll for the Observer has topline figures of:-

*CON 29%(+1), LAB 35%(-3), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 17(+1).*

Anthony at UKPR says...



> I am always extremely cautious about reading movements into polls – more often than not they turn out to be no more than the result of random movement within the normal margin of error – however we do seem to be seeing a consistent trend. YouGov’s dailing polling for the Sun which normally shows Labour leads of around 10 points has produced leads of 7, 8, 11 and 7 this week, Ipsos MORI showed Labour’s lead dropping by four points, ICM by two points and now Opinium by four points.
> Just as I’d advise caution in deciding whether or not there is a change in the polls, one should be equally cautious in assuming what the cause might be. Don’t just leap at the most apparent story in the news! Clearly one obvious explanation would be the coverage of the Thatcher funeral, but it doesn’t follow that this is automatically the cause (if it is, of course, then I would expect any narrowing to be very short lived. A bit of positive TV coverage of a leader from long ago is probably not going to lead to any long term shift).
> http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7314


 
Dead witch bounce?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Dead witch bounce?


 
Don't know but it sounds like a Midwest indie band


----------



## JTG (Apr 20, 2013)

Labour to gain up to 11 seats in Bristol from Tory/Lib Dems. Lib Dems to lose up to 11 to Labour/Greens. Labour biggest party on hung council


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 20, 2013)

JTG said:


> Labour to gain up to 11 seats in Bristol from Tory/Lib Dems. Lib Dems to lose up to 11 to Labour/Greens. Labour biggest party on hung council


 
don't think Labour would be doing so well if they had won the mayoral election some how


----------



## JTG (Apr 20, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> don't think Labour would be doing so well if they had won the mayoral election some how


dunno tbh, this is guesswork on my part based on the seats up for grabs this time and the results four years ago (ie no actual polling). I'm guessing that Lib Dem votes will transfer to Labour on the estates/inner city and to the Greens in the lentil belt. As a result, Labour to take back much of what they steadily lost over the last dozen years or so and a rise in the Green vote again, perhaps leading to an extra seat or two in said lentil belt. Certainly more second places for them, can see Labour and Green pushing the sitting Lib Dem into third in Easton. Lib Dems to hold on in the complacent m/c west Bristol wards and Tories to lose up to four seats in the suburbs (to Labour).

Musical chairs will make no difference because George is running the show anyway and Labour don't want to play in his cabinet


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 21, 2013)

JTG said:


> Labour to gain up to 11 seats in Bristol from Tory/Lib Dems. Lib Dems to lose up to 11 to Labour/Greens. Labour biggest party on hung council


Sorry is that your predication/rumour or what?


Anyone want to make a guess on how many councillors UKIP gain/lose? I reckon a net gain of about 15.
And unfortunately I think the LibDems will not do as badly this year as the last two


----------



## JTG (Apr 21, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry is that your predication/rumour or what?
> 
> 
> Anyone want to make a guess on how many councillors UKIP gain/lose? I reckon a net gain of about 15.
> And unfortunately I think the LibDems will not do as badly this year as the last two





JTG said:


> dunno tbh, this is guesswork on my part based on the seats up for grabs this time and the results four years ago (ie no actual polling). I'm guessing that Lib Dem votes will transfer to Labour on the estates/inner city and to the Greens in the lentil belt. As a result, Labour to take back much of what they steadily lost over the last dozen years or so and a rise in the Green vote again, perhaps leading to an extra seat or two in said lentil belt. Certainly more second places for them, can see Labour and Green pushing the sitting Lib Dem into third in Easton. Lib Dems to hold on in the complacent m/c west Bristol wards and Tories to lose up to four seats in the suburbs (to Labour).
> 
> Musical chairs will make no difference because George is running the show anyway and Labour don't want to play in his cabinet


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2013)

The Thrasher and Rallings’s  local elections projections came out ever the weekend (n brief anyway, in-depth later this week) - usually broadly reliable: Labour to gain 350 seats, Conservatives to lose 310, the Liberal Democrats to lose 130 and UKIP to win 40, national share: CON 29, LAB 38, LD 16, UKIP 11.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 22, 2013)

That would be a good result for UKIP


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 22, 2013)

Lovely chart on PB:


----------



## brogdale (Apr 22, 2013)

Not polling, and not a totally new concept, but....it makes for a good image, might be interesting for some (?) and I don't think I've seen a turn-out tone weighting before.

Waddya think?




http://www.economist.com/news/brief...onservative-south-make-england-look-ever-more


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2013)

I'd like to see some shading - i think the article overplays labour's problems in the south - 97 showed they are not fatal, in fact a good chunk of seats are within the swing range. Not so for the tories outside the south.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 22, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Lovely chart on PB:


I wonder what one for "water flouridation" would look like?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 24, 2013)

The Sun published results from two polls yesterday: –

* CON 32%, LAB 39%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 13%*

*CON 33%, LAB 40%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 12%*

Anthony at UKPR gives an interesting commentary on the recent evidence of a closing in the polls to erode Labour's run of double digit leads:-



> Five of YouGov’s last six polls have shown single figure Labour leads, whereas previously the average Labour had been consistently around 10 or 11 points. Put in the context of the falling Labour leads from ICM, MORI and Opinium it is pretty undeniable that something is afoot.
> YouGov’s average figures in the first half of April were CON 31%, LAB 41%, LD 11%, UKIP 11%
> The average over those last six polls is CON 32%, LAB 40%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 12%
> So roughly speaking we appear to have had a small increase for the Tories, a slight knock for Labour. At this point we can normally expect lots of speculation about what has caused it… or more typically, lots of people claiming that the thing they personally care deeply about has caused it, the thing they think their party shouldn’t be doing has damaged them, or the thing they think their party should be doing has helped them. Normally such claims don’t bother with evidence.
> ...


 
His usual caveats, and all that, but he calls it as the 'dead fatch bounce'.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 24, 2013)

While I agree with those who say the standard poll leads for Labour have been softer than people seem to be thinking I do this this current slight narrowing is down to a combination of good things for the Tories including Thatcher and some solid anti-immigration moves and a ratcheting up of the anti benefits arguments as well.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 24, 2013)

Big question is whether those factors will continue and strengthen. Or whether Labour will become even quarter-way competent about 'changing the subject'

I have severe doubts about that, mostly because they're  no good at all at controlling, or even influencing,  the 'narrative'. Nor are they any good at stopping Tory/UKIP 'narrative' being the default position for apolitical and alienated (and also stupid) people.


----------



## UhOhSeven (Apr 24, 2013)

What's the margin of error on these polls that are being cited? A couple of them seem to suggest that Labour's lead has deteriorated by four percentage points, and that the Tories have recovered by about the same amount, but to the best of my knowledge, a four per cent error margin is quite usual. And bearing that in mind can make quite a difference to how you read the results.

Apologies if I'm teaching granny to suck eggs, it's just an important point that needs stressing.


----------



## JTG (Apr 24, 2013)

Think it's usually +/- 3 points or thereabouts


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2013)

JTG said:


> Think it's usually +/- 3 points or thereabouts


 
Yep, as YouGov says...



> In the small print of opinion polls you'll often find a ‘margin of error’ quoted, normally of plus or minus 3%. This means that 19 times out of 20, the figures in the opinion poll will be within 3% of the ‘true’ answer you'd get if you interviewed the entire population.
> A poll of 1,000 people has a margin of error of +/- 3%, a poll of 2,000 people a margin of error of +/- 2%. The smaller the sample, the less precise it is and the wider the margin of error. Strictly speaking, these calculations are based on the assumption that polls are genuine random samples, with every member of the population having an equal chance of being selected. In many cases this isn't true ‒ polls are carried out by quota sampling, or from panels of volunteers. Even polls done by randomly dialling phone numbers aren't truly random, as the majority of people decline to take part. Even so, the margin of error is still a good rough guide to how precise a poll in, and indeed, when measured against real events like general elections most polls are indeed within the margin of error of the real result.
> However, it is important to note that a margin of error applies to the _whole_ sample. All pollsters who are members of the British Polling Council, like YouGov, will publish computer tables showing the detailed results of the poll, which will include crossbreaks breaking down respondents by age, gender, social class, region and other demographics. While these offer great insight into patterns of public opinion, they do, naturally, have smaller sample sizes. For example, a poll of 1000 people will normally have around 500 men and 500 women, and the margins of error on those figures will be around +/- 4%
> For smaller demographic groups, sample sizes are even smaller and these bring with them much larger margins of error. For example, a poll of 1000 people would have a margin of error of +/- 3%, but if there were only 100 Scottish respondents within that poll the Scottish figures would have a margin of error of +/- 10%. This means unless the difference between what Scottish respondents said was different to what the rest of the sample said by more than 10 percentage points, it would not be statistically significant. It could just be random error.
> ...


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 25, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> While I agree with those who say the standard poll leads for Labour have been softer than people seem to be thinking I do this this current slight narrowing is down to a combination of good things for the Tories including Thatcher and some solid anti-immigration moves and a ratcheting up of the anti benefits arguments as well.


I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be almost entirely a 'dead evil old bat bounce' and the numbers return to where they were before, in a few weeks. The economy is still dreadful, in terms of how it affects people's everyday lives, and that's the key thing.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 26, 2013)

This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun had topline figures of:-

*CON 32%, LAB 40%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 12%.*



> For the time being at least we seem to have settled into a Labour lead of about 8 points in YouGov’s daily polling.
> http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7337


----------



## Onket (Apr 28, 2013)

Is there a site listing who is standing at the May elections?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2013)

Onket said:


> Is there a site listing who is standing at the May elections?


 Not really, but the top PDF on this page lists the areas that are having an election, thereafter you'd have to go to the relevent LA website for a lists of the nominated candidates. I think; unless anyone knows bettter?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 28, 2013)

CON 31%, LAB 40%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 11% in the weekly ST/YG. With some good an bad personal ratings for Farage - i.e lots of people like him but not that many think he would be a good PM.

Terrible result buried in there for lib-dems - when asked to imagine all the parties candidates had a genuine chance of winning in their constituency next time who they would then vote for: Lds12%/UKIP 18%. Heightened expectation that they will lose is going to drive people away from them i.e collapse of anti-tory tactical lib-dem vote.

Tables here (pdf).


----------



## ymu (Apr 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'd like to see some shading - i think the article overplays labour's problems in the south - 97 showed they are not fatal, in fact a good chunk of seats are within the swing range. Not so for the tories outside the south.


I'm not sure '97 means much any more. Labour's problems in the '80s and '90s were primarily caused by the SDP. Eastleigh suggests that SDP types are flocking to UKIP. They got virtually all the protest vote there whilst Labour made more or less zero gain on 2010, which is a pretty shocking performance for the opposition in a by-election.

Some of those seats will still be up for grabs of course, but UKIP is nicking a lot of votes from fucked off Labour voters in the south. The Greens, Respect, SNP and Plaid are all out-flanking Labour on the left and should do well in the Midlands, the North and outside England

There's been an ongoing shift towards 4th parties since the 1990s but they've only just started to get close to winning seats. The detail of how the pundits are coming up with their predictions matter here. I think UKIP's 11% is a lot more geographically concentrated than the LD's 11%, and of it is it will be a lot more efficient at converting votes into seats.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

ymu said:


> I'm not sure '97 means much any more. Labour's problems in the '80s and '90s were primarily caused by the SDP. Eastleigh suggests that SDP types are flocking to UKIP. They got virtually all the protest vote there whilst Labour made more or less zero gain on 2010, which is a pretty shocking performance for the opposition in a by-election.
> 
> Some of those seats will still be up for grabs of course, but UKIP is nicking a lot of votes from fucked off Labour voters in the south. The Greens, Respect, SNP and Plaid are all out-flanking Labour on the left and should do well in the Midlands, the North and outside England
> 
> There's been an ongoing shift towards 4th parties since the 1990s but they've only just started to get close to winning seats. The detail of how the pundits are coming up with their predictions matter here. I think UKIP's 11% is a lot more geographically concentrated than the LD's 11%, and of it is it will be a lot more efficient at converting votes into seats.


UKIP (or any of the other non big-three parties) are simply not going to be winning seats on the national level. Their only electoral effect will be on which of the those three big parties (well, it'll be mostly be two) do eventually win. In the south and midlands their vote will from the other parties will be higher from the tories and damage them directly opening the door to labour victories in swing seats, labour voters will not be going over to them en masse. In the north there will be a more even split but the end result will only effect the size of labour victories, it won't put those victories in doubt.

1997 is very relevant as it shows that under what looks like a blue and yellow blanket there are many seats prepared to swing to labour (if not have the sort of traditional commitment of other areas), whereas eastleigh had a set of conditions that will at best only happen in 3 seats tops, more likely 2 - and was a by-election, where people are prepared to vote against what they would do in a general election. And a strong UKIP vote in the south/midlands is only going to benefit labour - no other party.


----------



## ymu (Apr 30, 2013)

i didn't say they could win seats. I said they took nearly 100% of the protest vote in Eastleigh whilst Labour made no gains. Labour should take some low hanging fruit in the south but more than that is wishful thinking. They're not winning back the SDP types and they're not appealing to their mostly non-voting base. UKIP is.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

It doesn't matter to my point if you said UKIP would win seats or not (though you clearly said they were best placed to win seats off the back of the ongoing rise in 4th party votes which you expect to continue rising).

They took the protest vote and a tiny amount from labour in eastleigh precisely _because_ it was a by-election and not a general election - and just as importantly, they took their vote from the tories and lib-dems (combined loss of 27%, UKIP rise: 24%). In many many many more seats ion the south and midlands this being repeated would let labour through.

But eastleigh does not represent the mass of seats, never mind the mass of swing seats - it had a very specific set of conditions that are not repeated elsewhere. It's eastleigh that is not relevant, not 1997 - and even if the eastleigh situation was relevant it would mean something different nationally than you imagine, it would mean many many more labour victories as UKIP open the gate for them.


----------



## ymu (Apr 30, 2013)

One independent and two 4th parties in England have won parliamentary seats (one of them twice). None of those are UKIP.

I don't think memories are short enough for 1997 to be relevant even without the shift towards 4th parties over the last couple of decades. If UKIP don't implode by 2015 they might take a couple of head-banger seats off the Tories, but mostly they'll just nick enough Labour votes to prevent them making large gains in the south. The Greens. Respect, SNP and Plaid are bigger direct threats to Labour. They could easily lose as many seats as they gain.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

ymu said:


> One independent and two 4th parties in England have won parliamentary seats (one of them twice). None of those are UKIP.
> 
> I don't think memories are short enough for 1997 to be relevant even without the shift towards 4th parties over the last couple of decades. If UKIP don't implode by 2015 they might take a couple of head-banger seats off the Tories, but mostly they'll just nick enough Labour votes to prevent them making large gains in the south. The Greens. Respect, SNP and Plaid are bigger direct threats to Labour. They could easily lose as many seats as they gain.


 
Well why say:



> I think UKIP's 11% is a lot more geographically concentrated than the LD's 11%, and of it is it will be a lot more efficient at converting votes into seats.


 
if you don't think it?  And why say that you don't think they'll win seats in the post after that if you think they might?

_Memories_ of 1997 have nothing to do with it - the electoral map not having changed enough to alter the general number of swing seats across the south and midlands that are open to labour - as shown by 1997 - is what it's about.

UKIP will not be nicking labour votes in the south - they'll be nicking them in the north where it won't have any effect. In the south they will be primarily taking votes off the tories and so helping labour to victory.

That last line is just crazy. The Greens and RESPECT are utterly irrelevant and no threat whatsoever to labour who are going to comfortably increase their total number of seats and are in no danger of losing total seats. Where do you get this stuff from?


----------



## ymu (Apr 30, 2013)

Geographical concentration of votes is all about conversion of votes into seats. Spread too thin and you're the Lib Dems, ghettoise too much and you're the Tories. It doesn't make any difference whether they actually do convert into seats, it matters how many you're nicking off the parties that can win.

And of course memories of 1997 matter. People might be desperate to get rid of the Tories but they were desperate to get rid of Labour 3 years ago. Whatever happens in 2015, there won't be many people cheering about it. Especially if Labour win by sucking up to the south again.

There are four fourth parties outflanking Labour to the left. Don't pretend I only mentioned two of them. It makes you look dishonest.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 30, 2013)

Neither have you have made much mention just above of the likely collapse or near-collapse of the Lib Dem vote, in the North especially. There, a large proportion of ex LibDem votes will surely go Labour. Could well outweigh any Lab to Ukip loss in the North.

I speculate here, but you see where I'm coming from.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

ymu said:


> Geographical concentration of votes is all about conversion of votes into seats. Spread too thin and you're the Lib Dems, ghettoise too much and you're the Tories. It doesn't make any difference whether they actually do convert into seats, it matters how many you're nicking off the parties that can win.
> 
> And of course memories of 1997 matter. People might be desperate to get rid of the Tories but they were desperate to get rid of Labour 3 years ago. Whatever happens in 2015, there won't be many people cheering about it. Especially if Labour win by sucking up to the south again.
> 
> There are four fourth parties outflanking Labour to the left. Don't pretend I only mentioned two of them. It makes you look dishonest.


Yes, and you said that UKIP were best placed to convert geographical concentration into seats - as well as benefiting from an ongoing rise in 4th party voting. Then got annoyed at me even daring to suggest that you may actually have said that UKIP might win seats. Despite you saying it and then going on to say it a second time.

And yes, what matters in this case is what parties you'll be taking votes off in swing seats - that's exactly why i argued it'll be off tories more than labour and in the south and midlands. You, for some odd reason (that as far as i can tell is based on your bodged misreading of eastleigh which you then extrapolate) think they will be picking up votes off labour voters in the south thereby helping the tories. I wonder why the tories don't share this opinion?

It doesn't matter if they're cheering or not - the polls indicate and have indicated for an extended period that this is what's going to happen. Lib-dem collapse with labour picking up the leavers, tactical anti-tory non-labour voters shifting to labour, and the tories losing votes to their right to UKIP.

It doesn't matter how many parties there are outflanking labour politically to the left when this rhetorical outflanking isn't going to win them extra seats - esp seats off labour. I mentioned the first two because the other two are clrealy going to hold some of their traditional seats - that goes without saying. But the idea that the Greens and RESPECT offer a threat to labour through winning seats is crazy, an amazing piece of out-of-touchness and dressing up what you would like to see as what may happen.

And don't tell people that doing something makes them _look_ dishonest when you actually do think they _are_ being dishonest. It makes you look dishonest.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Neither have you have made much mention just above of the likely collapse or near-collapse of the Lib Dem vote, in the North especially. There, a large proportion of ex LibDem votes will surely go Labour. Could well outweigh any Lab to Ukip loss in the North.
> 
> I speculate here, but you see where I'm coming from.


There will be no labour loss to UKIP in the north. There will be no labour loss in the north full stop.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 30, 2013)

I worded that badly, I guess -- I agree. The Lib Dems being steamrollered will help that even more.


----------



## ymu (Apr 30, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Neither have you have made much mention just above of the likely collapse or near-collapse of the Lib Dem vote, in the North especially. There, a large proportion of ex LibDem votes will surely go Labour. Could well outweigh any Lab to Ukip loss in the North.
> 
> I speculate here, but you see where I'm coming from.


Well, that's the point really. The Tories stand to win more seats directly from the Lib Dems because 2/3 of the Lib Dem seats are Tory marginals. But Labour could benefit more overall from the collapse of the Lib Dem vote where the Lib Dems are third, or in three-way marginals.

But only if Labour can actually get that collapsed Lib Dem vote to vote for them instead of a 4th party and/or get their 2010 abstainers to turn out. I don't see much evidence yet that either of those things will happen.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

South shields this week will show what UKIP in the north are capable of with a good wind - a 2nd at best but a clear clear labour victory.


----------



## ymu (Apr 30, 2013)

Because I said that UKIP would do well in the North, Midlands, Scotland, and Wales, right?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 30, 2013)

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/n0mnvjaab7/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-290413.pdf

This here says 22% of those who voted Tory in 2010 are thinking of voting UKIP, compared to 9% of Lib Dem voters and 5% of Labour voters. Interesting, even though it's an isolated yougov poll. Tories have the most to lose from UKIP but I reckon North Shields will show UKIP can do well in a Labour area, especially if they're taking a chunk of the ex Lib Dem support Labour is going to need to win a majority in those Lib Dem/Labour areas.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 30, 2013)

If they count South Shields Thursday night, then expect lots of wailing about UKIP.

Will be a false result for the county council elections though, as turnout'll be different in South Shields than the wider uk.


----------



## ymu (Apr 30, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/n0mnvjaab7/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-290413.pdf
> 
> This here says 22% of those who voted Tory in 2010 are thinking of voting UKIP, compared to 9% of Lib Dem voters and 5% of Labour voters. Interesting, even though it's an isolated yougov poll. Tories have the most to lose from UKIP but I reckon North Shields will show UKIP can do well in a Labour area, especially if they're taking a chunk of the ex Lib Dem support Labour is going to need to win a majority in those Lib Dem/Labour areas.


 
Its been about 4:2:1 (Tory:LibDem:Labour) defecting to UKIP in lots of Yougov polls so it's a fairly solid result IMO. But that split is a national average. Per constituency it will look very different. UKIP are attracting a lot of non- or never- voters, many of whom would be Labour or BNP otherwise and, down south, they seem very attractive to the types that abandoned Labour for the SDP.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 30, 2013)

UKIP avoiding many urban centres in Northants as far as I can gauge - hitting the Tory rural seats where other parties dare not tread.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

ymu said:


> Because I said that UKIP would do well in the North, Midlands, Scotland, and Wales, right?


What?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

ymu said:


> Its been about 4:2:1 (Tory:LibDem:Labour) defecting to UKIP in lots of Yougov polls so it's a fairly solid result IMO. But that split is a national average. Per constituency it will look very different. UKIP are attracting a lot of non- or never- voters, many of whom would be Labour or BNP otherwise and, down south, they seem very attractive to the types that abandoned Labour for the SDP.


You have, of course, something to back up this seeming, beyond your bodged eastleigh analysis? 

Look at the thing that you're replying to ffs. It just kicks away any sort of point you think that you were making.


----------



## ymu (Apr 30, 2013)

You'll need to explain that one a bit more clearly, prof.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

ymu said:


> You'll need to explain that one a bit more clearly, prof.


Which one? Not like you to used your academic credentials to undermine a competing point. Oh well.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

ymu said:
			
		

> Its been about 4:2:1 (Tory:LibDem:Labour) defecting to UKIP in lots of Yougov polls so it's a fairly solid result IMO


 



			
				ymu said:
			
		

> but mostly they'll [ukip]just nick enough Labour votes to prevent them making large gains in the south.


 
eh? You go on to say:



> But that split is a national average. Per constituency it will look very different. UKIP are attracting a lot of non- or never- voters, many of whom would be Labour or BNP otherwise and, down south, they seem very attractive to the types that abandoned Labour for the SDP.


 
Show how or why you think that it's different. Say why in the south in particular labour voters are looking at UKIP more than tory or lib-dem voters - and don't base it on your misreading of eastleigh - where i think you believed the NHA candidate was going to win or at least be in serious contention.


----------



## ymu (Apr 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Which one? Not like you to used your academic credentials to undermine a competing point. Oh well.


I have never used my academic credentials. I have repeatedly said that academic credentials are not worth the paper they are printed on. There's a whole fucking thread on it, started for me to explain why, ffs!

I have more than an amateur interest in applied statistics. You have more than an amateur interest in political science. The fact that I had better educational opportunities than you does not excuse your rank hypocrisy.


butchersapron said:


> > but mostly they'll [ukip]just nick enough Labour votes to prevent them making large gains in the south.
> 
> 
> eh? You go on to say:
> ...


Of course it's bloody different. There's a reason the Lib Dem vote does not translate into the same proportion of seats, and why the Tories need 10% more of the popular vote than Labour to secure a majority. The Lib Dems are spread too thin for FPTP and the rich ghettoise themselves too much for electoral efficiency in a constituency-based FPTP system. This is why the proposed boundary changes are so fucking weird. Equalising the number of voters only addresses a tiny fraction of the Tory 'disadvantage'.

I think it's different because I pay attention, how else could I have a thought worth expressing? From Ashcroft's Eastleigh exit poll:





The south in is different from the north shock!

I've posted all this before. Sorry of it's news to you. I wrongly assumed you were not too arrogant to read stuff. It's that heroes and villains thing again, isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

Well, you've accused me of dishonesty hypocrisy and arrogance in a few short posts. Whilst posting the above. Whilst posting that yes polls say UKIP are winning votes from tories and lib-dem hand over fist _but not from the seats that i'm on about. In those seats it's the opposite. My evidence? Well, it seems that way as i think (wrongly) that's what happened in one seat in a by-election._

Sorry, you're just simply too out of touch to do this stuff. Pay attention all you like. You are worthless in terms of electoral analysis. All you have is shouting outside chances confidently. I at least shout things that will happen confidently. Enough of you.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 1, 2013)

Latest local election poll from ComRes (as reported on Huffington Post (UK)). No idea how reliable :




			
				Huffington Post UK said:
			
		

> Support for Ukip has surged to 22% ahead of tomorrow's local elections, according to a poll published on Tuesday evening.
> The latest ComRes survey suggested Nigel Farage's eurosceptic party is on course to receive a sizeable chunk of the vote tomorrow, stoking Tory fears support for the party could cost them the next general election.
> The poll put the Conservatives on 31%, Labour narrowly ahead of Ukip on 24% and the Lib Dems a distant fourth on 12%.
> More than 2,300 council seats are being contested tomorrow across England and Wales including the Tory heartland in the south. The ComRes poll is of these areas and is not a not a national survey.


 
Here the ComRes page its from. You have to download a PDF to get the actual data.


----------



## brogdale (May 1, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Latest local election poll from ComRes (as reported on Huffington Post UK). No idea how reliable :
> 
> 
> 
> Here the ComRes page its from. You have to download a PDF to get the actual data.


Thanks for that.

YouGov's blogger Anthony has put some flesh on those figures...



> (They are) NOT comparable with normal voting intention polls. It only covers the areas with local elections on Thursday, which are most rural Conservative shires and doesn’t include any Metropolitan counties… hence the fact the Conservatives are ahead. Neither is it comparable with the shares of the local election vote that the BBC and Rallings and Thrasher will calculate (the “Projected National Share” and “Equivalent National Vote”). These are both projections on what support would be across the whole country, not just where local elections are happening.
> To understand the figures we need to know the votes last time round, which including the two councils (Durham and Northumberland) that actually last voted in 2008 were:-
> 
> *Con 44%, Lab 13%, LDem 25%, UKIP 5%* – so the changes are...
> ...


 
and he even goes on to make (ever so tentative) seat predictions on the basis of this polling....



> By my estimates it would produce getting on for 500 Conservative losses and 250 UKIP gains, if it is giving an accurate picture… and local election predictions are not something that there is much track record for. We shall see....
> 
> *UPDATE:* Peter Kellner and I have been pondering the number of UKIP seat gains if they do get 22% (the joys of the YouGov office on a morning before an election!) and how on earth you model gains when they are tripling the number of seats they contest. It’s very difficult, but I suspect I have overestimated it a bit… though even assuming a higher base level of support in the areas they didn’t contest in 2009 (and therefore a lower swing in the seats they did) if they do get 22% they should still be looking at well over 100 seats. Suffice to say, how many seats UKIP will get on Thursday is still incredibly hard to predict.


 
Hmmm...who'd have thought that the locals could be so interesting!

ps Fraternal May Day greetings to one and all!


----------



## kabbes (May 1, 2013)

www.getsurrey.co.uk -- home of the Surrey Advertiser -- self-selected online poll of those who access the website:

How do you intend to vote in the county council elections?

Conservative 14%
Liberal Democrats 31%
UKIP 31%
Labour 10%
Independent/Residents Association 4%
Other - please comment 2%
I'm not voting 8%

Comedy.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 1, 2013)

Got to be Lib Dem activists flooding the site, that 'result'


----------



## kabbes (May 1, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Got to be Lib Dem activists flooding the site, that 'result'


I can't imagine it was answered by more than 25 people.  I love online polls.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 1, 2013)

kabbes said:
			
		

> I can't imagine it was answered by more than 25 people.  I love online polls.



They pride themselves in journalism that is honest, accurate and fair.


----------



## ymu (May 3, 2013)

kabbes said:


> www.getsurrey.co.uk -- home of the Surrey Advertiser -- self-selected online poll of those who access the website:
> 
> How do you intend to vote in the county council elections?
> 
> ...


Bunch of jokers in South Shields too.


> (n % change)​Labour Emma Lewell-Buck 12,493 50.4 -1.6​UKIPRichard Elvin 5,988 24.2_ N/A_​ConservativeKaren Allen 2,857 11.5 -10.1​IndependentAhmed Khan 1,331 5.4_ N/A_​Independent Socialist Party Phil Brown 750 3.0 _N/A_​BNP Lady Dorothy MacBeth Brookes 711 2.9 -3.6​Liberal Democrat Hugh Annand 352 1.4 -12.8​Monster Raving Loony Alan "Howling Laud" Hope 197 0.8_ N/A_​Independent Thomas Darwood 57 0.2_ N/A_​​*Majority* 6,505 26.3 -4.1​*Turnout* 24,780[8] 39.3[9] -18.4​​​


Good to see the Independent Socialists nudging the BNP down a place. That is a very encouraging result. Probably a lot of Labour's lost voters, with a lot of Labour abstainers, likely responsible for most of the 18.4% drop in turnout. Just about everybody else would be dying to make a point, apart from those dutiful middling right Tories.​​South Shields looking remarkably like Surrey, barring a preference for Lib Dems over Labour. Residents Association did well to score a respectable % on that poll too.​​Good things.​


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2013)

Unsurprisingly, UKIP continues to show well in polling conducted after the results of the locals were known.



> The Sun have tweeted out tonight’s YouGov/Sun voting intention figures, the first with fieldwork conducted wholly after the local election results. Topline figures are:-
> 
> *CON 29%, LAB 39%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 16%.*
> 
> ...


 
No wonder the tories are turning on each-other.


----------



## ymu (May 9, 2013)

The dead Thatch bounce may have disappeared also, from that. May have, early days.

Not much of a dent in the LD long-run showing.Possibly even up from the nadir. Probably tactical types in the south realising they have no other options when reality kicks in.


----------



## brogdale (May 9, 2013)

ymu said:


> The dead Thatch bounce may have disappeared also, from that. May have, early days.
> 
> Not much of a dent in the LD long-run showing.Possibly even up from the nadir. Probably tactical types in the south realising they have no other options when reality kicks in.


 
Yay to the death of the dead fatch bouce...



> The Sun have tweeted out tonight’s YouGov figures and they confirm the UKIP boost we saw in yesterday’s poll. Topline voting intention is:-
> 
> *CON 27%, LAB 38%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 17%.*
> 
> ...


 
**thumbs**


----------



## Dogsauce (May 9, 2013)

Tory + UKIP of 45% is worrying though - if any 'combined ticket'/tactical thing emerges that's be enough to give them quite a bit of power.  Don't think Farage's ego will let it happen in 2015, and hopefully he'll be a passed fad by 2020 (and maybe the agenda-setting reactionary press will have drifted into obscurity by then as print media dies off - one can only hope, although power will find new channels to control instead).

Just in case though, I've my fingers crossed for another plane crash, ideally onto a cycling Boris then a lucky bounce into Gove's face.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2013)

It doesn't just add up though, the tory 27 is because the UKIP are on 17.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 9, 2013)

ymu said:


> dead Thatch bounce


 
Yeah, let's see that corpse bounce.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 9, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Yeah, let's see that corpse bounce.


 
A women so loved by her people that they had to burn her, because they knew damn well her grave would become a public urinal.  History will never be able to hide this fact.


----------



## brogdale (May 9, 2013)

> Labour has a mountain to climb to win the next election outright, and is still failing to chalk up big enough leads on image or leadership to make it likely to secure an overall majority, according to polling which will be put to a Labour conference to be addressed this weekend by Ed Miliband.
> The YouGov polling, commissioned by Progress, suggests the party is still seen as "nice" but incapable of taking tough decisions. Miliband's personal ratings have hardly improved over the past year.
> In an article for Progress, the New Labour pressure group, the YouGov president, Peter Kellner, describes the polling as "profoundly troubling" for Labour, saying that despite the unpopularity of the government, Labour has uncomfortably small leads and has been unable to generate wide public enthusiasm.
> He writes: "The central fact is that no successful opposition in the past 50 years has gone on to regain power with such a weak image and without achieving much bigger voting-intention leads at some point in the parliament."
> ...


 


"_*...think what it will do if it fails to win an overall majority"*_
_**_



> The polling also shows that by a margin of 50-35 points, *voters regard Labour as "nice" – but by a larger, 61-24, margin, also as "dim"*. Most people consider the Tories both "mean" and "dim"; but more people regard the Tories as "smart" than say the same about Labour.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 10, 2013)

Tories are 'Smart'? Have they never seen Warsi on the telly? or paid even the slightest attention to what Gove is saying?  Most of what they're doing is the antethesis of 'evidence-based policy', kneejerk reactionary horseshit.  I guess the electorate don't pay that much attention. And no, the current Labour team aren't much better, spineless buffoons on things like workfare and for playing along with the anti-immigration agenda.

'Tough choices' and 'Difficult decisions' are standard coalition phrases, and amongst their most shallow.  Mind, it may have been a bit tough having the brass neck to give a 5% tax break to the very richest in society whilst taking money from the poorest.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 10, 2013)

brogdale said:


> "_*...think what it will do if it fails to win an overall majority"*_
> _**_


Wintour keeping up his usual excellent standard


----------



## ymu (May 10, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> Tories are 'Smart'? Have they never seen Warsi on the telly? or paid even the slightest attention to what Gove is saying? Most of what they're doing is the antethesis of 'evidence-based policy', kneejerk reactionary horseshit. I guess the electorate don't pay that much attention. And no, the current Labour team aren't much better, spineless buffoons on things like workfare and for playing along with the anti-immigration agenda.
> 
> 'Tough choices' and 'Difficult decisions' are standard coalition phrases, and amongst their most shallow. Mind, it may have been a bit tough having the brass neck to give a 5% tax break to the very richest in society whilst taking money from the poorest.


Brown left office three years ago. The Tories are still hated for Thatcher, 16 years after her crew left office. Labour deserves no free pass and sure has not earnt one.

Rock on Nigel. Shove some chilli powder up their obsessively triangulating, overpaid arses.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2013)

UKIP up to 18% in the ICM/Guardian monthly.



> Nigel Farage's party has surged from its previous record best with ICM, the 9% it notched up in April, to 18% after its council election victories last week.
> 
> Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have been left reeling, with all shedding four points on the month to 34%, 28% and 11% respectively.


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> UKIP up to 18% in the ICM/Guardian monthly.


 
 No wonder the tories are in a hurry to finish 'the project'.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 13, 2013)

The combined vote of UKIP and others is 1% behind the Tories. 

BNP up to 4% on the ICM poll.


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2013)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The combined vote of UKIP and others is 1% behind the Tories.
> 
> BNP up to 4% on the ICM poll.


 
Guardian's Tom Clark gives these possible explanations:-



> There are three possible explanations. First, it could be a statistical blip in the sample that will disappear next month. Secondly, the nationalist and anti-immigration turn the discourse has taken with the arrival of Ukip could be rallying people to the BNP brand, even without any credible BNP organisation. Finally, the BNP surge may reflect confusion. ICM prompts voters with the names of Labour, Lib Dem and the Tories, but it does not do the same with Ukip. It could be that some who have heard about one bunch of flag-wavers on the rise mistakenly volunteer the name of another patriotically-titled party when asked who they would support.


 
The two substantive hypotheses offer a troubling 'by-product' of the fragmentation of the right.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

Helmets on tories,assume the position:

*Mike Smithson*@MSmithsonPB
I'm getting word of a sensational poll carried out entirely after loongate. The numbers should be out later but are really jaw-dropping.


----------



## Delroy Booth (May 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Helmets on tories,assume the position:
> 
> *Mike Smithson*@MSmithsonPB
> I'm getting word of a sensational poll carried out entirely after loongate. The numbers should be out later but are really jaw-dropping.


 
@*Survation* poll puts Ukip 22% to Con 24% with Lab 35% and Lib 11%.

and

*Damian Lyons Lowe* ‏@*DamianSurvation*  26m
NB. We have UKIP and the Tories neck and neck tonight on 23% before making our DK/REF adjustment. Full tables here: http://survation.com/?p=2937

Taxi for Dave....


----------



## Delroy Booth (May 20, 2013)

*Mike Smithson* ‏@*MSmithsonPB*  39s
In the 55+ age group in the Survation poll Ukip was in lead with 33%, CON 27%, LAB 25%, LD 8%


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> @*Survation* poll puts Ukip 22% to Con 24% with Lab 35% and Lib 11%.
> 
> and
> 
> ...


----------



## Delroy Booth (May 20, 2013)

This was before the UKIP poll came out too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/20/tories-warn-confidence-david-cameron?CMP=twt_gu



> As unfavourable comparisons were being drawn with John Major, senior figures indicated that the chairman of the Conservative backbench 1922 committee, Graham Brady, was expected to receive further letters calling for a confidence vote. Brady, who is understood to have been sent a limited number in recent months, will have to call a vote if he receives at least 46.


 
Looking pretty bad for Cameron....


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> This was before the UKIP poll came out too.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/20/tories-warn-confidence-david-cameron?CMP=twt_gu
> 
> ...


 
They certainly know how to kick a man when he's down!

I suppose it's an evitable fate for anyone who presumes to lead such a community of psychopaths.

e2a : in the circumstances it doesn't appear too clever to be sending out messages with such a valedictory tone...


> Turning away from the debate, I see that *David Cameron* has sent out a message to all Conservative party members in the light of the "swivel-eyed loons" controversy. Here's an extract.
> I’ve been a member of the Conservative Party for 25 years. Some time after I joined I became Chairman of my local branch and was one of the volunteers dedicated to getting Conservatives elected to the local council. Since then I have met thousands and thousands of party members. We’ve pounded pavements together, canvassed together and sat in make-shift campaign headquarters together, from village halls to front rooms. We have been together through good times and bad. This is more than a working relationship; it is a deep and lasting friendship.​Ours is a companionship underpinned by what we believe: that everyone should be able to get on in life if they’re willing to work hard; that we look after those who cannot help themselves; that it’s family and community and country that matter; that a dose of common sense is worth more than a ton of dry political theory; that Britain is a great and proud nation that can be greater still.​Above all, we Conservatives believe you change things not by criticising from your armchair but by getting out and doing. Across the country, at charity events and voluntary organisations, you will find people from our Party quietly doing their bit. Time and again, Conservative activists like you stand for duty, decency and civic pride.​That’s why I am proud to lead this party. I am proud of what you do. And I would never have around me those who sneered or thought otherwise. We are a team, from the parish council to the local association to Parliament, and I never forget it.​​


​​Can't see mush like that placating the loons...​


----------



## Delroy Booth (May 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> They certainly know how to kick a man when he's down!
> 
> I suppose it's an evitable fate for anyone who presumes to lead such a community of psychopaths.
> 
> ...


 
There's rumours all over the Tory blogs it was Cameron who came out with the swivel eyed loons comment. Maybe that statement is a pre-emptive apology...

I've got a feeling he might resign or get pushed out sooner rather than later. This is just going to get worse and worse.


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> There's rumours all over the Tory blogs it was Cameron who came out with the swivel eyed loons comment. Maybe that statement is a pre-emptive apology...
> 
> I've got a feeling he might resign or get pushed out sooner rather than later. This is just going to get worse and worse.


 Dave thread time?


----------



## Delroy Booth (May 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Dave thread time?


 
I wouldn't go that far just yet. Remember just because some cranks on the comments sections of conservative home and other tory blogs and twitters are saying this doesn't make it true. But the fact that it's being said is revealing and damaging in itself, even if it turns out Cameron didn't say it, shows us that that's what Tory activists assume his attitude is.


----------



## Balbi (May 20, 2013)

That poll data's not that amusing. Tory strategy will be fascinating - they can't acknowledge UKIP properly, but need to put out a 'vote us, not them - to keep the others out' message.


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> @*Survation* poll puts Ukip 22% to Con 24% with Lab 35% and Lib 11%.
> 
> and
> 
> ...


 
Usual sober analysis from YouGov's Anthony...but he does make a couple of interesting points about tory support..



> Survation have put out a new poll, the topline voting intention figures are CON 24%(-5), LAB 35%(-1), LD 11%(-1), UKIP 22%(+6). The 22% for UKIP is the first poll to show them breaking the twenty percent mark.
> In many ways the high UKIP score here shouldn’t come as a surprise, for methodological reasons Survation tend to show the highest levels of UKIP support so if ICM have them at 18% and ComRes at 19% I would have expected Survation to have them in the low twenties. Striking it may be, but the increase in UKIP support is actually in line with what weve seen elsewhere, just using a method that is kinder to UKIP.
> _*More interesting is the drop in Tory support, down five points on Survation’s poll in April.*_ The poll was conducted on Friday and Saturday so at least partially after the “swivel eyed loon” story broke (it came out in Saturday’s papers, so broke about 10pm on Friday night). All the usual caveats I apply to any poll showing sharp or unusual results apply. Sure, it might indicate a shift in support, but just as likely its a blip – wait to see if it is reflected in any other polling. As Twyman’s Law of market research says “anything surprising or interesting is probably wrong”.
> Two further comments, I’ve written before about people making the error of looking at the changes in a poll over a _month_ and assuming that events in the last few _days_ are the cause. Survation’s last poll was at the end of April before the local elections, so changes are just as likely to be down to the local elections and the Conservative infighting over Europe as anything more recent.
> Secondly there is a tendency for the media and the denizens of Twitter to get all excited about unusual polls that give newsworthy stories when this is, of course, the exact opposite of what you should do if you actually want to understand public opinion. The correct approach is to look at the broad underlying trend and ignore the odd looking polls, the media normally do the opposite. _*The trend is that UKIP support has jumped substantially following their local election success, and that the Labour lead has been narrowing. The Conservative figure here may yet suggest a new direction, but let’s wait and see.*_


----------



## where to (May 20, 2013)

The impact of loongate is in the party, not with the public. So opinion poll reflects more (and is prob slight outlier, for now). tonight's vote will give him some comfort , but things are moving quickly and they are not managing it well.

Cameron used the swivel eyed comments a while back, was quoted in the FT at the time, i think referring to ukipers or anti EU ers generally. 

There seem to big chunks of the Tory press who fucking hate Cameron and Osbourne. 

Imo it all comes down to austerity failing and the right , frustrated at stagnation , and looking for someone to blame rather than something (austerity). Eu is a sideshow, as ever things turn on the economy.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 21, 2013)

where to said:


> There seem to big chunks of the Tory press who fucking hate Cameron and Osbourne.
> 
> Imo it all comes down to austerity failing and the right , frustrated at stagnation , and looking for someone to blame rather than something (austerity). Eu is a sideshow, as ever things turn on the economy.


 
Why shouldn't they blame Cameron and Osbourne for the failure of their economic policies? It is 100% their fault.


----------



## where to (May 21, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:
			
		

> Why shouldn't they blame Cameron and Osbourne for the failure of their economic policies? It is 100% their fault.



Because they supported these policies too. And still do. They can't seem to accept that they don't work.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Why shouldn't they blame Cameron and Osbourne for the failure of their economic policies? It is 100% their fault.


They're not attacking then for their economic policies - they're attacking them for their political style. On the economic front they think they should target the poor more than they does and do so aggressively. And why shouldn't they? They're not calling for an end to austerity, or even a slow down.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 21, 2013)

brogdale said:


> LD MP Simon Wright, (Norwich South), will be free to take on media work if there is just a 0.32% swing to Labour. That's got to be a pretty good bet, thopugh whether or not he'd be any good on the TV I don't know? I can't recall ever seeing/hearing him speak on the media.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Say what you like about Tim Nice But Dim, but he is aging incredibly well.


----------



## brogdale (May 22, 2013)

Today's YouGov/Sun....

"Latest YouGov / The Sun results 21st May :-

*CON 27% (-4), LAB 38% (+3), LD 10% (nc), UKIP 16% (+2); APP -40*

The cross-breaks once again reveal the depth of damage being done to tory support*...*

Fully 27% of 2010 tories expressing a preference for UKIP, as opposed to 5% Lab. In the age breaks 26% of all 60+ voters going for UKIP must also terrify the tories; those folks actually vote.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 22, 2013)

As much as I despise the poujadist UKIP scum, I can't help but smile at the vichyite quisling Libdem vermin being knocked into fourh.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2013)

Just to add to Dave's woes...



> The fortnightly Opinium poll for the Observer is out tonight and has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 26%(-1), LAB 37%(nc), LDEM 6%(-1), UKIP 21%(+1).*
> 
> ...


 
6% for the twats!


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 1, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Just to add to Dave's woes...
> 
> 
> 
> 6% for the twats!


I tried to find some polls from when Sdp started in the eighties but couldn't find any.i would like to make a comparision with them and Ukip.I think it could be interesting


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 1, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> I tried to find some polls from when Sdp started in the eighties but couldn't find any.i would like to make a comparision with them and Ukip.I think it could be interesting


 
Best i can do for now.


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Best i can do for now.


Thanks butchers


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Best i can do for now.


 
Didn't realise that blogs been going so long


----------



## brogdale (Jun 10, 2013)

'kippers have more than double the popular polling of the LDs...according to TNS-BMRB's new poll out tonight.

Topline figures with changes from a week ago are:-

*CON 27%(+3), LAB 36%(-1), LDEM 8%(-2), UKIP 19%(nc).*

Also polling about spooks reading our stuff:-



> YouGov polling for Huffington Post on security services intercepting emails, showing a narrow majority in favour. 38% oppose police and security services being given access to mobile and internet records, 43% support the idea and 8% would go further and allow security services to access the _content_ of emails.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 15, 2013)

Tonight's polls...



> *Opinium* in the Observer have topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 27%(+1), LAB 36%(-1), LDEM 7%(+1), UKIP 20%(-1).*
> 
> ...


 
Usual caveats regarding internet vrs interview polling methodology; these two are internet, and tend to yield higher UKIP scores.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 16, 2013)

You have to go back to mid-April to find a poll where the LD's polled higher than UKIP.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 16, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> You have to go back to mid-April to find a poll where the LD's polled higher than UKIP.


 
There or thereabouts...


----------



## brogdale (Jun 16, 2013)

> This week’s YouGov/Sunday Times poll is now up online here. Topline voting intention figures are:-
> 
> *CON 30%, LAB 39%, LD 10%, UKIP 14%*.
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Jun 18, 2013)

YouGov blogger Anthony has graphed UKIP support, (as recorded by YG), over the year so far:-




He describes their support as having "gone off the boil a bit".

This morrning's YG was included in the data set:-

*CON 31%, LAB 40%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 13%*

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7666


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Good point to be simmering at 13/14%


----------



## brogdale (Jun 25, 2013)

Still seemingly simmering...



> The monthly ComRes telephone poll for the Independent is out tonight, and has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 30%(nc), LAB 36%(+2), LDEM 10%(nc), UKIP 14%(-3).*
> 
> ...


 
These are looking like fairly settled figures, for the time being.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 26, 2013)

Not polling, as such, but an article about poll findings and the "GenY" thing:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/26/generation-y-young-voters-backing-conservatives



> ...the fact that as you progress down the age range, opinions about the job market and welfare state tend to harden, to the point that droves of twentysomethings sound like devout Thatcherites...
> 
> A large share of Generation Y seems to build its opinions around a liberalism that is both social and, crucially, economic. This, conveniently, also forms the core of the modern Toryism espoused by David Cameron and George Osborne.
> 
> ...


 
Discuss?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 26, 2013)

...and like flies to shit...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...-not-compute-does-not-compute/?placement=mid2


----------



## where to (Jun 27, 2013)

Latest yougov: Ukip 10 labour 42 lib 11 Tory 31

Ukip run seems to have been hit since Woolwich took Europe off the agenda. Not sure why Labour are polling better now though? Simply the transfer of votes from ukip back to them?


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2013)

> Ukip run seems to have been hit since Woolwich took Europe off the agenda. *Not sure why Labour are polling better now though? Simply the transfer of votes from ukip back to them?*


 

coming down hard on 'benefit scroungers'?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2013)

where to said:


> Latest yougov: Ukip 10 labour 42 lib 11 Tory 31
> 
> Ukip run seems to have been hit since Woolwich took Europe off the agenda. Not sure why Labour are polling better now though? Simply the transfer of votes from ukip back to them?


 
Their figures actually went down post-woolwich and were stabilised around a 7-8% lead - that new one is the first 10%+ one for some time.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They're not attacking then for their economic policies - they're attacking them for their political style.


It seems to me they're attacking them for being _too damn modern and liberal_ - "gay marriage....immigrants....notting hill set...where will it end...where's our party gone?"


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2013)

I really don't see that at all.

Anayay, today the labour lead is back down to the normal-ish 6% for this week or so. Seems to be small rise for tory and small drop for labour at same time - all within the normal run of things.

CON 33%
LAB 39%
LD 10%
UKIP 13%


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2013)

Tmw Opinium for Observer:

CON 27%(nc)
LAB 38%(+1)
LD 6%(-1)
UKIP 19%(nc)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2013)

...and two others with big UKIP numbers:

Survation for Mail on Sunday:
LAB 36
CON 28
LD 9
UKIP 20

ComRes for the Independent and Sunday Mirror:

CON 28%(+2)
LAB 36%(+1,
LDEM 8%(-2)
UKIP 18%(-1).


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 14, 2013)

Seeing more consist single digit figures for the Liberals now


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

Mad outlier (YG have the gap at 11 as did at least one other company over the weekend, the others on 8%), The guardian doesn't have the best record on reporting _surges. _The three other weekend polls had UKIP on 18, 19 and 20%.

Tories draw neck and neck with Labour as Ukip support falls



> The Conservatives have surged to move alongside Labour in the polls for the first time in nearly 18 months largely due to a sharp fall in support for Ukip, according to the latest ICM monthly poll for the Guardian.
> 
> Labour will be alarmed that the two main parties are neck and neck amidst so far only tentative signs that the economy is starting to recover.
> 
> ...


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 15, 2013)

Anthony Wells gives a more balanced view on ukpollingreport.Why do papers act as if the poll they have commisoned is the ultimate poll with no average of other polls.butchers is right the Graun is shit


----------



## mk12 (Jul 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Mad outlier (YG have the gap at 11 as did at least one other company over the weekend, the others on 8%), The guardian doesn't have the best record on reporting _surges. _The three other weekend polls had UKIP on 18, 19 and 20%.
> 
> Tories draw neck and neck with Labour as Ukip support falls


 
They're now using it as a stick to beat Labour with. Jonathan Freedland has already written a piece linked to it entitled "This poll is bad news for Labour, however you spin it"


----------



## articul8 (Jul 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Mad outlier (YG have the gap at 11 as did at least one other company over the weekend, the others on 8%), The guardian doesn't have the best record on reporting _surges. _The three other weekend polls had UKIP on 18, 19 and 20%.
> 
> Tories draw neck and neck with Labour as Ukip support falls


 
ICM has a good recent track record though?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2013)

Are you asking me or telling me? What are you judging on? Predictions for locals?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 16, 2013)

Almost certainly a rouge poll. But will be used by the blairites and co to further wed labour to neo-liberalism ('labour must capture the middle ground - as blair did so brilliantly' etc)Interestingly Labours dip in the polls over the past few months coincides with them loudly signing up to austerity and going quiet about the vaguely left of centre stuff.


----------



## JimW (Jul 16, 2013)

Kaka Tim said:


> Almost certainly a rouge poll...


 
There'll be red faces for sure


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 16, 2013)

I agree with other comments -- huge outlier.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 16, 2013)

JimW said:


> There'll be red faces for sure


 

Should the Milliband brothers kiss and make-up?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 23, 2013)

I saw this on UK Polling Report and thought it needed a mention it's a bit late though. Some polling on Trade Unions. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7862 Worth reading both the links he cites from IPSOS-MORI.

If you look at the recent poll, it's a really encouragng set of data for a trade unionist in Britain, especially seeing as it was done directly after the Unite/Falkirk scandal. But less comforting if you're a Labourist.

On the question "Trade Unions are essential to protect workers interests" the survey said 78% agree and 14% disagree with a huge 44% saying strong agree comapred to 6% strongly disagree. The questions "Most trade unions are controlled by militants and extremists" (which is a bit of a leading question I think) and "Trade Unions have too much power in Britain today" both show a clear majority disagreeing with the question. This backs up other polling data that I've seen which puts Trade Unions comparatively highly in terms of which public institutions are trusted and which ones aren't.

Contrast that with research done in the past by Ipsos-Mori and you'll see just how positive these public perceptions of unions are.

The only questions that come back with more negative attitudes are ones related to the Labour party. "It is a good thing for Trade Unions to play a role in selecting Labour candidates." was 28% agree and 55% disagree, strongly agree at a dismal 8%. Of course this is coming off the back of the Falkirk thing but still, it seems to have worked for now. And "Labour should not be so closely linked to the unions" scored similarly 53% disagree and 28% agree. So 28% is broadly in favour of the Labour-Union link as it is, and 53-55% are broadly against it. However it might be worth noting that at least some of those will be people who don't like the union link to Labour because they dislike Labour rather than the unions having political influence in general. The question doesn't make any specifications about this. But still, shows what a weak position McCluskey and the other unions are in when it comes onto clinging onto their status and influence in the Labour party.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 23, 2013)

Oh yeah on a similar note, this is a poll Lord Ashcroft has done of Unite members of who they would vote for.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/07/len-is-right-unite-members-are-not-queuing-up-to-join-labour/

Some interesting result but at the same time should be treated with a little bit of caution, when someone commissions a poll about their political opponents it's a very different thing to when they commision a poll into their own party. Some of the questions are leading questions too, phrased in such a way to elicit a certain response, but still Ashcroft's poll are generally accurate and trustworthy so worth taking seriously.

It suggests something I mentioned above - that a lot of Labour voting Unite members object to the current political levy and the amount of money that gets spent on bankrolling the party. 49% of Unite members said they'd vote Labour, compared to 23% Tory, but when askeed about funding Labour he writes "Only just over a third (35%) of Unite members – including only two thirds of those who said they would vote for the party in an election tomorrow – agreed that donating to Labour “is a good way for unions to advance the interests of their members”. Nearly two thirds thought “unions could do more to advance their members’ interests by using the money elsewhere” and on Labour in general he notes "Only 42% said the Labour Party was doing a good job of representing the interests of ordinary working people in Britain, while 47% said it was not."

Labour aren't going to be able to win the support of the unions and their millions of members if they don't have anything to offer them politicall. They thinking that the opt-in system won't matter because even though there'll be a reduced number of affiliates there's ways around the gap in funding that would cause, and they'll still get the one-off payments at election time but if that's what they're banking on they're fucked because the TU's aren't going to do that. Miliband's making a right mess of this. The Unions and Unite know that the opt-in system is going to be introduced, I presume they were fairly nonplussed about it because they figured there'd be some way around it, but reducing their influence at conference and trying to force them out of the party will have a different affect.

Progress know if that Ed Miliband make a mess of this not only are they going to lose the affiliation money, but also the one-off donations as well, and there isn't a replacement for that. Progress know this and don't care because even if they cripple the party financially and they lose the general election coz of it, it doesn't matter to them, because the LP will be utterly dependent on Lord Sainsbury and co for it's funding, and that's what Progress is trying to do, make Labour dependent upon big rich individuals for it's money so they can control it's policy and have the final say.


----------



## tbtommyb (Jul 23, 2013)

Interesting how strong the support for the benefit cap is in Ashcroft's poll

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...-row-summer-brings-no-relief-for-ed-miliband/


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 23, 2013)

tbtommyb said:


> Interesting how strong the support for the benefit cap is in Ashcroft's poll
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...-row-summer-brings-no-relief-for-ed-miliband/


 
That's not surprsing at all, any poll that uses the term £26,000 without qualification on what that can potentially include comes back with the same result. The use of the figure £26,000 implies that anyone who's signing on get's £2000+ a month direct into their bank, when in actual fact Housing Benefit makes up the biggest part of that. Ask the question "should rent controls be introduced to lower the Housing Benefit bill and reduce living costs or should there be an arbritrary cap" instead and see what sort of result you get. When polls have been more specific and avoided using politically loaded terms the picture is a bit more mixed. Hence what I said about leading questions, remember this is a poll that's been immediately published in The Sun and The Mail and is part of a concerted Tory party PR campaign so should be treated with a little bit of caution.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 23, 2013)

Delroy's analysis above (which is great IMO  ) makes me wonder whether there's been any polling on the benefit cap specifically, where the questions actually *explain* it properly? Questions that actually outline how few claimants/claimant families actually see £26,000? And why they do, (insane housing costs etc.) if they do ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Mad outlier (YG have the gap at 11 as did at least one other company over the weekend, the others on 8%), The guardian doesn't have the best record on reporting _surges. _The three other weekend polls had UKIP on 18, 19 and 20%.
> 
> Tories draw neck and neck with Labour as Ukip support falls


 
Remember the Guardian going crazy over this poll of theirs, headline of the site for 36 hours, numerous attack on Ed Miliband launched off the back of it etc Their latest poll (well the Observers, and diff pollster but the point is the papers reaction) is New poll gives Labour 11% lead - not given _quite so much prominence._


----------



## brogdale (Aug 2, 2013)

More polling succour for NuLab...


> Populus’s latest poll is out and has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 29%(-5), LAB 40%(+1), LDEM 11%(nc), UKIP 12%(+4).*
> 
> ...


----------



## Delroy Booth (Aug 2, 2013)

So after all that shit about falkirk, all the blairite hysteria about Labour's poll ratings collapsing along with the cries of "we're gunna lose coz Lynton Crosby!!" and yet here we are, a few weeks down the line, and Labour are steady away on 38-40, just like they've been for the best part of 2 years.

Labour's vote went down a bit during the falkirk episode but now all that's slipped off the front pages it looks a bit like a return to the previous trend. Look at how they operate though, the Labour right. They manufacture a scandal out of some arcane selection process bullshit (in this case a union steward going around his local pub and workplace having the temerity to get people to join the party they pay for and founded) working in perfect unison with the Tories and their PR machine, that temporarily gives Ed Miliband a slight reduction in the Labour polls. This is then spun, in both the Telegraph and the Guardian alike, as proof they need to cut the union link and save Labour from Len McCluskey, who they're desperate to turn into the new Arthur Scargill. They undermine their own party and work with the Tories, even if it means damaging their election chances, and why do they do this? Because they read the polls just as avidly as we do and they know that in 2015 Ed Miliband, much to their chagrin, is on course to win the next election, with a new batch of Unite sponsored MP's with him, and then they're fucked. That's what they're scared of. I said it a while ago they'd rather bring the temple down on their heads than allow there to be 40-50 Unite backed MP's in the Parliamentary Labour Party, that's the holiest of holies you don't want that rabble getting rid of the PLP gerrymander. It's desperate shit, fight to survive stuff.

I'm not saying it's certain Labour are going to win the election though, which is what I was about suggesting a year ago when they were polling 15 ahead, this little episode has shown how weak the lead is for Labour. But if the polls are right, and if the by-election and local results are right, then it's goodnight vienna for the Tories in 2015. If the Lib Dems collapse in the Labour marginals, if UKIP can get a respectable general election performance and hurt the Tories in their heartland and as long as Ed Miliband doesn't fall over into the see whilst out taking a stroll with his wife during the election campaign Labour should be easily capable of getting the 35% they need to get a majority.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 2, 2013)

_"Labour are steady away on 38-40, just like they've been for the best part of 2 years."_
38 to 40 in what is essentially mid-term is not that good at all. It's probably not enough to get an overall majority even now, and that's before the tory bribes and other bollocks have kicked in. It's easy to see why people might be worried for them, and they deserve it. They've been very disappointing as a functional opposition. Their sole strategy seems to have been to do fuck all for 5 years, cross fingers and hope that the Xs fall the right way one Thursday. It's dismal, if we had a democracy rather than a corruptocracy it would be insulting to it.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Aug 2, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> 38 to 40 in what is essentially mid-term is not that good at all. It's probably not enough to get an overall majority even now


 
No, that's enough for a landslide. If Labour gets 40% or close enough to it then they've won handily.

Bribes and handouts, listen to yourself. Look at the long term trend. It probably will get narrower at the election too, but that just means a small labour majority instead of a big one. Hung parliament is possible, but a Tory victory? Very unlikely.


----------



## treelover (Aug 2, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23551323

Tories hire Obama's campaign chief/polling guru, Jim Messina, who apparently is a genius and razor sharp, a gamechanger?, apparently L/P tops are going ballistic even while on holiday, etc.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 2, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> No, that's enough for a landslide. If Labour gets 40% or close enough to it then they've won handily.
> 
> Bribes and handouts, listen to yourself. Look at the long term trend. It probably will get narrower at the election too, but that just means a small labour majority instead of a big one. Hung parliament is possible, but a Tory victory? Very unlikely.


 

I would never say Tory victory was likely, though by now it should totally off the cards.

But I was wrong about the 40%, though not a landslide I was thinking old days when about 42 was needed to guarantee OM (maybe slightly less for Labour) Now with "others" doing better (not least UKIP) that stat has probably come down.


----------



## JHE (Aug 2, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23551323
> 
> Tories hire Obama's campaign chief/polling guru, Jim Messina, who apparently is a genius and razor sharp, a gamechanger?, apparently L/P tops are going ballistic even while on holiday, etc.


 




> A lifelong Democrat, Mr Messina masterminded the US president's successful 2012 re-election campaign.


 
What a tart!  I must admit, I don't quite get it.  Do shits like Messina do it for the money?  The challenge?  The profile?  The hell of it?

Anyway, no, I don't think it's a game-changer.  The Tories already have plenty of people - not least Cameron and his chum Osborne - who know a thing or three about political campaigning.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 3, 2013)

Democrats and Tories are functionally equivalent, so far as I can see.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 3, 2013)

JHE said:


> What a tart! I must admit, I don't quite get it. Do shits like Messina do it for the money? The challenge? The profile? The hell of it?
> 
> Anyway, no, I don't think it's a game-changer. The Tories already have plenty of people - not least Cameron and his chum Osborne - who know a thing or three about political campaigning.


 
Of course he does it for money - or maybe his infamous gay-baiting ad expressed his real views? Sometimes money and views coincide. What's to get?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

Here we go again with the Guardian's dishonest reporting Thus time:

Labour in trouble as public back Tories over economy:







This is beyond naked.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Here we go again with the Guardian's dishonest reporting Thus time:
> 
> Labour in trouble as public back Tories over economy:
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, the headline does not reflect the 'headline' numbers. They needed to be much clearer about the economy sentiments if the article was to stack up.


> The _*proportion of people prepared to back the Tory team for economic competence has soared to 40% from 28%*_ in June. The findings will make grim post-holiday reading for the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, who along with shadow chancellor Ed Balls has seen a much smaller rise in credibility, with 24% of the public preferring them compared with 19% two months ago.


 
So, unsurprisingly, as a result of the onslaught of recovereh stories, the improved 'confidence' will obviously disproportionately benefit the incumbents.

So debt is good now?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

Almost like of a series of figures (labour leading on NHS and all sorts) they picked one to present a false picture in order to support it.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Aug 12, 2013)

Speaking of recovery, I noticed this graph from this article from liberal conspiracy http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/0...y-not-if-you-look-behind-the-topline-figures/ if you want to get a sense of how much recovery is going on.






Also worth pointing out that what little growth there's been is still below the rate of inflation and below the cost of living, so that in real terms we're still in recession and things are still getting worse for most working people. Real value of wages is still in decline, share of wages as a percentage of GDP still in decline, a real fucking mess tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

That Guardian piece is an astonishing piece of reporting - it manages to equate unhappiness at the current economic situation with anti-labourism. It's a an absolute disgrace from word one. Julian Glover used to write these open lies, now we get Rajeev Syal, Rowena Mason and Simon Neville to smear it around.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 12, 2013)

From YouGov's blogger Anthony...



> Regular readers will recall that ICM’s poll last month was the headline grabbing poll that showed Labour and the Conservatives equal on 36, so the changes in this month’s poll are likely to be little more than a reversion to the mean after an outlier a month ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 15, 2013)

Bad bad news for the tories - Ashcroft's new poll on the 40 most marginal tory seats shows a larger swing to labour in these seats than in the national polling:



> The key thing to look at here is whether the marginals are behaving like the country as a whole, and what we can tell about the Lib Dem v Conservative battleground, something the national polls don’t really tell us much about. Firstly, looking at the Con v Lab marginals, the vote shares are CON 29%, LAB 43%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 11%. The Conservative lead across this group of seats in 2010 was 3 percentage points, so this reflects a swing of 8.5 points, so actually larger than the swing the national polls are currently showing (which is about 6.5 points), good news for Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2013)

This is interesting:

The Six Polling Myths



> Andrew Hawkins, chairman of ComRes, pollster for The Independent and The Independent on Sunday, gave a presentation at the CIPR pre-conference-season briefing last week, in which he listed the six polling myths about the next election.



1. *UKIP won’t matter*. The gist of his rebuttal was: “Oh yes it will.”

2. *Ed Miliband is useless*. He may be, but it doesn’t matter. Even when they are reminded who the leader is, people say they intend to vote Labour. Anyway, they haven’t seen Miliband’s new image (preview courtesy of General Boles).

3. *The party that is best rated on the economy wins*. Ipsos MORI found that the Conservatives led Labour as the best at “managing the economy” by 33% to 26% at the 1997 election.

4. *Labour will be blamed for everything wrong with the economy*. ICM found that more people blame Labour than the coalition, but even more blame the banks or the troubles of the eurozone.

5. *The Conservatives will get the credit for deficit reduction*. Given how few voters understand the difference between the debt and the deficit, Hawkins thinks this is unlikely.

6. *A Conservative majority is do-able*. Hawkins pointed out that no government had increased its share of the vote after a full parliamentary term since the war, not even Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair: “If Thatcher and Blair couldn’t do it, why does David Cameron think he can do it?”


----------



## kabbes (Sep 19, 2013)

If you were laying a spread on each party's number of MPs right now, butchers, what would it be?


----------



## Santino (Sep 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> “If Thatcher and Blair couldn’t do it, why does David Cameron think he can do it?”


My caveat here would be: _because Nick Clegg_.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> If you were laying a spread on each party's number of MPs right now, butchers, what would it be?


I'll post up my current estimates when I get home later. Labour majority still favourite.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2013)

kabbes said:


> If you were laying a spread on each party's number of MPs right now, butchers, what would it be?


Lib-dems: 1-15
Tories: 250-260
Labour: 330-340


----------



## kabbes (Sep 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dems: 1-15
> Tories: 250-260
> Labour: 330-340


You've got a good track record on this, I'm tempted to make a bet!

If it pans out as you currently expect, the Millibanders will take it as an endorsement of his leadership, sadly.  But at least it will crush the Tories and LibDems.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2013)

kabbes said:


> You've got a good track record on this, I'm tempted to make a bet!
> 
> If it pans out as you currently expect, the Millibanders will take it as an endorsement of his leadership, sadly.  But at least it will crush the Tories and LibDems.


I expect this coming weekend is going to see renewed attacks on Miliband from within the party triggered by two days tight yougov polling. 

Btw electoral calculus have a thing that allows you to input your own figures and see what the likely outcome would be. They don't work off the assumption of a simple universal national swing either.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 20, 2013)

Huh.  Oddschecker seem to be claiming that no bookies are offering odds on the next election yet.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Huh.  Oddschecker seem to be claiming that no bookies are offering odds on the next election yet.


That's nonsense. See also the bookie links on the left here.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 20, 2013)

Oddschecker just shit then.  No surprises there.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 20, 2013)

4/6 on Milliband seems very attractive given those spreads!  I guess that the Tories could bugger it by overthrowing Cameron in the meantime though.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2013)

kabbes said:


> 4/6 on Milliband seems very attractive given those spreads!  I guess that the Tories could bugger it by overthrowing Cameron in the meantime though.


Didn't mean to link to that specific market, was supposed to be the general politics betting section. But if you're looking at that bet you'd be better off on the labour majority 5/4.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 20, 2013)

Yeah, seems like an excellent bet.


----------



## where to (Sep 21, 2013)

Announcements now coming out from Labour seem to confirm they are going for 35% strategy.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I expect this coming weekend is going to see renewed attacks on Miliband from within the party triggered by two days tight yougov polling.
> 
> Btw electoral calculus have a thing that allows you to input your own figures and see what the likely outcome would be. They don't work off the assumption of a simple universal national swing either.



Thanks for that. Very interesting.


----------



## treelover (Sep 22, 2013)

where to said:


> Announcements now coming out from Labour seem to confirm they are going for 35% strategy.


 

some good things, but still vague


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 23, 2013)

Two polls have just come out putting Labour on 39%. 

https://twitter.com/electionista/status/382163986277351427 < This one has Labour on a 10 point lead

https://twitter.com/electionista/status/382113198742073344 < This one has Labour on a 7 point lead.

I await the articles in the Guardian to write a prominent article about these result, and for the BBC to stop using the phrase "with the polls neck and neck" in their Labour party conference coverage?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2013)

...and from the two day YG tightening of the tory/labour polling we are now back to 

CON 32%
 LAB 40%
 LDEM 10%
 UKIP 12%.


----------



## mk12 (Sep 24, 2013)

But the Guardian keeps telling me the Tories are almost neck and neck!


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 24, 2013)

They say that often enough, but say even more that any Labour lead is soft for the midterm period, as if it's inevitable that the main parties will be much nearer to neck and neck by the time the election happens.


----------



## where to (Sep 24, 2013)

i predict huge leads this weekend, once we're past conference. maybe up to 12%. but these will close back a bit after the tory conference.


----------



## where to (Sep 29, 2013)

where to said:
			
		

> i predict huge leads this weekend, once we're past conference. maybe up to 12%. but these will close back a bit after the tory conference.



Latest youguv says 11%.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 29, 2013)

You gov seem volatile the last week or so, but within the limits of a labour lead.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 29, 2013)

Seems to been definite bounce for labour since the dawn of 'red ed'. All the received wisdom about 'capturing the centre ground' and triangulation being essential to winning the election shown up to be cobblers. Milliband's token tit-bits of less right wing policy may have a considerable effect in terms of image - Ed against the vested interests, he says boo to murdoch etc - tempting back disillusioned labour voters and cementing the former lib dems. The hysteria of the right wing press and the disapproval of blair and mandelson seems to have helped his case.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 29, 2013)

Kaka Tim said:


> Seems to been definite bounce for labour since the dawn of 'red ed'. All the received wisdom about 'capturing the centre ground' and triangulation being essential to winning the election shown up to be cobblers. Milliband's token tit-bits of less right wing policy may have a considerable effect in terms of image - Ed against the vested interests, he says boo to murdoch etc - tempting back disillusioned labour voters and cementing the former lib dems. The hysteria of the right wing press and the disapproval of blair and mandelson seems to have helped his case.



Interesting piece here suggesting Milliband is playing a canny game with respect to positioning himself in opposition.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 29, 2013)

Miliband is doing  - within the limits of the labour party and its aims - exactly the right thing. What that article touches on but doesn't go into ant detail about, is that you can _make _'centre ground' - it's not an ideological term, electorally it just means something popular that doesn't polarise. And that can mean just keeping it zipped mostly.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 29, 2013)

When Miliband first gave a speech as leader to conf I thought he had something about him - a recognition of where Labour had gone wrong and ideas about moving forward. Since then I have been disappointed and put it down to him getting too busy and sucked into listening to wonks. This week hopefully has seen a move away from that.

But the lead for mid term still isn't impressive. Remember, a good amount of UKIP support (or bad, if you prefer) will tip back to tory at a GE, especially once the bribes and 2 minute hate-speak are turned up to 11. Maybe people are starting to see past all that stuff, but maybe not enough in the key demographics. We shall see.

Anyhow, point being that if Labour and Tory come across as too similar (which they have tended to) people may well stick with the devil they know. It's a risk Labour can't take. Clear red water isn't just what the country needs, it's good politics and good strategy.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 29, 2013)

Why are you assuming UKIP vot will go back tory? How much - 75?? It doesn't need a huge amount of UKIP stickability in marginals to do serious damage remember.

The labour lead - and the persistence of it - suggest a large labour majority. They don't need to poll 45% plus to achieve that - they just need the tories to stay where they are. That they have  a sustained lead after their second ever worst showing is impressive. It took the tories 13 years to even begin to unravel 1997.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why are you assuming UKIP vot will go back tory? How much - 75?? It doesn't need a huge amount of UKIP stickability in marginals to do serious damage remember.
> 
> The labour lead - and the persistence of it - suggest a large labour majority. They don't need to poll 45% plus to achieve that - they just need the tories to stay where they are. That they have  a sustained lead after their second ever worst showing is impressive. It took the tories 13 years to even begin to unravel 1997.



Don't know if anyone's posted Ashcroft's Sept. marginal polling, but it seems to support what you're saying...

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/09/labour-still-on-course-in-the-marginals-but-its-not-over-yet/




> The encouraging news for the Tories, such as it is, is that Labour have made no further progress in their top targets seats than they had when I conducted a similar exercise in 2011.Despite this, *Labour’s lead in these seats has grown from 9 to 14 points over the last two years, largely because of the defection of Tory voters to UKIP.* Labour’s share is 43%, down a point since 2011, but *the Conservatives have fallen to 29% with the Lib Dems on 8% and UKIP on 11% – a  rise of 8 points since the last election. This represents an 8.5% swing from the Conservatives to Labour in these seats – enough for Labour to win all 32 of them, plus a further 66 if it were repeated in Conservative-Labour contests elsewhere*.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2013)

Yep, posted it a few days ago. That is bad bad news for the tories - as is todays 10 point lead for labour. (CON 31%, LAB 41%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%)


----------



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, posted it a few days ago. That is bad bad news for the tories - as is todays 10 point lead for labour. (CON 31%, LAB 41%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%)



Oh good. Sorry for re-post, but I've been away for a while.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Oh good. Sorry for re-post, but I've been away for a while.


I thought Ashcroft managed to put a very optimistic spin on it in his introductory piece but you could tell he was in some distress.

(How much is the discharge grant now btw  )


----------



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I thought Ashcroft managed to put a very optimistic spin on it in his introductory piece but you could tell he was in some distress.
> 
> (How much is the discharge grant now btw  )



Hence the "free" press' attempted 'Kinnockisation" of Miliband and trashing of the 'kipperloons.

Desperate measures.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2013)

> This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 31%, LAB 41%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%*.
> 
> ...



That tory bounce?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 10, 2013)

Some interesting polling and analysis fron YouGov's Anthony showing "it's (not just) the economy, stupid".



> In today’s Times poll they asked the question in a bit more detail – *the economy, after all, isn’t just a blob*, it encompasses all sorts of things like jobs, inflation, interest rates, growth and so on. The question wasn’t quite the same as the trackers above (the Times version was a forced choice between a Cameron-led Tory government and a Miliband-led Labour one, whereas the regular trackers give Lib Dems and “other” as options) but it does show us the parties different strengths and the clear battle lines where they’ll seek to fight the economic argument at the next election.
> 
> *Labour & Ed Miliband actually have a 8 point lead over the Conservatives & Cameron if you ask specifically about providing jobs, a 6 point lead on keeping prices down* and *a 9 point lead on improving living standards*. However, Cameron and the Conservatives have stronger leads in thier better areas – on *helping people onto the housing ladder they lead by 11 points*, on *tackling the deficit they lead by 22 points and the general management of the economy they lead by 15 points. *
> 
> There is an obvious conclusion here – on perceptions of general economic competence and ability to manage the economy well the Conservatives have a significant and growing advantage. However, on standards of living and keeping down prices Labour are ahead. Recent announcements by the government on things like rail fares are an obvious attempt to try and counter that, but there will also be a battle to control the debate and the narrative, from the Conservatives to make the economic argument at the next election about economic competence and management, from Labour to make it about the cost of living.



Showing us, if we needed showing (?), the shape of the respective election campaigns.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 11, 2013)

Very interesting -- if Labour manage to be smart enough at concentrating on specifics about jobs, living standards, etc ie a campaign centred in their stronger areas, then those who assume that the Tories will kill them on 'the economy' might have to rethink.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2013)

Today we have:

YouGov/Sunday Times
CON 34%
LAB 39%
 LDEM 9%
 UKIP 11%

Survation/Mail on Sunday:

CON 27%(-2)
 LAB 37%(nc)
 LDEM 11%(nc)
 UKIP 18%(+1)

And the same for the euros:

CON 21%
 LAB 35%
LDEM 11%
 UKIP 22%.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2013)

UKIP being pretty persistent. Pesky kids.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> UKIP being pretty persistent. Pesky kids.



The latter two polls are displaying 4-way patterns of support that could start to see some Westminster representation for the 'kippers.

Interesting stuff here.


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2013)

Labour have a lead of 1 in todays yougov - could be an outlier obviously, but it does look like a pattern of the lead closing to me. Any thoughts what's going on? I haven't noticed any wildly popular policies from the Tories lately, nor labour fucking up, so it's baffling me a bit...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2013)

Happened a month or so back as well and two days later it was back at ten. I think when you follow the trend at yg rather than individual polls that there has been a slight tightening of the lead to five or six from eight or nine, but at the same time the other pollsters who were showing things much more closely have firmed up on a labour lead pretty much the same as the yg trend.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2013)

Today's TNS BRMB:-



> TNS BMRB have a new poll out today. Topline figures are:-
> 
> *CON 34% (+5), LAB 36% (-3), LD 9%(nc), UKIP 13%(-1).*
> 
> ...


http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8250

Unusual figures they may be, according to YG's Anthony, but I wouldn't mind betting that the eventual poll narrowing at the 'real deal' (2015 GE) produces something pretty close to this set. Fed in the 'Electoral Calculus' it produces a very small* Lab majority of 20*.

I think that might be my prediction?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 15, 2013)

Still a lot of time between then and now though brogdale. All sorts could happen. If the economic news stays relatively good all the way to 2015 (it probably won't) and if the Tories avoid scandal, catastrophe and in-fighting (they can't) then the results will probably be close just like the TNS poll. 34% would be a good showing for Cameron all things considered, what with UKIP and the Lib Dem collapse.

But there's plenty to go wrong before then. I don't think the economic growth we've got at the moment is particularly strong or that there's any guarentee that it'll last through 2015. The world economy still in a very unstable condition, the situation in Europe is bleak, I mean the US is right now only a few days away from default. There's all sorts of risks and stumbling blocks to navigate until 2015. Let's see if the Coulson trial and all that stuff makes an discernable impct on the polls, amongst others.


----------



## stuff_it (Oct 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> The latter two polls are displaying 4-way patterns of support that could start to see some Westminster representation for the 'kippers.
> 
> Interesting stuff here.


Rather worrying as the Lib Dems can't be relied on not to support the Conservatives now. The very real possibility that even if the Red Tories get in we may still in fact be run by the Cuntservatives and parties to the right of them.


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2013)

what?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 15, 2013)

fuck knows


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Today's TNS BRMB:-
> 
> 
> Unusual figures they may be, according to YG's Anthony, but I wouldn't mind betting that the eventual poll narrowing at the 'real deal' (2015 GE) produces something pretty close to this set. Fed in the 'Electoral Calculus' it produces a very small* Lab majority of 20*.
> ...





Delroy Booth said:


> Still a lot of time between then and now though brogdale. All sorts could happen. If the economic news stays relatively good all the way to 2015 (it probably won't) and if the Tories avoid scandal, catastrophe and in-fighting (they can't) then the results will probably be close just like the TNS poll. 34% would be a good showing for Cameron all things considered, what with UKIP and the Lib Dem collapse.
> 
> But there's plenty to go wrong before then. I don't think the economic growth we've got at the moment is particularly strong or that there's any guarentee that it'll last through 2015. The world economy still in a very unstable condition, the situation in Europe is bleak, I mean the US is right now only a few days away from default. There's all sorts of risks and stumbling blocks to navigate until 2015. Let's see if the Coulson trial and all that stuff makes an discernable impct on the polls, amongst others.



Oh yeah, accept all of that, but a prediction is just that. If I was a betting man, (which I'm not - Father was addicted), those are pretty much the numbers I'd back right now.

Given what you say about all the external threats to the economy, I still think that we can see the determination with which the tory scum are engineering a "recovery" simply by looking at the desperation with which they're inflating the housing bubble. Sure the NI trials stuff will produce 'froth' and noise, but I'm pretty sure that the consistent lead the tories have held in polling about economic competence will basically hold firm. So I predict that their *2010 37% *will only be knocked back a few % points. Clearly they were close to 'core' with that share of the vote, (what with the Clegg effect and all that), and I think that, even given all the nasty shit they're up to, *34% *will still schlep out to vote for them.

I actually think it will be very hard for Miliband to move the 2010 Labour share of *30% *much higher than* 35/36%*. The weak polling of the leader and the key economic competence will limit their gains.

The LD's 2010 *24%* of national share of the popular vote will obviously be destroyed (although they might just get a little more than *9%*?), but their seats tally will still probably be 20 or just over.

Lastly the 'kippers. Putting them on *13%* is, I think, more realistic than some of the very high figures of 20% produced mid-term etc. It would still be a huge event for UK politics, and condemn the tories to opposition.

Would, of course, all produce a weak, fragile Lab majority administration.

Just a prediction, that's all. But if in May 2015 that pans out I will be crowing and reminding folks they heard it here first!


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Oh yeah, accept all of that, but a prediction is just that. If I was a betting man, (which I'm not - Father was addicted), those are pretty much the numbers I'd back right now.
> 
> Given what you say about all the external threats to the economy, I still think that we can see the determination with which the tory scum are engineering a "recovery" simply by looking at the desperation with which they're inflating the housing bubble. Sure the NI trials stuff will produce 'froth' and noise, but I'm pretty sure that the consistent lead the tories have held in polling about economic competence will basically hold firm. So I predict that their *2010 37% *will only be knocked back a few % points. Clearly they were close to 'core' with that share of the vote, (what with the Clegg effect and all that), and I think that, even given all the nasty shit they're up to, *34% *will still schlep out to vote for them.



I'd be interested to see how much the economic competence stat has varied tbh. It's pretty normal that people think the party of big business are better at managing the economy (because if you put it in those terms, they_ are_ better at it). I don't see how the Tories are going to illustrate to most people that their supposed "economic competence" is going to make them better off - especially when Labour are going to able to point to a sustained month on month drop in living standards which shows no sign of abating.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> I don't see how the Tories are going to illustrate to most people that their supposed "economic competence" is going to make them better off - especially when Labour are going to able to point to a sustained month on month drop in living standards which shows no sign of abating.



I don't think they are, easily; that's why the house-price bubble with the potential for MEW again is so important to them. Of course the main tactic will be the old "_Yes, things are tough, but just imagine how bad they'd be under..._"


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I don't think they are, easily; that's why the house-price bubble with the potential for MEW again is so important to them. Of course the main tactic will be the old "_Yes, things are tough, but just imagine how bad they'd be under..._"



Not sure rising house prices is as much of a vote winner as the Tories think. Even people who own houses don't constantly check their value (unless they're weird). Unless you're selling it's not going to compensate for the value of wages going down...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Not sure rising house prices is as much of a vote winner as the Tories think. Even people who own houses don't constantly check their value (unless they're weird). Unless you're selling it's not going to compensate for the value of wages going down...



Mortgage equity withdrawal

Kerching.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 15, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Not sure rising house prices is as much of a vote winner as the Tories think. Even people who own houses don't constantly check their value (unless they're weird).


 
The stats show that most people do, and they spend more because they feel more wealthy.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 15, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> The stats show that most people do, and they spend more because they feel more wealthy.


Really? People are weird.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 15, 2013)

you might think so, but they don't


----------



## brogdale (Oct 16, 2013)

Posted in the Labour losing thread, but I'll bung it in here as well:-

YouGov's recent London polling demonstrates many of the trends that Butchers mentions...have a look at the cross-breaks to see just how little of their 2010 support the LDs are holding in the capital. Also note where it is going. Also clear evidence of the UKIP damage to the tories, (5 X that from Labour voters).


----------



## kabbes (Oct 16, 2013)

34% of 2010 LDs still intend to vote LD -- that's a hell of a loss.  And Con/Lab are leaking virtually nothing to LD either.

Labour vote is holding up amongst the ABC1s too, which is interesting.  And UKIP is virtually identical between social demographics.  But UKIP are definitely the old peoples' party.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> I'd be interested to see how much the economic competence stat has varied tbh. It's pretty normal that people think the party of big business are better at managing the economy (because if you put it in those terms, they_ are_ better at it). I don't see how the Tories are going to illustrate to most people that their supposed "economic competence" is going to make them better off - especially when Labour are going to able to point to a sustained month on month drop in living standards which shows no sign of abating.


Was some interesting polling recently on this - on how people translated a belief in tory economic competence into how it effected them and their lifes. Turns out that a belief in tory economic efficiency actually means that you think labour are better for you financially in the terms that people tend to vote on rather then the big-picture stuff they pretend to. Hang on an i'll find it.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Was some interesting polling recently on this - on how people translated a belief in tory economic competence into how it effected them and their lifes. Turns out that a belief in tory economic efficiency actually means that you think labour are better for you financially in the terms that people tend to vote on rather then the big-picture stuff they pretend to. Hang on an i'll find it.


Were you thinking of this stuff?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Were you thinking of this stuff?


That's the one yeah, thanks.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2013)

London:



> CON 32%, LAB 45%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 9% – this reflects a swing of 5.5% from Con to Lab since the general election, pretty much in line with that YouGov’s current GB polls are showing.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2013)

Latest MORI:-



> The monthly Ipsos MORI political monitor for the Standard shows the two main parties neck and neck:-
> 
> *CON 35%(+1), LAB 35%(-2), LDEM 9%(-1), UKIP 10%(-1). *
> 
> This is the first time MORI have shown the Conservatives catching Labour since January 2012, when David Cameron was enjoying a boost from his European “veto”. Looking at the wider context, while this poll may well be an outlier in the Conservatives’ favour, the underlying average lead does seem to have got down to the mid-single figures, meaning normal random variation will sometimes split out polls with tiny or non-existant Labour leads.



Hmmm.....would ----> NL 3 short of maj. with the LD scum down to 15


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2013)

Observer/Opinium:

LAB moves to 11% lead in Opinium /Observer poll
Lab 38 (+2) 
Con 27 (-2)
Ukip 17 (+2)
LD 9 (+2)


----------



## brogdale (Oct 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Observer/Opinium:
> 
> LAB moves to 11% lead in Opinium /Observer poll
> Lab 38 (+2)
> ...



Love that LD "+2"...taking them to 9


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Love that LD "+2"...taking them to 9


I like the false hope it will give them. 3 other big polls tonight.

edit: seems not, just one more to come.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2013)

ComRes for Mirror/Independent:

Con 32% (+4)
Lab 35% (-1)
UKP 16% (-1)
LD 9% (-1)
OTH 8% (-1)


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 19, 2013)

Opinium / Observer

38 (+2) Lab
27 (-2) Con
17 (+2) UKIP
9 (+2) LD

Polls are really all over the place, but the important thing is that Labour is staying consistently within the 35-40% range they need to win. Even at the lower end of their range, like the ComRes poll butchers posted above, they're still well on track to win.

Is 17% an outlier for UKIP? Would there be a methodological thing going on here? As most polls have shown UKIP shrinking back to single figures after the party conference season.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2013)

Posted earlier. UKIP been steady around that every month in this poll - been as high as 21% before. And i would saymost polls have had them consistent between 10-15% since conference with 12/13 seeming to be the trend.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2013)

Note they are also steady at 16% in the Comres one.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Note they are also steady at 16% in the Comres one.



Anywhere between that and 20% is perfect polling for the 'kippers; max damage to the tory scum, but yielding no actual representation for the nutjobs.

Did folk see the Basingstoke QT audience lapping up the 'kipper line from Diane James? The tory scum must quake when they here such a reception.


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 19, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Opinium / Observer
> 
> 38 (+2) Lab
> 27 (-2) Con
> ...


There was an article i read it's not the lead ,it's keeping to 38-40% that counts for labour


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 20, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> There was an article i read it's not the lead ,it's keeping to 38-40% that counts for labour


I would be interested in reading that article


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Oct 20, 2013)

What supprises me is the fact that so many people think that voting ed millipede's neo-labour back in to office in 2015 is gonna make any real difference to the Torlibdem coalition sorry to puncture your balloon but voting ed millipede and co back into power in 2015 is just gonna be a classic case of "Same corporate/bankster friendly shit different name" in my humble opinion


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 20, 2013)

I think 35% to 40% for Labour isn't that good at all. They're helped a lot by the Lib Dem collapse and by the split in Tory/UKIP support, but if Labour were anywhere _really_ near convincing 'so many' people, they'd be consistently above 40% by now.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2013)

It's enough to win,  they don't have to convince everyone, that's the point. And they have pretty consistently polled above 40%


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 20, 2013)

I get the winning post level thing, but their polling's been much more in the 35% to 40% range in most of these polls, surely?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> I get the winning post level thing, but their polling's been much more in the 35% to 40% range in most of these polls, surely?


In the last month it's dipped from over 40% (in yg dailies) to mid-high 30s. Whilst only the yg polls have the tories even getting within anywhere even close to starting to look like they could even get close to the figures they need as a min, never mind the labour collapse they also need. This 40% figure is nice but not necessary.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2013)

Todays YG has just come out btw:

CON 33%
LAB 39%
LDEM 10%
UKIP 11%

That represents a large labour victory. All the others last night would result in a labour win -  and one of them a very large victory - and all with under 40%.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 20, 2013)

SikhWarrioR said:


> What supprises me is the fact that so many people think that voting ed millipede's neo-labour back in to office in 2015 is gonna make any real difference to the Torlibdem coalition sorry to puncture your balloon but voting ed millipede and co back into power in 2015 is just gonna be a classic case of "Same corporate/bankster friendly shit different name" in my humble opinion



what is a bankster?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 20, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> I think 35% to 40% for Labour isn't that good at all. They're helped a lot by the Lib Dem collapse and by the split in Tory/UKIP support, but if Labour were anywhere _really_ near convincing 'so many' people, they'd be consistently above 40% by now.



But considering that at the last election they were turfed out with only 29% of the vote having the lost the trust of much of the electorate, that rating in the high 30s is a considerable reversal of fortunes. The tories have yet to recover from their 1997 drubbing - and would give their right arm for labours poll ratings. The days of parties winning more than 40% of the vote are in the past.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 20, 2013)

That's a fair point KT, butchers' points too.

I suppose my over pessimistic tone came from the Creeping Fear that the Tories might somehow still scrape back in despite all the data pointing against that at the moment...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 20, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> That's a fair point KT, butchers' points too.
> 
> I suppose my over pessimistic tone came from the Creeping Fear that the Tories might somehow still scrape back in despite all the data pointing against that at the moment...



The spectre of 1992 eh?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 20, 2013)




----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2013)

Interesting read: The Conservatives were not always so unpopular in the north of England—can they win it back?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting read: The Conservatives were not always so unpopular in the north of England—can they win it back?



typically interesting article from Kellner and one that really challenges quite lot of preconceptions, I do think he does underestimate tribalism though and how tribalism is relflected by the popularity of the the populist or far right as an alternative to Labour as opposed to the Tories...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2013)

Bye bye caroline/council:



> The BBC have commissioned a very rare creature – a local government voting intention poll for a single council, in this case a ComRes poll of Brighton and Hove. The reason, naturally enough, is because of Brighton’s status as being the only Green party council in the country. The poll does not bode well for it remaining that way – it shows the Green party down by about 10 points since the local elections in 2011, Labour up by about 7 points.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Bye bye caroline/council:



Yep, there's no way she'll be able to hang on, especially as the 2010 LD student vote swings to Lab. I'm sure that Lab will gain back Kemptown for the same reason.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting read: The Conservatives were not always so unpopular in the north of England—can they win it back?


Cheers for that, be an interesting to see the equivalent data for Scotland and Wales.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2013)

Todays YG:

LAB 40%
CON 32%
UKIP 13%
LD 10%


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2013)

YouGov:

 LAB 39%
CON, 32% 
UKIP 11%
LD 9%


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 24, 2013)

Labour/UKIP coalition? I jest of course.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 24, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Labour/UKIP coalition? I jest of course.


Labour won't need to form a coalition with anybody, with poll ratings like that.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 24, 2013)

It's interesting to see that the polls have settled into the normal pattern, with Labour back in the 38-40 range they've been in most of the last few years, and the Tories on about 30-32. The Tories have been in damage limitation mode quite a lot, telling themselves the economy is all magically sorted and the polls are creeping their way. This graph has been tweeted out a few times by leading Tories in what likes like some damage limitation.






Which is all very reassuring until you realise it's only one polling company (YouGov) and it's only 6 months. Expand that graph out to look at the long-term trend over you 2 years and you would get a graph that painted a much different picture. They're starting to resemble the Republicans a little bit I think, convinced the booming British economy is going save them even if the polls don't have much evidence for it.


Anyway saw two interesting polls today. This poll is a candid look from Tim Montgomerie at conservativehome at some polling about how the Tories would govern on their own, and how they're percieved, and this one from Yougov showing just how damaging immigration is as a political issue for Labour. Complete with this intimidating graph.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> It's interesting to see that the polls have settled into the normal pattern, with Labour back in the 38-40 range they've been in most of the last few years, and the Tories on about 30-32. The Tories have been in damage limitation mode quite a lot, telling themselves the economy is all magically sorted and the polls are creeping their way. This graph has been tweeted out a few times by leading Tories in what likes like some damage limitation.
> 
> Which is all very reassuring until you realise it's only one polling company (YouGov) and it's only 6 months. Expand that graph out to look at the long-term trend over you 2 years and you would get a graph that painted a much different picture. They're starting to resemble the Republicans a little bit I think, convinced the booming British economy is going save them even if the polls don't have much evidence for it.



And, 1) as Kabbes has pointed out:



> What statistical numpty stuck a linear trend through that graph? Not to mention that a single value of r-squared in isolation is basically meaningless, and that even if it did have meaning, a value of 0.49 would generally be considered to be a poor fit.



2) The person who did that is the Wallace


----------



## kabbes (Oct 24, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> It's interesting to see that the polls have settled into the normal pattern, with Labour back in the 38-40 range they've been in most of the last few years, and the Tories on about 30-32. The Tories have been in damage limitation mode quite a lot, telling themselves the economy is all magically sorted and the polls are creeping their way. This graph has been tweeted out a few times by leading Tories in what likes like some damage limitation.


We've had that before.  In response, I pointed out that the trend line doesn't fit the data, and only a moron would attempt to put a linear trend through it anyway, and that I could do a better job in MS Paint, which I then did:


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 24, 2013)

Hahah sorry kabbes I can't believe I missed that. Top stuff


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2013)

Wallace actually says in that piece:



> That isn’t to say the election is in the bag .Events, as ever, may intervene



This is someone they employ to analyse this stuff.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Wallace actually says in that piece:
> 
> 
> 
> This is someone they employ to analyse this stuff.


They actually _employ_ the idiot that came up with that graph?  Wow.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2013)

He's there as a booster really, but when it can be undermined so easily he's probably not helping - nor is the fact that people can always just point to to this:


----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Wallace actually says in that piece:
> 
> 
> 
> This is someone they employ to analyse this stuff.


 

Easy to over-complicate the psephology sometimes....

Look at blue line on left of graph = could not form government; look at blue line on right of graph = fucked.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 24, 2013)

That yellow line is pretty funny. Nailed on 10% for three years. That is not 'inevitable mid term blues' that is political death. Why are the lib dems so sanguine about it?


----------



## prunus (Oct 24, 2013)

Kaka Tim said:


> That yellow line is pretty funny. Nailed on 10% for three years. That is not 'inevitable mid term blues' that is political death. Why are the lib dems so sanguine about it?



On the other hand that purple line is very very unfunny indeed.  It might (will) help fuck the Tories, for which hallelujah, but that's a fuck of a lot of frothing hate-filled right wing loons....


----------



## kabbes (Oct 24, 2013)

prunus said:


> On the other hand that purple line is very very unfunny indeed.  It might (will) help fuck the Tories, for which hallelujah, but that's a fuck of a lot of frothing hate-filled right wing loons....


They were always there, but they previously were propping up the Tories.

The Tories are in serious danger of never being able to form a government again.  Ironically, this is largely because we have a FPTP system.  Ironic because the AV camp were telling us threeish years ago that we should vote for AV in order to prevent the Tories ever forming a government again.


----------



## prunus (Oct 24, 2013)

kabbes said:


> They were always there, but they previously were propping up the Tories.



Yes, I guess this is so.  It's just while they were less specifically identifiable I suppose I was able to delude myself that such people were few and far between.

Yes, I live under a rock.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 24, 2013)

prunus said:


> On the other hand that purple line is very very unfunny indeed.  It might (will) help fuck the Tories, for which hallelujah, but *that's a fuck of a lot of frothing hate-filled right wing loon*s....



Or a lot of people with legitimate fears over things such as employment (e.g. rates of pay, security and availability) and provision of services (e.g. affordability, access, quantity and quality) who have seen no convincing or inspiring left alternative for a so long that one is now hard to even imagine...plus some frothing hate filled right wing loons.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 24, 2013)

The existence of a frothing far-right party helps the tories look like a saner option, that's a bit of a concern (in that they can use this as justification for doing some pretty nasty stuff by there being someone on the scene offering to be that little bit nastier - something which Labour will also do).

The strength of public concern on immigration and 'benefit cheats' just shows how good a job the press has done of making these an issue.  Just imagine if they'd used their powers benevolently and gone after the tax cheats, greedy executives and crooked utilities rather than playing the divide-and-rule game for the benefit of their proprietors and friends.  We're already seeing a ramping up of negative stories ahead of the 'Roma Invasion' - wait and see how Cameron and Crosby will exploit that.


----------



## killer b (Oct 24, 2013)

prunus said:


> On the other hand that purple line is very very unfunny indeed.  It might (will) help fuck the Tories, for which hallelujah, but that's a fuck of a lot of frothing hate-filled right wing loons....


no it isn't. it's a lot of people saying they'll vote ukip.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 24, 2013)

People like my uncle who's now a paid-up member, early retirement from a public-sector job (college lecturer) with one of those 'gold-plated pensions', comfortable, suburban, second home in rural france, untroubled but unremarkable life but plenty of time to look for stuff to grumble about that most likely isn't there.  A view on the world based on stuff he's probably read in the Express.  Actual quote:  'England is lost now, it's a sharia state'. O RLY?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 24, 2013)

Maybe overharsh ... but because friends and relatives of Urban people support UKIP, or even just sympathise, and for whatever reason, doesn't mean they're not seriously underinformed politically -- however understandable or analysable the reasons for their 'concerns'


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> no it isn't. it's a lot of people saying they'll vote ukip.


 

Those that aren't frothing hate filled right wing loons can be very erm gullible about dominant media narratives about foreigners. etc though. And overtempted by/underquestioning of the easy shots that UKIP fire. The two things feed off each other.

Luckily most polls still show that UKIP is essentially a fringe party though.


----------



## killer b (Oct 24, 2013)

a curse on those dominant media narratives.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 24, 2013)

Spose I was just remembering what I overhear from people round and about, far too often. Anecdotes in pubs and so forth.


----------



## killer b (Oct 24, 2013)

people chat all sorts of shit. they probably aren't as thick as you have 'em pegged though.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 24, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> The existence of a frothing far-right party helps the tories look like a saner option, that's a bit of a concern (in that they can use this as justification for doing some pretty nasty stuff by there being someone on the scene offering to be that little bit nastier - something which Labour will also do).



Thats not how UKIP are playing.  UKIP have dropped there workfare forever welfare policy and currently have no welfare policy.  They've just appointed some hippy co-ordinator for disabled people called Star.  Farage criticised the go home vans.  They are still anti-immigrant, but they dont have to be anti-immigrant in practice, they are anti-claimant but can pretend to be fair and reasonable, they are presenting a myth that immigration, benefits, all this can be sorted out with no one getting hurt just by a bit of British common sense.  Which means that when the Tories go swivel-eyed UKIP will outflank them to the left, knowing dissident Tories and other right wingers will stay with them because they know its a charade and because of their position on Europe.  Cameron's fucked.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Today YG:
LAB 38%
CON 32%
UKIP 13%
LDEM 10%

Populus:
Lab 39 (+2)
Cons 34 (=)
LD 11 (-3)
UKIP 10 (+2)


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 25, 2013)

killer b said:


> people chat all sorts of shit. they probably aren't as thick as you have 'em pegged though.


 
Sometimes true, and its clearer to me than you might think that I can see it. In fact what you say's probably more often true than not. But there's a still a fair few around who are just plain gullible -- going no further.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Wow, look at this academic madness.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, look at this academic madness.


 ie. a guess, and piss-poor one at that.


----------



## Santino (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, look at this academic madness.


Perfectly sound reasoning. He's arbitrarily picked three electoral phenomena that would happen to lead to a Tory victory and applied them to the current polls.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 25, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Anyway saw two interesting polls today. This poll is a candid look from Tim Montgomerie at conservativehome at some polling about how the Tories would govern on their own, and how they're percieved, and this one from Yougov showing just how damaging immigration is as a political issue for Labour. Complete with this intimidating graph.


Does this show that immigration is damaging for Labour? The UKIP and Con bars are meaningless, and even a majority of Labour voters feel that Labour "admitted too many immigrants" it's only damaging if that actually causes people to not vote for Labour.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, look at this academic madness.


There's a lot of reliance on regression to the mean, but no recognition that in a post-LD and new-UKIP world, we no longer know what that mean actually is.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2013)

kabbes said:


> There's a lot of reliance on regression to the mean, but no recognition that in a post-LD and new-UKIP world, we no longer know what that mean actually is.


 True, but if he'd been paying attaention to the cross-breaks showing the LD shedding and UKIP mopping, he'd have been able to produce a much better model.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2013)

YG/ST:

LAB 39%
CON 33%
UKIP 12%
LDEM 9%,

And hilarious analysis from Rentoul.

Why the Tories are home and dry in 2015



> That's the next election, then. Friday's growth figures were not decisive, but they were the end of the beginning of the election. From now on, the facts of economic life are Conservative.



They pay money for this. Real money.

edit: also survation:

LAB 35%
CON 29%
UKIP 17%
LDEM 12%


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2013)

That John Rentoul article is *seriously* shit ....


----------



## brogdale (Oct 27, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> That John Rentoul article is *seriously* shit ....



as per....

TCF took his (tory) lies apart...
http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2013...sehold-incomes-really-risen-under-the-tories/
http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2013...sehold-incomes-really-risen-under-the-tories/


----------



## brogdale (Oct 29, 2013)

ComRes for the Independent...



> ComRes’s monthly poll for the Independent is out tonight and has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 28%(-5), LAB 36%(-1), LD 11%(nc), UKIP 12%(+1), Others 13%(+5).*
> 
> A significant drop for the Conservatives, and a significant increase for minor parties. The eight point lead for Labour is the largest ComRes have shown in their telephone polls since March.



....and on the specific issue of NL's proposed Energy Price Freeze....



> ComRes found the same widespread support for Ed Miliband’s promise to freeze energy prices that we’ve seen elsewhere – *80% support the policy, 17% oppose it. However only 41% of people actually think Miliband would deliver on the promise if Labour formed a government, 52% think he will not.*



...which kinda says it all.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 29, 2013)

The "Others" category being on 13% is quite amazing, especially when you consider until recently UKIP would've been counted under Others bringing the total to 25%. I wonder who those others are? It mentions Plaid, SNP, Greens and the BNP but even combined they doesn't reach 13%.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 29, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> The "Others" category being on 13% is quite amazing, especially when you consider until recently UKIP would've been counted under Others bringing the total to 25%. I wonder who those others are? It mentions Plaid, SNP, Greens and the BNP but even combined they doesn't reach 13%.



Agreed. Anthony the blogger says...



> I’ll make the usual caveats about big movements in polls – they could be the sign of something, or could just random sample variation _*(the big increase in “others” looks particularly odd, so do remember Twyman’s Law – if something looks unusual or interesting in a poll, it’s probably wrong).*_


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 29, 2013)

ComRes is good at excluding people who don't intend to vote or didn't vote last time, IIRC, so perhaps they are rolled up in "other".


----------



## brogdale (Oct 29, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> ComRes is good at excluding people who don't intend to vote or didn't vote last time, IIRC, so perhaps they are rolled up in "other".



I don't think so. IIRC ComRes straight exclude those respondents catagorised as under '5' on their likelyhood to vote scale. More likely this 'others' number is just a rogue number for whatever reason...?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 29, 2013)

Yes, it's quite odd though. They'd be too clever to overweight respondents from devolved countries. Perhaps they did too much fieldwork in Bradford West.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 29, 2013)

True enough it probably is a rogue number or outlier, but then again there's been a noticable trend for a good few years now of the "others" category creeping up. It's worth keeping an eye on where that number goes in the future.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 29, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> True enough it probably is a rogue number or outlier, but then again there's been a noticable trend for a good few years now of the "others" category creeping up. It's worth keeping an eye on where that number goes in the future.



True enough. After all, it's not just urbanites that feel incapable of supporting any of the three major political wings of capitalism.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2013)

My totally anecdotal "feel", though, is that support for others in a general election tends to collapse.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2013)

Yes, it'll be squeezed by the main parties and what's left of it after the squeezing will be electorally insignificant.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, it'll be squeezed by the main parties and what's left of it after the squeezing will be electorally insignificant.



Indeed; as some of us here keep saying....even @ 20% popular polling UKIP still get 0 seats.

From PB:-

 Mike Smithson  @*MSmithsonPB* 
The 5% increase in OTH in ComResIndy poll is made up of Greens up 2 to 5% and "Other others" up 3 to 4%

10:17 PM - 28 Oct 2013


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2013)

Hidden away in that laughable Rentoul piece linked to on sunday there is this:

Government red list means 200,000 Merseyside voters may be disenfranchised



> Up to 200,000 people across Merseyside could find themselves unable to vote at the next General Election.
> 
> In Liverpool alone, there are more than 70,000 who have been identified as being on a “red list” of voters who, while on the electoral roll, do not appear on records held by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
> 
> ...



Nationally 27% of the electorate are at risk of being disenfranchised.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2013)

Yesterday's *YouGov poll for the Sun*.... 


> Topline figures today are:-
> 
> _*CON 31%, LAB 40%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 12%*_.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

We had a 6 and 7% lead for labour on YG since that one with labour at 39/40%. That slight tightening lasted less than a week.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

And here's something firming up the suggestion of lib-dem-->lab swings in marginals being much higher than nationally, thus making labour's job that much easier - in fact, opening the possibility of a labour majority with less total vote than the tories.



> For one pattern picked up by last month’s massive 12,800 sample phone poll of 40 CON held marginals by Lord Ashcroft was that 2010 LDs appeared to be more likely to switch to LAB in the battlegrounds than in a national comparison poll carried out at the same time.
> 
> Overall Ashcroft found a 6% CON>LAB swing compared with an 8.5% one in the marginals a differential partly driven by the LD switchers. This was not a fluke finding from one poll. In an earlier Ashcroft marginals poll in August 2011 LAB was doing better in the marginals than elsewhere.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

Sorry to link to a lib-dem site, but full stuff not up yet. 



> 1.	Importance of Eastleigh noted: showed how Lib Dems can defend marginal seats. This, he says, steadied the nerves of some, though many remain pessimistic about the party’s fortunes in 2015.
> 
> 2.	The South West of England will be a key Lib Dem / Tory battleground – both sides hope to take seats from the other and Ukip is a wildcard.
> 
> ...


----------



## Santino (Oct 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry to link to a lib-dem site, but full stuff not up yet.


Point 4 is my favourite.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

Santino said:


> Point 4 is my favourite.


It's like the _ask a mason_ thread all over again.


----------



## Santino (Nov 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's like the _ask a mason_ thread all over again.


Every time I read it, it makes less sense. How does the 'acceptance' of their opponents change anything? Are they just not going to bother campaigning?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 2, 2013)

> [Yesterday's] Populus and YouGov polls from yesterday had a four point lead from YouGov :–
> *
> CON 35%, LAB 39%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 10%* (tabs)
> 
> ...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's like the _ask a mason_ thread all over again.


Brilliant article that should encourage Libdems not to campaign too hard as it's almost in the bag


----------



## Delroy Booth (Nov 2, 2013)

Some more polls:

Observer/Opinium CON 35% LAB 39% LDEM 7% UKIP 16%

Yougov/Sunday Times CON 32% LAB 41% LDEM 8% UKIP 12%

And this, from Class trade union think tank, some polling which confirms that public ownership of utilities is still overwhelmingly supported by the British public. Will have a more detailed look at the details tomorrow.

Liberal Democrats are absolutely fucked. Labour vote still holding up fine, and most of the variation in the poll lead is down to varying levels or Tory/UKIP support.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, look at this academic madness.





> Oxford political scientist, Dr. Stephen Fisher, produced what appeared to be a startling new forecast for GE2015 that gave the Conservatives a 57% chance of winning an overall majority.






> Last night the ex-Cambridge mathematician, Martin Baxter of Electoral Calculus fame, issued his latest monthly forecast based on a polling average applied to his well known and widely used Commons seat model. This pointed to Labour having an 81% of securing an overall majority.



Little bit more here.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2013)

4th 40% YG polling for labour in  row: 

Lab 40%
Con 33%
UKP 12%
LD 9%


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 10, 2013)

18-24/   25-39 /   40-59 /   60

Con  27		31		32	  37
Lab  42		42		44	  32

Latest Youguv poll. Only the over 60s still voting more for the tories.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 10, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> 18-24/   25-39 /   40-59 /   60
> 
> Con  27		31		32	  37
> Lab  42		42		44	  32
> ...



The latest cross-breaks (from today's ST) show some interesting, (& fairly consistent of late), patterns:-








Only 78% of 2010 tories still intending to vote for the scum, and a full 14% of the drifters going to UKIP.

The tories (weak) 34% is actually being held up by voting intentions in the 18 -24 cohort; the group least likely to vote.

The LDs are again shown holding onto only about a third of thie 2010 vote, (36%), with an equal % stating their intent to support Lab.


----------



## where to (Nov 10, 2013)

48% of 18-24 yr olds (who will vote) will be voting Tory or UKIP??  that's a surprising one to say the least.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2013)

They've got the lab/tory stuff the wrong way round there.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 10, 2013)

where to said:


> 48% of 18-24 yr olds (who will vote) will be voting Tory or UKIP??  that's a surprising one to say the least.



Why are you surprised? They've seen the disaster that was the last Labour government, but aren't old enough to have good memories of the disaster of the Major years.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Why are you surprised? They've seen the disaster that was the last Labour government, but aren't old enough to have good memories of the disaster of the Major years.


Because it's a mistake - they've taken the labour 18-24 vote for the tory one there and vice-versa. The usual tory polling for this age group in the mid-20s/low 30s at best (even been as low as 17% recently) and the labour one in the mid 40s. Use your loaf.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 10, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Why are you surprised? They've seen the disaster that was the last Labour government, but aren't old enough to have good memories of the disaster of the Major years.



What about the disaster of the Coalition years? £30,000 university fees, cutting of EMA, massive youth unemployment. And still you think 48% will be voting Tory?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Why are you surprised? They've seen the disaster that was the last Labour government, but aren't old enough to have good memories of the disaster of the Major years.


This would explain the consistent - sometimes huge - labour lead in this group then would it?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 10, 2013)

If you're over 60 and thinking of voting UKIP, you're an old fool.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 10, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> What about the disaster of the Coalition years?



They're blaming it on Labour.



> And still you think 48% will be voting Tory?



I doubt it. I hope not, but I will respect their decision to do so. They have the right to be wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2013)

Quartz said:


> They're blaming it on Labour.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it. I hope not, but I will respect their decision to do so. They have the right to be wrong.


Can someone ask Quartz why the polls consistently show labour leads in this age group - sometimes huge leads.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 10, 2013)

Quartz said:


> They're blaming it on Labour.



You're saying that young voters blame Labour for the actions of the coalition government and will vote tory to punish Labour for the actions of the coalition. That makes sense.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 10, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> You're saying that young voters blame Labour for the actions of the coalition government and will vote tory to punish Labour for the actions of the coalition. That makes sense.



I don't understand it either.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2013)

Quartz said:


> I don't understand it either.


That's because a) your post makes no sense and b) the thing that you say is happening _is not happening_. 18-24 year olds are not supporting the tories. Labour have a comfortable lead in this age group and have done so since the election. The 44% tory figure in todays YG poll is a mistake - this is the labour figure. As the briefest perusal of the actual tables (pdf) shows.


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 11, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> If you're over 60 and thinking of voting UKIP, you're an old fool.


I am in that group and i will certainly not vote ukip  or tory


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2013)

Couple today:

Populus
Lab 39 (=)
Cons 31 (-1)
LD 11 (-1)
UKIP 10 (+1)
Oth 7 (-1)

Guardian/ICM
Lab 38 (nc)
CON 30 (-4)
LD 13 (+1) UK
UKP 10 (+2)
Others 10 (+2)

Haven't seen today's YG yet.

edit: Further confirmation of yesterdays YG 18-24 tory/labour vote mix-up, the Populus poll has tory support in this age group at 11%.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> edit: Further confirmation of yesterdays YG 18-24 tory/labour vote mix-up, the Populus poll has tory support in this age group at 11%.



that's way off YG's 34%, though. 

Basically "32,39,10 & 10" look pretty stable now.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Nov 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> ..... the Populus poll has tory support in this age group at 11%.



They're in such big trouble in the long term, aren't they?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2013)

brogdale said:


> that's way off YG's 34%, though.
> 
> Basically "32,39,10 & 10" look pretty stable now.


This is down to the reallocation of DK's and WNVs (or some technical thing) in that particular poll i suspect - what it does show is a stable 18-24 tory support around the low 10s - no sudden lurch to tory support - when they do that technical thing. When they don't (i.e with weighted turnout) the tories score around 30% in that age group (labour around 50%).


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> They're in such big trouble in the long term, aren't they?


They're in even similar or worse bother with the two age groups directly above this one - serious long term decline is a cumin in.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 11, 2013)

The LD's flat-lining around the 10% shows that Clegg's coalition with the tories has, at least, achieved the final demise of the earlier (1988) one that brought his miserable party into existance. He's taken the liberals right back to the levels of support they had throughout most of the mid 20thC.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 12, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> They're in such big trouble in the long term, aren't they?


 
Old people are living longer, and it's said that people get more right-wing as they get older.  Plus I'm not convinced that the younger generation are really on board with the whole common good thing, there's a lot of consumerist me me me shit going on (not that Labour are really sold on 'common good' anymore either tbh).

I look forward to getting old and looking down on political leaders younger than myself (Osborne already is) and thinking what the fuck are these _children_ doing running things?  Sooner or later we'll get a Prime Minister that takes selfies all the time and shit like that to create the illusion that they're some kind of normal human.  Unless we hang PR people in the streets this stuff is going to happen.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2013)

Bit of reverse polling from YG:


----------



## where to (Nov 14, 2013)

the high lib dem figure perhaps the most interesting finding there. the hatred is deep.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2013)

where to said:


> the high lib dem figure perhaps the most interesting finding there. the hatred is deep.


Yes, and a real turn around from prior to 2010 where they were seen as the one you might not want to vote for but would do it to fuck up labour or tory.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2013)

Pretty clear where we are now surely?

TNS-BMRB
LAB 38% (+2)
CON 30% (-4)
UKIP 12% (-1)
OTHER 11% (+2)
LD 8% (-1)


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> They're in such big trouble in the long term, aren't they?



It's a milder but definite version of what is happening to The Republicans, the geography and demographics are slowly getting narrower.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 15, 2013)

From another angle:



> Four in 10 people are "alienated" from Britain's political parties and say they will not consider voting for any of them, according to new research.


 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...in-ten-voters-reject-all-parties-8940389.html


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2013)

Not one, not two, not even three, but four polls today (oh hang on, i mentioned one yesterday, so make that three):

*Populus (twice weekly)*
LAB 40%
CON 31%
LDEM 11%
UKIP 10%

*Ipsos MORI (monthly)*
LAB 38%(+3)
CON 32%(-3)
UKIP 8%(-2)
LDEM 8%(-1),

* TNS-BRMB *
LAB 38%(+2)
CON 30%(-4)
UKIP 12%(-1)
LDEM 8%(-1),* 

YG (daily)*
LAB 40%
CON 32%
UKIP 13%
LDEM 10%,

Bit of analysis here, but basically:



> Bringing it all together the Labour lead does appear to be creeping upwards again. While one shouldn’t get too excited by the big jumps in MORI and TNS (both are partially reversions to the mean after unusual polls last month), the gradual underlying trend does look as if Labour’s lead is moving back up to 7 or 8 points having narrowed earlier this year.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Nov 15, 2013)

Another good analysis on the decline of the Tory party in the North of England

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/21/why-northerners-dont-vote-tory/



> In the end, the Tories’ problem is not what they _do_; it’s what they _are_. Their trouble is their brand. They lost Scotland because they lost their reputation as a unionist party and came to be seen as an English party. They are losing the North because they are seen increasingly as a Southern party. This need not stop them winning a future election: there are enough constituencies in the Midlands and the South which, when added to the Tories’ isolated seats in the North, can give them a parliamentary majority. But few, even on the Conservative benches, would regard that as a wholly healthy prospect.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Nov 15, 2013)

Interesting that article talks about 'The North' drifting away from the rest of the country. Well in terms of population, outside the South East, 'The North' *is* the rest of the country (with an honourable mention to the West Midlands) - In fact - it's most of the country. It's where most of the people live.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 15, 2013)

King Biscuit Time said:


> It's where most of the people live.


 
is it?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> is it?



No, not really.

The combined population of the 3 'northern' regions, (NE,NW & Y&H), total about 15 million out of England's 2011 censal total of 53 million.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Nov 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> No, not really.
> 
> The combined population of the 3 'northern' regions, (NE,NW & Y&H), total about 15 million out of England's 2011 censal total of 53 million.



There's a sort of crude use of the term North I see sometimes which acts as shorthand for "everyone above an imaginary line which stretches from the Severn to the Wash" Which can include West Midlands, Wales, Scotland depending on who uses it and basically means "everyone outside the south-east and home counties" but geographically and politically of course it's utter rubbish. I also don't like it because it means that large chunks of the South-West, which suffer from much the same types of economic problems and marginalisation as the "North", then get overlooked or lumped in with the Tory shires.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> There's a sort of crude use of the term North I see sometimes which acts as shorthand for "everyone above an imaginary line which stretches from the Severn to the Wash" Which can include West Midlands, Wales, Scotland depending on who uses it and basically means "everyone outside the south-east and home counties" but geographically and politically of course it's utter rubbish. I also don't like it because it means that large chunks of the South-West, which suffer from much the same types of economic problems and marginalisation as the "North", then get overlooked or lumped in with the Tory shires.



Agreed.

I remember the time I took a Mackem workmate to a Gills/Sunderland play-off. As we made our way from the station to the Priestfield he was genuinely shocked that such deprivation was to be found in the prosperous SE. Mind you, that was back in the 1980's, not long after the dockyard had been shut.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 15, 2013)

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchp...itons-feel-no-benefit-of-economic-growth.aspx



> Labour have re-established their lead over the Conservatives in terms of voting intentions, having been level in October.  Labour now hold a 6 point lead, on 38% to the Conservatives’ 32%; these shares are in line with the two parties’ average for 2013. UKIP, meanwhile, are now on their lowest level this year on 8%, tied with the Lib Dems (8%). *The Green Party are now just one point behind these two on 7%.*


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> There's a sort of crude use of the term North I see sometimes which acts as shorthand for "everyone above an imaginary line which stretches from the Severn to the Wash" Which can include West Midlands, Wales, Scotland depending on who uses it and basically means "everyone outside the south-east and home counties" but geographically and politically of course it's utter rubbish. I also don't like it because it means that large chunks of the South-West, which suffer from much the same types of economic problems and marginalisation as the "North", then get overlooked or lumped in with the Tory shires.


 
So the North now includes the South West?

A North that expands beyond the 3 northerly euro-regions to include the South West and maybe Gillingham is more imaginary than one that is geographically limited to the North of England. Derbyshire or at least its northerly half is the only extra bit I would add to what we call the North.


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 16, 2013)

I imagine the home counties like herts,surrey,sussex etc is not the north by that definition


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 16, 2013)

My mate from t'top o' Dodworth bottom, (Barnsley, tha knows). Says anywhere below Birdwell roundabout is officially  down south!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 16, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> I imagine the home counties like herts,surrey,sussex etc is not the north by that definition


 
I imagine it's not the North by any definition.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 16, 2013)

When I grew up in Bristol it was somewhere just north of Gloucester where people started talking funny. That was as good a definition as anything else.

I can remember the chants at Ashton Gate of 'we've got jobs, we've got jobs, you ain't' directed at northern teams.  In some ways London is more fucked these days for anyone on a moderate wage or below because you're never getting a stake in anything and are going to get 'socially cleansed' sooner or later.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2013)

Setting aside mental mapping for a while...here's tonight's ComeRes and Opinium polls:-



> The fortnightly Opinium poll for the Observer and the monthly online ComRes poll for the Indy on Sunday and Sunday Mirror are both out tonight and both are in line with the general trend we’ve seen of increased Labour leads.
> 
> Opinium in the Observer have voting intentions of:-
> 
> ...


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Nov 16, 2013)

Apologies for purely anecdotal evidence, please correct me if i'm wrong.  But, among those I speak to there is a distinct whiff of intention to vote Labour as "not as bad as the Tories", even though we all know they're a bit shit.  Without a viable left alternative, that's all they've got.

With an admittedly naive nod towards Brewster's Millions, is there not a case for a campaign based on a "none of the above" kind of tack?  I can't be the only one noticing a general apathy towards mainstream politics.  Instead of offering the left alternative within the current system, which the TUSC have demonstrated is a very minority vote in the usual low turnout, why not try and get a high turnout with a low number of votes cast?  Demonstrate that the system is not working?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2013)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Apologies for purely anecdotal evidence, please correct me if i'm wrong.  But, among those I speak to there is a distinct whiff of intention to vote Labour as "not as bad as the Tories", even though we all know they're a bit shit.  Without a viable left alternative, that's all they've got.
> 
> With an admittedly naive nod towards Brewster's Millions, is there not a case for a campaign based on a "none of the above" kind of tack?  I can't be the only one noticing a general apathy towards mainstream politics.  Instead of offering the left alternative within the current system, which the TUSC have demonstrated is a very minority vote in the usual low turnout, why not try and get a high turnout with a low number of votes cast?  Demonstrate that the system is not working?


 I'm instinctively in favour of the electorate having the right to actively withhold consent via the NOTA ballot option, but you have to ask yourself what exactly you hope to achieve by this act. What outcome would you want if NOTA gained the plurality? Would you be after a reformed parliamentary system or the overthrow of the 'democratic' system of representation altogether?


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Setting aside mental mapping for a while...here's tonight's ComeRes and Opinium pol





brogdale said:


> Setting aside mental mapping for a while...here's tonight's ComeRes and Opinium polls:-


The tory share is very low


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Nov 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I'm instinctively in favour of the electorate having the right to actively withhold consent via the NOTA ballot option, but you have to ask yourself what exactly you hope to achieve by this act. What outcome would you want if NOTA gained the plurality? Would you be after a reformed parliamentary system or the overthrow of the 'democratic' system of representation altogether?



Honestly, I hadn't thought that far ahead.  Just idly musing.  A kick up the arse for the political system is what i'd really be after.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I'm instinctively in favour of the electorate having the right to actively withhold consent via the NOTA ballot option, but you have to ask yourself what exactly you hope to achieve by this act. What outcome would you want if NOTA gained the plurality? Would you be after a reformed parliamentary system or the overthrow of the 'democratic' system of representation altogether?


a rerun election in which none of the previous candidates would be allowed to stand.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2013)

free spirit said:


> a rerun election in which none of the previous candidates would be allowed to stand.


 
would that really make any difference?
wouldn't the same old parties stand other candidates?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2013)

Yep it would. Unless we start getting into some serious restrictions on what democracy we currently have.

And who is going to oversee the reforms of the political system (let's assume it's possible for now) other than the people who currently run it and are elected under it?


----------



## free spirit (Nov 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> would that really make any difference?
> wouldn't the same old parties stand other candidates?


yes, but in a safe seat it could be a different way of getting a particularly bad sitting MP kicked out.

or if all the choices really were that bad, it'd embarrass the fuck out of the local parties, and at least one of them might actually manage to find a decent candidate to put up in response.

I'd also support the right to recall an MP if x % of registered voters signed a petition against them.

Not that any of this would entirely fix the electoral system, but I reckon it'd make it slightly less shit.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> What outcome would you want if NOTA gained the plurality?


at least Brewster would win his millions


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 16, 2013)

A box at the end of every ballot box saying "none of the above"

And if "none of the above" gets the most votes, then none of the above is elected, and a new election must be held with new candidates.

Without that basic requirement, it isn't really democratic at all.

ETA: Already been said.  Damn straight, though.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A box at the end of every ballot box saying "none of the above"
> 
> And if "none of the above" gets the most votes, then none of the above is elected, and a new election must be held with new candidates.



Or...how about the people have their will and no-one is elected to represent them? Why keep repeating a sham of political democracy that the electorate have withdrawn their consent from?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Or...how about the people have their will and no-one is elected to represent them? Why keep repeating a sham of political democracy that the electorate have withdrawn their consent from?


ok, but that requires a considerable reordering of things. There is a point to elected representatives - a sensible point: they think about and vote on stuff that other people don't have the time to think about, and are delegated to do so by other people. Legislators in a set-up such as that which we have need time to deliberate and make good decisions, and they need to be empowered to a certain extent to make those decisions, for which they are then held accountable by everyone else. 

Personally, I think a parliament chosen by lot is a good idea. At the very least, if you're going to have a bicameral system - and I can see how bicameral systems can mitigate against tyranny in that each chamber moderates the powers of the other – the 'upper' chamber, the supervisory chamber, really should be chosen by lot.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ok, but that requires a considerable reordering of things. There is a point to elected representatives - a sensible point: they think about and vote on stuff that other people don't have the time to think about, and are delegated to do so by other people. Legislators in a set-up such as that which we have need time to deliberate and make good decisions, and they need to be empowered to a certain extent to make those decisions, for which they are then held accountable by everyone else.



Yeah, obviously there are arguments put forward for rep. dem. but if the majority of the electorate in a district/constituency withdrew thier consent to be represented, then that would be their settled will? If the NOTA option was to have any meaningful effect then the consequences of its success should be radical.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2013)

Back OT...

Here's today's YouGov/ST poll...



> The weekly YouGov/Sunday Times poll is up online here. Topline figures are:-
> 
> *CON 33%, LAB 39%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 12%.*
> 
> ...



Polls stable atm.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2013)

Another Populus one this morning:


Lab 41 (+1)
Cons 32 (+1)
 LD 10 (-1)
UKIP 9 (-1)
 Oth 8

We have all the polls aligned pretty much. Labour lead big enough to win large majority in a general election.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 18, 2013)

Everytime I see these popularity polls, the leader is always in minus figures. Do they ever get into positive figures, or is zero seen as an amazing result?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> Everytime I see these popularity polls, the leader is always in minus figures. Do they ever get into positive figures, or is zero seen as an amazing result?


It's pretty irrelevant nowadays - which is odd as there has been a shift in strategic planning onto focusing on the party leader.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's pretty irrelevant nowadays - which is odd as there has been a shift in strategic planning onto focusing on the party leader.



Well, yeah, it HAS to be irrelevant with everyone polling so badly, so consistantly. Do you know when the last time a leader was in positive numbers was? Just for curiosity sake.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> Well, yeah, it HAS to be irrelevant with everyone polling so badly, so consistantly. Do you know when the last time a leader was in positive numbers was? Just for curiosity sake.


I would hazard a guess at cameron immediately after the coalition was announced. Will check.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I would hazard a guess at cameron immediately after the coalition was announced. Will check.



Don't go out of your way, like! But cheers


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> Don't go out of your way, like! But cheers


Series of rather outdated party leader polls on the right here, scroll down a few clicks. Doesn't really map onto the approval one they do now though.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Series of rather outdated party leader polls on the right here, scroll down a few clicks. Doesn't really map onto the approval one they do now though.



So according to those polls, the minute you're in power your personal approval rating drops.* Browns went immediately from positive to the -30s. Camerons was +30 all the way up until they stop having data (before the election), and the same for Clegg.

*As you say, it's not exactly the same as the current one, but can any inferences be drawn from Milliband being in negative even while out of power? I guess not, unless there exists a current approval type one for Clegg/Cameron which shows the swing from +ve to -ve after getting into power.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2013)

I think it matters in terms of the way that you can be portrayed in the media (chicken an egg though) but given the nature of the voting system, that's it party based i don't think it actually comes into play unless you have a particularly hated/loved leader. I do remember saving a table about thatchers personal rating before each election, i'll try and find that but i fear it was on the laptop i had nicked.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 18, 2013)

But if Milliband is indeed the only leader who has negative approvals before coming into power, then he would be a particularly hated/disliked leader. And I do get the impression that he is universally disliked, tbf.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2013)

And that's why it doesn't really matter!


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 18, 2013)

What, because Labour are going to win despite that?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2013)

Yep. It's not an electoral hinderance. Not when people vote for parties primarily. It _can _be when you're _in power_ and your face can be tied to something like the poll tax. But not now, not for Miliband.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2013)

Meanwhile in fecking la-la LD land....Clegg @ this morning's press conference....



> 12.06pm GMT
> 
> _Q: Opinion polls show you consistently stuck in fourth place behind Ukip. Why is that? And when are you going to hit the panic button?_
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2013)

They really have nothing to sell now do they - they should be trying all sorts of mad shit right now, instead we get this centrist pap. They're not even going to go down fighting.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 18, 2013)

It seems like it's a long term trend anyway, so you're right butchers.







> True, all three men have suffered negative ratings for much of this Parliament. But things were not always like this. Today’s sustained, across-the-board contempt is historically unprecedented. It reflects not just the particular deficiencies of the three men but something deeper about the way British politics has evolved since the Second World War.



more: http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/09/16/voters-turn-against-pygmy-politics/


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> It seems like it's a long term trend anyway, so you're right butchers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just wait for that red line to soar.......



Spoiler



http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/.../ed-miliband-mini-mullet-haircut-itv-daybreak









Should be in the Gaurdian/shit thread as well really...


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Just wait for that red line to soar.......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Liked one of the comments on that: the only cut Ed is opposing is a haircut


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2013)

Today's latest polls....



> This morning’s YouGov poll for the S[_c]_unm had topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 32%, LAB 39%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 12%.*
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 24, 2013)

YouGov's weekly ST numbers...



> The weekly YouGov results for the Sunday Times are now up online here. Topline voting intention figures are:-
> 
> *CON 33%, LAB 40%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 11%.*
> 
> http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8456


http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8456

Anthony also refers to the latest Scottish Independence referendum polling....are we getting close to the point where such polling/analysis deserves its own thread?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 24, 2013)

brogdale said:


> YouGov's weekly ST numbers...
> 
> 
> Anthony also refers to the latest Scottish Independence referendum polling....are we getting close to the point where such polling/analysis deserves its own thread?



Nah keep it in here until there needs to be a specific referendum thread probably early next year


----------



## brogdale (Nov 25, 2013)

> The monthly ComRes telephone poll for the Independent is out tonight and has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 32%(+4), LAB 37%(+1), LDEM 9%(-2), UKIP 11%(-1).*
> 
> ...



Political betting pick up on the ComRes question relating to Nick Boles' warning about the electorate rumbling that the vermin are party of the rich...



> In other questions a majority of those polled said they believed that the Conservative Party only represents the interests of the rich.
> 
> This comes comes after Nick Boles, the Planning Minister and an ally of David Cameron, warned last week that_ “the single biggest problem the Conservative Party faces is being seen as the party of the rich.” _ *Some 51% agree with the statement that “the Conservative Party only represents the interests of the rich,” while 42% disagreed.*
> 
> *This perception is shared by 18% of those who voted Tory in 2010 agree as do 10% of current CON supporters*. Women (54%) are more likely to agree than men (47%).


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2013)

Interesting start to a series of UKIP centred  polls - and remember this is only labours 115th target seat. (This is Thanet South) Combine this UKIP rise with lib-dem-->labour elsewhere and the tories are dead in the water.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting start to a series of UKIP centred  polls - and remember this is only labours 115th target seat. (This is Thanet South) Combine this UKIP rise with lib-dem-->labour elsewhere and the tories are dead in the water.
> 
> View attachment 43999



Yep, pretty stunning polling there, but planet Fanet really does represent almost perfect territory for UKIP. The conjuction of a base of elderly, formerly tory, white working class, social deprivation, high rates of migrant housing (inc.Roma), low levels of educational attainment and a proximity to the ports all work well for the 'kippers. Added to which Falange is a (relatively) local lad, being born just 10 miles up the fanet way at Herne. 

I think I read somewhere that he may well be tempted to stand in a fanet seat, but then we've heard that before, haven't we.


----------



## where to (Nov 28, 2013)

if Farage picks the right seat and runs a media savvy campaign (and we know he will) i think he can get elected.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 28, 2013)

where to said:


> if Farage picks the right seat and runs a media savvy campaign (and we know he will) i think he can get elected.



Indeed while it is highly unlikely to happen he could pull off a Lucas so to speak.


----------



## where to (Nov 28, 2013)

not looking even unlikely imo - look at that poll above, he's in touching distance. a high profile campaign (all Ukip's chunk of the media share will be on one candidate and one seat) against a no-hoper and i think he'll walk it. cant see them dropping back in polls between now and then either.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2013)

And another good local election night for them yesterday - series of high 20s and a 30%+


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2013)

Some hilarious right wing interview/polling stuff.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 2, 2013)

To file under "Make Of It What You Will", UKIP voters less likely to vote Tory to keep Labour out than Labour voters are to vote LD to keep Tories out.


http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...for-the-lds-to-win-lab-ones/#vanilla-comments


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 2, 2013)

Mattinson and Tyndall are grown-up and competent researchers and that was an interesting analysis of a set of focus groups. Very useful to the intended audience. Where was the hilarity?


----------



## where to (Dec 3, 2013)

polling from two more top Tory target seats - and they're nowhere. 
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/03/tories-behind-labour-level-with-ukip-key-marginals


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

Lesson here for the UKIP thread:



> The polling suggests that 70% of the Ukip vote is not coming from Conservative voters in the 2010 election.


----------



## Favelado (Dec 3, 2013)

2015 election will be a psephologist's dream, if not the electorate's.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 4, 2013)

where to said:


> polling from two more top Tory target seats - and they're nowhere.
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/03/tories-behind-labour-level-with-ukip-key-marginals


Note, not a single one of the lib-dem voters from 2010 in Dudley North (they got around 4000 votes/10.5%) said in this poll that they intend to vote lib-dem this time around - not one. The poll is relatively small - 526 people, but 10% of that is still 50 people. And not one are now lib-dem as things stand today. They are all labour or DKs.

(Spotted by Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB)

edit: how annoying, on checking the tables, it seems there were only 11 2010 lib-dem voters in the sample.


----------



## where to (Dec 4, 2013)

still an amazing stat.


----------



## Quartz (Dec 4, 2013)

Favelado said:


> 2015 election will be a psephologist's dream, if not the electorate's.



The one to look at will be next year's EU elections. 



where to said:


> not looking even unlikely imo - look at that poll above, he's in touching distance. a high profile campaign (all Ukip's chunk of the media share will be on one candidate and one seat) against a no-hoper and i think he'll walk it. cant see them dropping back in polls between now and then either.



Could he defeat the Speaker? AFAIAA he's not held in very high regard around the country, but I don't know about within his constituency.


----------



## where to (Dec 4, 2013)

he contested Bercow's seat in 2010. got a bloody nose.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 4, 2013)

Quartz said:


> The one to look at will be next year's EU elections.
> 
> 
> 
> Could he defeat the Speaker? AFAIAA he's not held in very high regard around the country, but I don't know about within his constituency.



Is there no limit to what you don't know?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2013)

Huge 12% labour lead with yg today, 41/29. Work done before the autumn statement, but early polling on that indicates balls in winning there too.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2013)

Sunday's....



> There were three voting intention polls in this morning’s papers, topline figures are below:
> 
> Opinium/Observer*		 :*- *CON 30%(+2), LAB 37%(+2), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 16%(-3)*
> 
> ...



Tories still polling around and about 'core' support level.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2013)

4 more of these Brown funded UKIP/marginal polls to be published tonight.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2013)

Here we go.

Tories in serious trouble.



> *Folkestone & Hythe*, previously considered a safe Conservative seat with a 19 point lead over the Liberal Democrats at the last election, now shows a significant drop in the vote shares for both coalition partners, with Labour and particularly UKIP as the main beneficiaries.











> *Bognor Regis & Littlehampton* has traditionally been an even more secure seat for the Conservatives, with a 27 point majority in 2010. Whilst the swings shown here are not quite as large as those seen in Folkestone & Hythe, they still show a significant drop in Conservative and Liberal Democrats support here and a large boost for UKIP who have nearly quadrupled their already significant vote share of 7% in 2010.










> *Great Yarmouth* has been a key swing seat since the 1980s, which the Conservatives regained from Labour in 2010. Our polling shows that not only is Labour forecast to regain this seat in 2015, but the Conservatives are in danger of slipping from first to third place, behind UKIP who have surged from 5% to 30%









> If only to further illustrate the point that UKIP’s impact on the Conservative – Labour race is not as significant as many have claimed, one need only compare the results in Great Yarmouth above with the poll results in another key marginal seat,* Crewe & Nantwich.* The 2010 results here were remarkably similar to Great Yarmouth (only 7 points difference across all political parties), but by contrast this is a seat in which UKIP is performing significantly less well, on only 11 points. But the lower UKIP vote share does not seem to have helped the Conservatives at all – in fact the Conservative to Labour swing shown here is three points higher than in Great Yarmouth.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> 4 more of these Brown funded UKIP/marginal polls to be published tonight.


Whereabouts are they published?

This graphic, based upon polling, has been causing some sort of twatter stir apparently...






First 4 columns read like one of those make your own Mail headline things.

e2a : thanks butchers...you've answered my q


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Whereabouts are they published?
> 
> This graphic, based upon polling, has been causing some sort of twatter stir apparently...
> 
> ...


there's something I don't like about those graphics. they're basically saying 'look how stupid & racist you/they are' - actually, i'd probably have some up with similar numbers if asked with no prompting too.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2013)

Remarkable stuff in those marginals, and yes the tories are in trouble.


butchersapron said:


> Here we go.
> 
> Tories in serious trouble.



Yep, and significant evidence that neither UKIP's success or failure holds such electoral fears for Lab...







> We have now seen the publication of seven constituency polls. In five of these seven we included the question:
> 
> 
> _“Which of the following statements is closest to your opinion?”_
> ...









> In the most recent four polls (South Thanet, Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Crewe & Nantwich and Folkestone & Hythe), we also asked the question to UKIP voters:
> 
> _“Imagine for a moment that there was no UKIP candidate standing in your [Folkestone & Hythe] constituency. _
> 
> ...



Interesting stuff; they'll be shitting themselves at tory hq


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2013)

killer b said:


> there's something I don't like about those graphics. they're basically saying 'look how stupid & racist you/they are' - actually, i'd probably have some up with similar numbers if asked with no prompting too.



Maybe, but that begs the question about how it is that large numbers of the population are so mistaken.


----------



## Santino (Dec 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Maybe, but that begs the question about how it is that large numbers of the population are so mistaken.


People are incredibly bad at estimating quantities. Guesses can be thrown off by tiny, apparently unrelated facts about how the question is asked. For example, you can influence the value someone will give by generating a random number in front of them and asking them to think about how much higher or lower than that number their answer is.


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Maybe, but that begs the question about how it is that large numbers of the population are so mistaken.


well, they aren't mistaken are they? they're being asked to take a stab at a figure that most of them have no real idea what it actually is. so they'll mainly think 'well, it's less than 50%. dunno, about 30?' hence why it's hovering at around 30% for all of them.

I'm of the opinion they have no purpose except to make people who read the guardian feel a bit more _right_. but I bet they'd all guess at around 30% too.


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2013)

also what santino said.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 16, 2013)

That's not just Daily Mail headlines, it has to be raw stupidity to seriously think that nearly 1/4 of the entire population is Muslim. A person might live in an area where they see quite a few (apparent) muslims round the place, but what happened to the ability to consider that other significantly less mixed places exist in large amount? It's baffling.[/quote]


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2013)

my point, illustrated. _raw stupidity._


----------



## Santino (Dec 16, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> That's not just Daily Mail headlines, it has to be raw stupidity to seriously think that nearly 1/4 of the entire population is Muslim. A person might live in an area where they see quite a few (apparent) muslims round the place, but what happened to the ability to consider that other significantly less mixed places exist in large amount? It's baffling.


[/quote]
Most people atrocious at dealing with large numbers.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Interesting stuff; they'll be shitting themselves at tory hq



For sure. They're fucked at least 2 ways. First, in that no (major) governing party I recall has won more seats after 1 term than it did to get in. Second, they'll be caught between tacking right to UKIP with increasingly ugly politics and the fact that such politics alienates the relative centre where elections are said to be won, and marginals certainly are.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2013)

Santino said:


> People are incredibly bad at estimating quantities. Guesses can be thrown off by tiny, apparently unrelated facts about how the question is asked. For example, you can influence the value someone will give by generating a random number in front of them and asking them to think about how much higher or lower than that number their answer is.



Yes. I'm not sure what methodology lies behind the Ipsos polling, but I think that I read on Political betting that multiple choice options were involved, so that could potentially produce such an effect.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 16, 2013)

killer b said:


> well, they aren't mistaken are they? they're being asked to take a stab at a figure that most of them have no real idea what it actually is. so they'll mainly think 'well, it's less than 50%. dunno, about 30?' hence why it's hovering at around 30% for all of them.
> 
> I'm of the opinion they have no purpose except to make people who read the guardian feel a bit more _right_. but I bet they'd all guess at around 30% too.




What if they just knew the answer as a matter of general knowledge? It's not advanced or secret knowledge.


----------



## Santino (Dec 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yes. I'm not sure what methodology lies behind the Ipsos polling, but I think that I read on Political betting that multiple choice options were involved, so that could potentially produce such an effect.


I would hazard a guess that asking 'how many people in a hundred' would also produced a different result from asking 'what percentage', simply because the word 'hundred' acts as an anchor.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2013)

killer b said:


> well, they aren't mistaken are they? they're being asked to take a stab at a figure that most of them have no real idea what it actually is. so they'll mainly think 'well, it's less than 50%. dunno, about 30?' hence why it's hovering at around 30% for all of them.
> 
> I'm of the opinion they have no purpose except to make people who read the guardian feel a bit more _right_. but I bet they'd all guess at around 30% too.



Well....they are mistaken in their estimations. Certainly for the first 5 columns; for the last one I would suggest that the Ipsos polling might be nearer the mark than the 'reality' figure.


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> What if they just knew the answer as a matter of general knowledge? It's not advanced or secret knowledge.


so what? most people don't memorise this shit, so it'll just be a vague stab. hence 30%.


----------



## Santino (Dec 16, 2013)

Or (b)


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 16, 2013)

Yeah I would like to have a look at how they asked that question. All that graph shows to me for is that when questioned to give precise numbers for demographics people will fudge it by playing it safe, which then averages out at "20-something" for nearly everything. 

You don't need statistical evidence as flimsy as that to show how the media influence people's perceptions


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Well....they are mistaken in their estimations. Certainly for the first 5 columns; for the last one I would suggest that the Ipsos polling might be nearer the mark than the 'reality' figure.


of course they're mistaken. I don't think there's necessarily any sinister reason for them being mistaken though. it's just how people deal with figures, rather than us all being racists.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 16, 2013)

killer b said:


> so what? most people don't memorise this shit, so it'll just be a vague stab. hence 30%.



Ok, so they take a vague stab that nearly a third of people in the place are muslim? Come off it, that's pretty fucking weird.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 16, 2013)

killer b said:


> of course they're mistaken. I don't think there's necessarily any sinister reason for them being mistaken though. it's just how people deal with figures, rather than us all being racists.



I don't think it has to be about race. But it can be about being wantonly misinformed via right wing and establishment media, which is sinister at the media level, if not the consumer level.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2013)

Your language gives you away taffers. Wanton ffs.  Out of a hundred how many people do you hate?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2013)

killer b said:


> of course they're mistaken. I don't think there's necessarily any sinister reason for them being mistaken though. it's just how people deal with figures, rather than us all being racists.



It's not inherently racist to mistakenly over-estimate population percentages of black/asian or muslim, is it? But such perceptions are worth exploring, aren't they?


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2013)

raw stupidity, wantonly misinformed. to hell in a handcart eh taffboy?


----------



## Santino (Dec 16, 2013)

I'm guessing around 30ish.


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> It's not inherently racist to mistakenly over-estimate population percentages of black/asian or muslim, is it? But such perceptions come are worth exploring, aren't they?


I don't think this is much to do with perceptions though, as I've said. I think it's to do with how our brains deal with unknown or half remembered statistics.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> It's not inherently racist to mistakenly over-estimate population percentages of black/asian or muslim, is it? But such perceptions are worth exploring, aren't they?


a hell of a lot of it depends on whee the poll was conducted. There are still large areas of the country that are overwhelmingly white, but in other areas those figures would be a pretty reasonable estimate, so if people base it on their experience rather than either knowing the actual figure, or taking time to really consider the wider picture, then it's fairly understandable.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 16, 2013)

I remember ages ago reading a study which said that people basically always over estimate the number of non white people, especially in areas with significant non white populations; it would be good to see that study again if anyone else recalls it.

(obv not saying people are racist or owt - I think it also said that non white people themselves underestimate their numbers)


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2013)

killer b said:


> I don't think this is much to do with perceptions though, as I've said. I think it's to do with how our brains deal with unknown or half remembered statistics.



Bit of both I expect.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2013)

free spirit said:


> a hell of a lot of it depends on whee the poll was conducted. There are still large areas of the country that are overwhelmingly white, but in other areas those figures would be a pretty reasonable estimate, so if people base it on their experience rather than either knowing the actual figure, or taking time to really consider the wider picture, then it's fairly understandable.



But assuming that the polling was undertaken on the same sample basis as other national Ipsos MORI work, there are relatively few areas of the country with black/asian or muslim demographics >25%, so for the vast majority of respondents their estimated figures would not be pretty reasonable if based on their own experience.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> But assuming that the polling was undertaken on the same sample basis as other national Ipsos MORI work, there are relatively few areas of the country with black/asian or muslim demographics >25%, so for the vast majority of respondents their estimated figures would not be pretty reasonable if based on their own experience.


took me a while, but I've found the survey and methodology. It was conducted online, which I'd expect would introduce a reasonably significant level of bias towards those who're online the most, and away from those with poor internet access - eg much of the more remote countryside.

But yes, point taken, this is probably a relatively minor factor - actually they ask this very question in the survey.



> Q13 According to the last Census in 2011, the percentage of the UK population
> that was born in another country is actually 13%. Why do you think the
> percentage is much higher?
> Base: All who thought the percentage of immigrants in the UK was 26% or higher
> ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 16, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> That's not just Daily Mail headlines, it has to be raw stupidity to seriously think that nearly 1/4 of the entire population is Muslim. A person might live in an area where they see quite a few (apparent) muslims round the place, but what happened to the ability to consider that other significantly less mixed places exist in large amount? It's baffling.


[/quote]

You're not reading those figures properly. How can people think more than a third of the population is over 65? Or that nearly a quarter are unemployed? 

As others have said, it's not 'raw stupidity' at work here. It is ignorance of the real numbers combined in many cases no doubt with an imprecise idea of numbers in certain contexts that leads to really bad guesses. There are certain simple probability questions to do with rolling dice that a lot of people get wrong. That's all I read into these figures - there are lots of people who are crap with figures out there. To be lamented, no doubt, but not quite what you're saying it is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 16, 2013)

More interesting about that report is that on average people think the national situation is far worse than the local situation wrt a whole raft of social problems. 

That's Q3/4. It's a consistent and strong pattern.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Your language gives you away taffers. Wanton ffs.  Out of a hundred how many people do you hate?



1 at most, and I'd try not to hate them. I've something of a Buddhist approach to the subject. Sorry I said "wanton", if It was upsetting for you. What a sensitive chap you are.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 17, 2013)

free spirit said:


> took me a while, but I've found the survey and methodology. It was conducted online, which I'd expect would introduce a reasonably significant level of bias towards those who're online the most, and away from those with poor internet access - eg much of the more remote countryside.
> 
> But yes, point taken, this is probably a relatively minor factor - actually they ask this very question in the survey.



That's interesting, but the far and away top answer could well be based on "backs up my narrative and covers up for me being misinformed"

Nice to see that 23% were just guessing.

A third directly attribute it to TV and newspapers, which is informative. Ta for the info and digging.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 17, 2013)

... _*it's not 'raw stupidity' at work here*_. It is ignorance of the real numbers combined in many cases no doubt with an imprecise idea of numbers in certain contexts that leads to really bad guesses. There are certain simple probability questions to do with rolling dice that a lot of people get wrong. That's all I read into these figures - there are lots of people who are crap with figures out there. To be lamented, no doubt, but not quite what you're saying it is.[/quote]

Thanks to free spirit's digging....the repsonses to Q13 tend to suggest that you're right that it's not just raw stupidity accounting for the over-estimations:-


> Q13 According to the last Census in 2011, the percentage of the UK population
> that was born in another country is actually 13%. Why do you think the
> percentage is much higher?
> Base: All who thought the percentage of immigrants in the UK was 26% or higher
> ...



When offered the actual censal data about half of those over-estimating still stuck to their answer; that sounds more like prejudice than ignorance.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

Going back and looking at the table here - those response actually match up fairly well with the area in live in - far more so than the real national figures.

edit: and say you drove through this area to work everyday but you lived in an area with figures closer to the national figures what experience are you relying on for your reply? Are you trying to make an informed estimate by taking into account the different circumstances that you you know others live in or are you just going to rely on where you live? The first case, the 'bigoted' one, the one of overestimation of various things is surely in reality the less bigoted one? Or the better one?

And on top of that, its very revealing that overestimation of unemployed/muslim etc number is then associated in the minds of some people looking at the figures as meaning dislike of those categories - with nothing whatsoever to back that up from the results. Why does overestimation of the number of unemployed mean support for attacks on them? Why does overestimation of the number of muslims mean racism? I wonder, would the figure being underestimated then translate into a view that the people doing the underestimating are lovely non-racist right on types? Or would that just be seen as the way that these sort of exercises can get things wrong?


----------



## kabbes (Dec 17, 2013)

Santino said:


> I would hazard a guess that asking 'how many people in a hundred' would also produced a different result from asking 'what percentage', simply because the word 'hundred' acts as an anchor.


Absolutely.

But another major influence is the "What You See Is All There Is" fallacy, as you know from reading the same book as me.  Things we get shown loom large in our minds.  So as well as the anchoring effect, and as well as the fact that people deal poorly with statistic (also true, and as remarked upon by a number of others in the thread), we also have the fact that the media feeds us consistently strong panic messages about race/culture, benefits and single mothers.  The figures being as high as they are are a reflection of those messages too.  

That's what the last statistic is illustrating, as an example.  Why do people not think, "A majority in the country self-identify as Christian", and put about 60% or 70%, which would be in the complement of , "A minority are Muslim, hence 30%"?  It's because of the WYSIATI factor created by the media messaging.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 17, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> But another major influence is the "What You See Is All There Is" fallacy, as you know from reading the same book as me.  Things we get shown loom large in our minds.  So as well as the anchoring effect, and as well as the fact that people deal poorly with statistic (also true, and as remarked upon by a number of others in the thread), we also have the fact that the media feeds us consistently strong panic messages about race/culture, benefits and single mothers.  The figures being as high as they are are a reflection of those messages too.  That's what the last statistic is illustrating, for example.



Agreed, but not all of the factors you list account for the fact that 50% of the over-estimators refused to accept the objective censal data.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 17, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Agreed, but not all of the factors you list account for the fact that 50% of the over-estimators refused to accept the objective censal data.


Their answers are pure WYSIATI, actually.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 17, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Their answers are pure WYSIATI, actually.



That can't be statistically correct; 50% of the population do not live in areas with those demographics. If WYSIATI includes what the media project...then maybe?


----------



## kabbes (Dec 17, 2013)

brogdale said:


> That can't be statistically correct; 50% of the population do not live in areas with those demographics. If WYSIATI includes what the media project...then maybe?


Yeah, I am using "What You See" to very much include the messages that get pushed at us on a daily basis.  Not just by newspapers either, the telly is just as bad.


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 17, 2013)

Why was the word "wanton" jumped upon? I wasn't aware of any negative connotations surrounding it. I searched to see what I might be missing, and saw that it also means promiscuous when used about a women. It clearly wasn't meant in that way when taffboy used it, though.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> Why was the word "wanton" jumped upon? I wasn't aware of any negative connotations surrounding it. I searched to see what I might be missing, and saw that it also means promiscuous when used about a women. It clearly wasn't meant in that way when taffboy used it, though.


Are you not aware of taffboys hatred of the general population - esp the w/c part of it? The part he thinks deserve all they get because they all believe that there's too many muslims  or whatever - that essentially their problems are of their own making.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

Thought i might just put this here as it's a small story and one related to polling-ish but not worthy of a thread on its own. Zac Goldsmith has said he will resign and force a by-election if a third heathrow runway is adopted. The final recommendations of the Airports Commission (i.e not even the decision) is due summer 2015. Date of next general election: spring 2015. He's in a marginal. That said, it's a marginal with the lib-dems so i think he may be worrying unduly. He's effectively negating their opposition. Canny cynical politics at its best.


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Are you not aware of taffboys hatred of the general population - esp the w/c part of it? The part he thinks deserve all they get because they all believe that there's too many muslims  or whatever - that essentially their problems are of their own making.



He was criticising the media there, not the general population. The misinforming was being done to the people, by the media, and it was wanton. He might hate the working class and have indicated it in the past, but I think he's right here and there was nothing dodgy about what he said.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2013)

he has got form for that shit tho


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> He was criticising the media there, not the general population. The misinforming was being done to the people, by the media, and it was wanton. He might hate the working class and have indicated it in the past, but I think he's right here and there was nothing dodgy about what he said.


He's saying that the general population are 'wantonly misinformed' via the media - it doesn't matter to that point who he thinks is making them 'wantonly uniformed' - it does matter that what he sees is a seething mass of people who can easily be 'wantonly misinformed' - that's the giveaway, esp when placed next to his long record of stuff like this. And that then has to placed next to other readings of the results and what the particular spin he decided to put on them reveals about where he's coming from.


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He's saying that the general population are 'wantonly misinformed' via the media - it doesn't matter to that point who he thinks is making them 'wantonly uniformed' - it does matter that what he sees is a seething mass of people who can easily be 'wantonly misinformed' - that's the giveaway, esp when placed next to his long record of stuff like this. And that then has to placed next to other readings of the results and what the particular spin he decided to put on them reveals about where he's coming from.



Fair enough if he's got form for it, and this provides a handy cover for his prejudices, but he's right on this. There are masses of being being misinformed by the media. I don't think it is easy, but it's happening. Half the threads on this forum are about the media and their misinformation.


----------



## Santino (Dec 17, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> Half the threads on this forum are about the media and their misinformation.


 I would say it's nearer 30%.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> Fair enough if he's got form for it, and this provides a handy cover for his prejudices, but he's right on this. There are masses of being being misinformed by the media. I don't think it is easy, but it's happening. Half the threads on this forum are about the media and their misinformation.


If, given taffboys form, he says 'wantonly misinformed' rather than just misinformed - or wrong - that this suggests an element of immorality, of self-directed excess, of being spoilt - and so that he actually goes far far beyond the limited assertion that you make?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

Santino said:


> I would say it's nearer 30%.


Would you say it wantonly?


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If, given taffboys form, he says 'wantonly misinformed' rather than just misinformed - or wrong - that this suggests an element of immorality, of self-directed excess, of being spoilt - and so that he actually goes far far beyond the limited assertion that you make?


It depends on his use of the word, I suppose. I took "misinformed" to be a verb rather than an adjective. You seem to be saying the opposite. Depending on which he meant, the meaning would change. If he meant it as a verb then yes, I'd say the media acted wantonly. If an adjective then it's dodgy, given you say he has form.

It looks like a verb to me, though.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

I don't understand verbs and adjectives - but the wantonly was pretty obviously attached to the respondents not the media:

_But it can be about being wantonly misinformed via right wing and establishment media_


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I don't understand verbs and adjectives - but the wantonly was pretty obviously attached to the respondents not the media:
> 
> _But it can be about being wantonly misinformed via right wing and establishment media_


Well, it seems I don't understand them either because I just looked it up and I might be talking about adverbs. 

Anyway, I disagree that it was obviously attached to the respondents and that's why I disagree with you about what he meant. But we can't know unless he clarifies, and you've answered my initial question about why it was seen as offensive, so let's leave it?

Thanks.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

Yeah, no worries, thread doesn't need this stuff.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Thought i might just put this here as it's a small story and one related to polling-ish but not worthy of a thread on its own. Zac Goldsmith has said he will resign and force a by-election if a third heathrow runway is adopted. The final recommendations of the Airports Commission (i.e not even the decision) is due summer 2015. Date of next general election: spring 2015. He's in a marginal. That said, it's a marginal with the lib-dems so i think he may be worrying unduly. He's effectively negating their opposition. Canny cynical politics at its best.



Hmmm, perhaps, but I think there might be more to it than that.  This is my constituency and to say the third runway is a big issue locally is to underplay it massively.  I actually don't discount Goldsmith's sincerity on this issue, he comes from the borough and still lives here, he's also not afraid of voting against the government and lost his brief pretty quickly as a result.

I personally think he is right to be worried, perhaps surprisingly the lib dems are not buried here (remember we are next door to Cable's seat in Twickenham) and it would be hard to see a tory MP of any stripe getting elected if a tory government gave a green light to Heathrow expansion.  Of course any decision is not being made until after the next election by design of the government as Heathrow expansion is a pain in the arse for them as it could cost them 2-3 seats.  I have no doubt that goldsmith would resign tomorrow if expansion was authorised what I don't know is what his next move would be but my guess would be stand as an independent which I believe he would have good chance of winning, he's never appeared to be to wedded to the tories anyway.

As it happens I suspect he may stand down at the next election anyway, he seems pretty disillusioned already plus we have the womble-like figure of Johnson hanging around here like a bad smell, although he may not like the small majority of this seat.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

I was going to say that if there are pockets where lib-dem vote will stand up it might well be here - but then it seems pretty dependent on labour tactical voting for its past victories there, something that may not happen this time around. I think there may well then be a happy meeting of personal beliefs and good politics in this case. As for standing as an independent, i think he's need to win next time then stand down and kick up a huge fuss. In a GE he'll be squeezed i think - the lib-dem would love him to go down that road.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 17, 2013)

Lib Dem support has stood up in my heavily-Tory area too.  With respect to Westminster, it's an ultra-safe Tory seat (50%+), but the LibDems have polled around about the 30% mark in recent years in general elections, and they hold many of the council seats.  This doesn't seem to be changing.

Informal political chats with friends and neighbours would suggest that this is because these LibDem voters have always been Yellow Tories in any case, so don't feel so betrayed by the coalition.  They are basically fiscally Conservatives with socially liberal consciences.  They don't like the Tories for various reasons, but they don't like Labour either and they view the coalition as pragmatic politicking.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I was going to say that if there are pockets where lib-dem vote will stand up it might well be here - but then it seems pretty dependent on labour tactical voting for its past victories there, something that may not happen this time around. I think there may well then be a happy meeting of personal beliefs and good politics in this case. As for standing as an independent, i think he's need to win next time then stand down and kick up a huge fuss. In a GE he'll be squeezed i think - the lib-dem would love him to go down that road.



Yes, I'd say that seems spot on, I don't think he'll stand as an independent in a GE.  As I say I have a suspicion he may yet stand down at the next election anyway but failing that a resignation shortly after expansion is authorised in 2015 and stand in the by-election is very possible.

The whole Heathrow issue is one to watch, when you look at the constituencies surrounding the airport and understand how much local opposition there is you can believe the tories must be really sweating on this.  Can they afford to lose theses seats?


----------



## Santino (Dec 17, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Lib Dem support has stood up in my heavily-Tory area too.  With respect to Westminster, it's an ultra-safe Tory seat (50%+), but the LibDems have polled around about the 30% mark in recent years in general elections, and they hold many of the council seats.  This doesn't seem to be changing.
> 
> Informal political chats with friends and neighbours would suggest that this is because these LibDem voters have always been Yellow Tories in any case, so don't feel so betrayed by the coalition.  They are basically fiscally Conservatives with socially liberal consciences.  They don't like the Tories for various reasons, but they don't like Labour either and they view the coalition as pragmatic politicking.


 'They'


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He's saying that the general population are 'wantonly misinformed' via the media - it doesn't matter to that point who he thinks is making them 'wantonly uniformed' - it does matter that what he sees is a seething mass of people who can easily be 'wantonly misinformed' - that's the giveaway, esp when placed next to his long record of stuff like this. And that then has to placed next to other readings of the results and what the particular spin he decided to put on them reveals about where he's coming from.



To be clear, I was saying that the media wantonly misinform people. I used the word "wanton", because it's not just a matter of disinformation but it's highly deliberate and orchestrated. It's not a matter of seeing them as a mass, but it is a matter of weighing up the evidence. it's no good supposing I must hate people or see them as a controllable mass for thinking disinfo works when the evidence is that disinfo actually does work. We've come along way since Bernays. Polling has shown the average person thinks nearly a 1/4 of people are muslim. Mass or not, that's a lot of very misinformed people, and way more important than what you think of what I think, or your constant silly attempts to read my mind.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 17, 2013)

Totally agree about Goldsmith he doesn't need the salary and is genuinely committed to the no third runway campaign even down to being mates with the organisers


----------



## brogdale (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Here we go.
> 
> Tories in serious trouble.



(YouGov) Anthony's observations on the Brown funded polling for UKIP...

_"....here is another batch of UKIP donor Alan Bown’s Survation constituency polls, showing high levels of UKIP support in most of the seats selected – even compared to Survation’s national polls, which tend to show the highest levels of UKIP support to begin with. *All four constituencies surveyed have much higher Con=>Lab swings than national polls imply, to a extent that looks somewhat doubtful to me. Swings at general elections aren’t uniform… but it’s a fair guide, parties perform a little better in one seat, a little worse in another seat, but if you’ve got a series of polls showing swings that are *all* substantially better than the national average, almost regardless of marginality, who holds the seat, etc, something’s not right. Somewhere or other they need to average out.
*
These seats where presumably selected as ones where they thought UKIP were doing particularly well, so perhaps that’s the reason – where UKIP are doing particularly well it results in a bigger swing (in which case they would by definition not be typical of other seats – so do be careful of extrapolation) but *I’m dubious about constituency polling so far from the national picture, especially without political weighting. We shall see.*

*The most interesting thing I actually found there was the difference between the increase in the UKIP vote in the three coastal towns polled (up 23, 20 and 25 points) and in Crewe and Nantwich where it was up only 8. *Now, leaving aside the prompting and the weighting and whether it’s a good measure of the actual level of UKIP support, all four were done on the same basis so should be comparable to each other. One interesting question about UKIP support at the next election is how uniform it will be – UKIP got comparative few council seats in 2013 for the level of support they achieved because it was spread so evenly, they just ended up coming second a lot. If their support in 2015 is the same they would struggle to translate support into any actual MPs. In terms of winning seats it’s much better to have areas of strength and weakness. Seaside towns were some of their better areas in the 2013 locals, and the contrast here between Crewe & Nantwich and the seaside towns suggests their support may be clumpier than thought… but again, don’t read too many conclusions into that single poll."_


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

> if you’ve got a series of polls showing swings that are *all* substantially better than the national average, almost regardless of marginality, who holds the seat, etc, something’s not right. Somewhere or other they need to average out.



What an odd thing to say. So at what temporal or spatial
junction
does being right feel 
so wrong

(cheers brogdale btw)


----------



## brogdale (Dec 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What an odd thing to say. So at what temporal or spatial
> junction
> does being right feel
> so wrong
> ...



Particularly when the UKIP funded polling's higher than national Con->Lab swings are consistent with the higher than national swings identified by Ashcroft's marginal polling in September. And let's not forget, Ashcroft's £ allows for very large polling samples:-



> What’s hugely impressive is the scale and his adoption very often of the most resource hungry method for getting data. _*His September marginals polling, for instance, involved talking by phone to a sample size of 12,800 – a massive undersaking. To put this into context this is more than the aggregate samples that the Guardian/ICM polls as well as the Ipsos-MORI Political Monitors have in an entire year.*_
> http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...-political-pollster-of-the-yearlord-ashcroft/


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 20, 2013)

Unless the weekend polling produces a shock 2013 be the first year since 2002 that the Tories didn’t record a lead in any opinion poll


----------



## brogdale (Dec 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Unless the weekend polling produces a shock 2013 be the first year since 2002 that the Tories didn’t record a lead in any opinion poll





> It is worth noting that even in the worst days for the Thatcher and Major governments the party recorded leads in 1991, 1995 and 1990 which were at the same stage before the following general elections.



...but then in those days the right-wing vote was not split.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 20, 2013)

Today's polls...



> YouGov’s daily poll for the Sun this morning had topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 34%, LAB 39%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 12%.*
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Dec 22, 2013)

Last one for the year?



> The final YouGov poll of the year is up here. Voting intentions are:-
> 
> _*CON 34%, LAB 40%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 11%.*_
> 
> ...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 23, 2013)

Seems like the best thread for this

http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/local-council-by-election-results-2013.html


----------



## where to (Dec 23, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Seems like the best thread for this
> 
> http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/local-council-by-election-results-2013.html



some observations:


UKIP were able to stand just 5 fewer candidates than the LibDems
the Lib Dems got a pitiful 11.8%, not much more their national polling figures - incumbency/ local factors will not beenough for their incumbect candidates in 2015
the UKIP vote was as per much national election polling in 2013
TUSC got more local council votes in 2013 than the BNP.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 26, 2013)

I'm liking the rage and the 47% who are angry.



> Nearly half of Britons say they are angry with politics and politicians, according to a Guardian/ICM poll analysing the disconnect between British people and their democracy.
> 
> The research, which explores the reasons behind the precipitous drop in voter turnout – particularly among under-30s – finds that it is anger with the political class and broken promises made by high-profile figures that most rile voters, rather than boredom with Westminster.
> 
> ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 26, 2013)

Just read that piece, and like you I've no problem with people being angry at established politics and politicians. But I don't think either the article, or the bits of the data it quotes, adds up to much that's useful/informative.

I didn't really pick up much about the methodology and question-wording of that poll. 

Plenty about what people are angry _at_, not so much at all about which issues they're angry _about_, and why.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 26, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Just read that piece, and like you I've no problem with people being angry at established politics and politicians. But I don't think either the article, or the bits of the data it quotes, adds up to much that's useful/informative.
> 
> I didn't really pick up much about the methodology and question-wording of that poll.
> 
> Plenty about what people are angry _at_, not so much at all about which issues they're angry _about_, and why.



Agreed....but we are reading copy to fill up page space on the 26th Dec. tbf....


----------



## brogdale (Dec 28, 2013)

Annual summary from Anthony @YouGov....

...which includes these graphics...












Worth a look, I think.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 30, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Annual summary from Anthony @YouGov....
> 
> ...which includes these graphics...
> 
> Worth a look, I think.



From the same website, an interesting inverse relationship between people's concerns with immigration and the economy. Seems to add weight to the idea that immigration issues are useful in taking our attention away from economic hardship.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2014)

Ashcroft megapoll just published. Headline figure is lab 39, con 30, UKIP 16, LD 8. More when full data is posted i expect.

edit: available from here.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ashcroft megapoll just published. Headline figure is lab 39, con 30, UKIP 16, LD 8. More when full data is posted i expect.
> 
> edit: available from here.



Very large sample size, again...those numbers look pretty fucking disastrous for the tories. HNY dave.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 5, 2014)

To be honest doesn't actually surprise me because there is a decrease in unemployment (although an increase in people forced into shit part-time and temp work) so the economy nay superficially look like it's getting better, at least to the people answering these polls. Numbers look hopeless for the Tories though, I reckon we'll get another hung parliament next election and this time lib dems support will be decimated.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ashcroft megapoll just published. Headline figure is lab 39, con 30, UKIP 16, LD 8. More when full data is posted i expect.
> 
> edit: available from here.



Two thirds of Tory joiners supported the lib dems


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Two thirds of Tory joiners supported the lib dems



At risk of being superficial....I haven't got beyond the front page of the Full Report yet....I've been laughing too much at that Clegg graphic to make sensible progress...








> Cover image: collected answers to the question
> “_*what is the first word or phrase than comes to mind when you think of......Nick Clegg*_"



(C)Ashcroft might be a nasty, corrupt, criminal banker tory....but he does appear to have some sense of humour!

Think I might post this in the _*LD shit*_ thread as well.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2014)

Some new polling....



> ......there were two polls with new fieldwork out in the Sunday papers. The fortnightly Opinium poll for the Observer had topline figures of:-
> *
> CON 30%(nc), LAB 37%(nc), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 17%(+1)* (tabs here).
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2014)

Assuming that (C)Ashcroft shares his polling with Dave before we 'mere mortals' get access, this explains a great deal of what passes for politics so far this year....


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 6, 2014)

First You gov Poll of 2014:

Lab 40%
Tory 32
Lib Dems - 9%
Ukip 12%


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 7, 2014)

In response to the Yougov poll that Tim posted :

Interesting thought-exercise would be to imagine how that UKIP 12% would divide if UKIP didn't exist (or were on the absolute fringe of irrelevance -- say 1% or 2% )

Let's guess : Add 8% to the Tories, and 1% each to Labour and Lib Dem figures?

Various other permutations possible, including other non mainstream parties getting benefit to a small degree. But I can't see many realistic ones that wouldn't have around half (?) or more of their figure reverting to the Tories' benefit. I appreciate butchers' consistent argument that UKIP are picking up from all parties, but surely disproportionately from the Tories -- at the moment at least.

Anyway UKIP are there and quite strong, so the above is only a thought-exercise.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 7, 2014)

If the polls continue in this way until 2015, surely UKIP will have to participate in the televised debates (assuming they will happen again)?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 7, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> In response to the Yougov poll that Tim posted :
> 
> Interesting thought-exercise would be to imagine how that UKIP 12% would divide if UKIP didn't exist (or were on the absolute fringe of irrelevance -- say 1% or 2% )
> 
> ...



Not sure that the tories would get as much as that if UKIP didn't exist. They are sucking up a lot of the protest vote  - people who hate both the main parties and many who never usually vote. Weird as it may sound - they may also be getting a chunk of votes from   people who previously voted lib dem (as well as a few percent from former BNP voters). UKIP can make an emotive argument that tickles a large chunk of the electrote's clarkson zone - bloody foreigners, bloody bankers, bloody politicians, bloody europe, political correctness and health and safety nazis. The political establishment parties cant do this as they have to deal with reality - not the world according to disgruntled of Essex. 

The fact that the tories have never got close to 40% of the vote since 1992 suggests that the UKIP vote are is not coming from tory voters to the extent you suggest. Maybe the tories could gain 5% from UKIP if they suddenly ceased to exist -  but the tories have to appeal to a wider consituency to have a hope of winning again - and that alienates their traditionalists. 

You have to laugh really.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 7, 2014)

mk12 said:


> If the polls continue in this way until 2015, surely UKIP will have to participate in the televised debates (assuming they will happen again)?



Well there's no hard and fast rules - and we've only had one set of these debates so precedents haven't been set. Seeing as none of the three other parties will want farage on the platform I cant see it happening.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 7, 2014)

Taking in your points about UKIP there KT <thinks about it further>


----------



## Quartz (Jan 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> At risk of being superficial....I haven't got beyond the front page of the Full Report yet....I've been laughing too much at that Clegg graphic to make sensible progress...



If you were to label it Cameron or Miliband it would work just as well.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 7, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> Well there's no hard and fast rules - and we've only had one set of these debates so precedents haven't been set. Seeing as none of the three other parties will want farage on the platform I cant see it happening.



I agree I suspect they will use the lack of sitting MPs as the excuse.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2014)

Quartz said:


> If you were to label it Cameron or Miliband it would work just as well.


No it wouldn't.


----------



## killer b (Jan 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I agree I suspect they will use the lack of sitting MPs as the excuse.


and everyone will know it's an excuse. damned either way. 

I suspect they'll try to avoid it happening at all this time. Dunno who'd push for it...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 9, 2014)

Not exactly polling, but hey ho...

In his blog, Tim Wigmore of the Telegraph explores the likely electoral impact of the announced retirement of growing number of older LD incumbents. As Wigmore states, in seats with senior sitting LDs retiring...



> _...more than any other party, the Lib Dems rely on the incumbency factor. In 2010, the party gained 6.7 per cent from this, three times the gains for the Tories and Labour. That advantage will now collapse....that is the real disaster for the Lib Dems. Without their sitting MPs, strongholds built up over decades could collapse_.



Article


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 9, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Not exactly polling, but hey ho...
> 
> In his blog, Tim Wigmore of the Telegraph explores the likely electoral impact of the announced retirement of growing number of older LD incumbents. As Wigmore states, in seats with senior sitting LDs retiring...
> 
> ...


Add to that the lack of people to put up as candidates


----------



## brogdale (Jan 10, 2014)

Another "Straw in the wind" moment....



> *Dramatic council by-election boost for UKIP in Suffolk*
> January 10th, 2014
> Huge UKIP GAIN from CON at Haverhill East on St Edmundsbury DC UKIP 529 Lab 240 Con 157 LD 54
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 10, 2014)

Latest Populus (online) polling:-

*Lab 40%, (+3), Con 33%, (-2), LD 11%, (-1), UKIP 8%, (-1), Others 8%.*



> This follows the first week of YouGov daily polls which has had the Tories solidly on 32% with LAB ranging from 37% to 40%. The LDs have been on 9/10% while UKIP has been in the 12-14% range.
> 
> All of these surveys have been online and I’m hoping we’ll get the first phone polls next week.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2014)

Those UKIP figures look more solid by the week.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 10, 2014)

> ..... this morning’s daily YouGov poll has figures of-
> 
> *CON 32%, LAB 38%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 13%*.
> 
> Full tabs here.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 10, 2014)

That byelection result in Haverhill is such a rock bottom low turnout that I'd be very cautious about making too much of it -- if anything.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 10, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> That byelection result in Haverhill result is such a rock bottom low turnout that I'd be very cautious about making too much of it -- if anything.



Oh aye, but the 'kippers could be arsed to turn out; that means something.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 12, 2014)

The first weekly YouGov/Sunday Times poll is out this morning. Topline voting intention figures are:-

*CON 31%, LAB 40%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 14%. *

Nine points is a larger Labour lead than YouGov have shown so far this week, so normal caveats apply.

Interesting stuff about economic 'feel-good' perceptions possibly showing that more folk are seeing through the neo-liberal notion of the benefits of economic 'growth'?



> 17% of people expect their financial situation to get better in the year ahead, 36% expect it to be much the same, 41% still expect it to get worse – a net “feel good factor” of minus 24. While other polls show people starting to think the economy as a whole is improving, they are still pessimistic about their own economic fortunes. That said, they are increasingly _less_ pessimistic. This minus 24 is actually much less bad than most of YouGov’s polling over the last four years, only once last year did they show a less negative figure (-23 in September 2013).


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 12, 2014)

"The voteless recovery"

But that recovery is far from 'baked in', lots of hints the economy may not be all that and many people are putting the current growth down to a housing bubble, a housing bubble that is putting ownership out of the reaches of the kind of people who are swing voters. A recovery that never turns up in your pay packet. A recovery that 'feels' like its for the South. Osborne and co seem to act as if everything they do is crafted to meet a tactical political need (weaponisation) but all those tactical manoeuvres are bereft of a genuine strategy to engage people outside their home turf. Its great to attack welfare claimants and immigrants, always going to get a good reception in the tabloids and easy popularity. But when it becomes a repetitive theme: when you are not looking you start coming across as the bully in country where many of the voters are wondering when it will be their turn to be picked on. 

And the economy may yet wobble.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 13, 2014)

The Guardian is at it again. 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/13/support-labour-shrinks-economic-recovery-icm-poll


*



			Support for Labour shrinks as faith in recovery grows, ICM poll finds
		
Click to expand...

*


> Labour drops two points to 35% - three points ahead of Tories – as more people express optimism about their financial position


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 13, 2014)

35% Labour, 32% Tory, and even less plausibly, *14%* Lib Dem?

Rogue poll surely.


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 13, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> 35% Labour, 32% Tory, and even less plausibly, *14%* Lib Dem?
> 
> Rogue poll surely.


Another of tonights poll as CON 33%, LAB 38%, LDEM 12%, UKIP 9%.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 13, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> 35% Labour, 32% Tory, and even less plausibly, *14%* Lib Dem?
> 
> Rogue poll surely.



They could be onto a narrowing in the Lab lead, and the ICM economic confidence polling might correlate with that, but it is important to remember that ICM's polling is based upon a relatively small sample size of phone responses.(Remember that (C)Ashcroft's marginal poll was 12,000!


> _ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,005 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 10-12 January 2014. _


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2014)

Posted in 'Shit LDs' thread as well...

Smithson seems to have regained his senses _a little_ today with this post, outlining the unrealistic nature of LD hopes of joining Lab in coalition. Smithson assumes that, if Lab found themselves in a position of needing the LD rump, they'd have come second in terms of the popular vote...and the LDs would have some problem "in principle" with joining the party coming second in the popular vote.

The psephology looks reasonably sound, but the assunption of any principled position from the LDs is somewhat laughable. If a result like the one envisaged did pan out, I'm damn sure that any surviving LD ministers would jump at the chance of retaining their ministerial car, even if it did mean hooking up with the 'second choice' of the voters.



> ...what sort of result would lead to such a move. Featured _below_ is a seat projection from Electoral Calculus on what happens on a uniform national swing if LAB gets 34% of the GB vote and CON 36%.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Quartz (Jan 14, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I'm damn sure that any surviving LD ministers would jump at the chance of retaining their ministerial car, even if it did meaning hooking up with the 'second choice' of the voters.



Quite right.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jan 14, 2014)

The Libs, will of course fudge a coalition is necessary by deciding retrospectively whether they consider the party with the most seats or the most votes to have a mandate to form a coalition.

They will also act like they are the only party that truly understands what a coalition is, and that their own self-serving reading of the situation is the only logical one and that they are bound to enter into some kind of coalition, not because they want to but because 'the electoral calculus was such that we had no choice'.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2014)

Smithson and the BBC (with scary pic below) today alighting on marginals.



> How do you know you are living in a marginal constituency?
> 
> One clue is when you get a surprise visit from a top politician









...but the BBC interactive graphic map thing is quite good.

And, of course, most of us posting in here would recognise that national polling is mostly froth compared to the really detailed psephological work undertaken by (C)Ashcroft. Smithson quotes Survation's patrick brione..



> ....._*Lord Ashcroft’s and Survation’s constituency polls is exactly the same. The Conservatives are significantly underperforming their national average across key marginal seats*,..._



but then Smithson states that he is uncertain why there appears to be such a discrepancy between the national and marginal polling...



> I find the gap between the national and marginals almost inexplicable for as it stands at the moment we should be adding about 5 points to the LAB lead in national polling to get a picture of what is happening in terms of seats changing hands.
> 
> What is going on?



....and then goes on to explain it....



> As I’ve pointed out before the Ashcroft polling found more than double the proportion of 2010 LDs had switched to LAB compared with his national comparison poll.
> What the marginals polling does do is to try to get respondents to think specifically about their local situation. This would cover dynamics such as incumbency and tactical voting. Ashcroft has a two part voting question to highlight this.



Whatever he may think, (C)Ashcroft's (& Survation's) polling show that the inevitable closing in the national polling that will occur in the next year towards 2015 needs to be seen in the context of what is actually happening in the 100 or less seats that will determine the outcome.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> but then Smithson states that he is uncertain why there appears to be such a discrepancy between the national and marginal polling...



I've just read on the BBC - in that same article - that in 2010 Luton South was one of the most keenly contested seats. If the experience I had was typical, the Tories wasted their money whereas the Lib Dems campaigned very effectively. There was a lot more personal attention from the Lib Dems, but just a couple of flyers from the Tories. The Tories needed to get out there and campaign, rather than lazily assume the votes would come their way. OTOH the Tories may have had me marked as one of their own and not bothered with me. Their loss. Luton South was a seat with an odd dymamic in that IME many voters were anti-Labour due to Margaret Moran's shenanigans, and the anti-Labour vote ended up being split, allowing the Labour candidate to win. My current constituency, Aberdeen South, is a marginal. The Labour vote is pretty solid at ~15K but the opposition vote is split between the Lib Dems and the Tories, with the SNP trailing. A collapse in the Lib Dem vote could see the Tories win, or vice versa, but I've heard nothing from either party in the 3 years I've been here.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2014)

YouGov euro-elections poll - tories have never not finished in top two in any national election - lib-dems likely to be wiped out on these figures as well.

LAB 32%
UKIP 26%
CON 23%
LDEM 9%


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2014)

....and last night’s YouGov voting intention figures – topline figures are:-

*CON 33%, LAB 39%, LD 10%, UKIP 12%.* 

There was a three point YouGov lead yesterday, but today’s figures are far more representative of recent YouGov polls, which on average have been showing a six point lead.

Source


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2014)

Back to the Euro election polling....From the Guardian....



> According to the Sun these results, on a uniform swing, would give:-
> 
> *Labour 28 MEPs (up 15), Ukip 23 (up 10), the Conservatives 15 (down 11) and the Lib Dems none (down 11).*
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2014)

YouGov's Anthony has more analysis on that projected Euro election LD 'wipe-out', and an explanation of the methodology behind the polling:-



> Worth noting is if these were the results there is a _chance_ that the Lib Dems could be wiped out. On a uniform swing this give Labour 28 MEPs, UKIP 23 MEPs, the Conservatives 15, the Greens 1, SNP 2, Plaid 1 (and three in Northern Ireland). In practice it would be very close, who gets the final seat in constituencies with a large number of MEPs can come down to fractions of percentage points and the Lib Dems would just miss out in the South East and South West, but _*a wipe out is a realistic possibility*_. (The reason, if you are wondering, for the slightly odd suggestion that the Greens could get a seat with far fewer votes than the Lib Dems is because the strongest Green region is the South East and the Lib Dems strongest region is the South West – you need fewer votes to win a seat in the South East).
> 
> Finally, for methodology anoraks amongst you, YouGov’s question prompts for all the parties in the European Parliament – so including UKIP, Green and the BNP. This is a change from 2009 that we pondered for a while. In 2004 YouGov prompted for all the parties, and overestimated UKIP support. In 2009 we only prompted for Con, Lab, Lib Dem and SNP/PC and got UKIP pretty much right (our last poll had them on 18%, in the event they got 17%). However, given they came second last time (and on that basis the broadcast media will presumably be required to give them as much coverage as Labour and the Conservatives during the run up to the election), and the media focus is very likely to be on how well UKIP do and whether they win, we thought it more appropriate to put them in the main prompt for the European elections. Peter Kellner has written more about it here.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2014)

Polls, polls, polls....fill yer boots!



> Populus’s twice weekly poll has topline voting intention figures of:-
> 
> *CON 33%, LAB 40%, LDEM 13%, UKIP 9%.*
> 
> Full tabs are here.



and....



> Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor for the Evening Standard has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 30%(-3), LAB 39%(+2), LDEM 13%(+4), UKIP 11%(+1).*



and...



> YouGov’s daily voting intention poll for the Sun has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 32%, LAB 39%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 12%*
> 
> (full tabs are here.



AND.......



> Sky News have a Survation poll with topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 30%(-1%), LAB 34%(-1%), LDEM 12%(+1%), UKIP 18%(+2).*
> 
> Full tabs for that are here



That enough for yer?

e2a : and....
a Four poll average:

*Con   31.3%
Lab   38.0%
UKIP 12.5%
Lib   12.0%*


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Smithson and the BBC (with scary pic below) today alighting on marginals.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hendon where i live the tories won by 100 votes ,so i expect labour to be out in force on my estate and nearby graheme park i don't expect any big names to knock on my door ,but being  politician am very likely to tell them to  fuckoff


----------



## killer b (Jan 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


>


this is amazing.  

it's made me laugh more than anything else i've seen today.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2014)

Two new polls today; the monthly online ComRes poll for the Indy on Sunday and Sunday Mirror with topline figures with changes from December’s online poll:-

*CON 30%(+1), LAB 35%(-1), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 19%(+1).*

...and the Opinium figures in the Observer are:-

*CON 30%(nc), LAB 36%(-1), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 17%(nc)*

Source


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2014)

YouGov’s weekly poll for the Sunday Times is up here. Topline figures are:-

*CON 33%, LAB 39%, LD 8%, UKIP 13%.* 

Good job/bad job ratings for the leaders are minus 15 for Cameron, minus 35 for Miliband, minus 51 for Clegg.

More interesting evidence of how the tories' manipulated economic "recovery" is percieved by the electorate:-



> *On the economy there is a big contrast between people’s attitudes to the economy as a whole, and their own personal circumstances.* On the wider economy there is optimism – 36% of people think things are better than a year ago, 24% worse. Ask about people’s own finances and *only 14% think they are better off than a year ago, 39% think they are worse off.* Asked about the year ahead, *only 17% think their own household’s finances will get better, 37% think they’ll get worse.* People are pessimistic, but it’s a measure of how bad things were (and how things are turning round) that _*this minus twenty net score is the best so far this Parliament*_.



I think that turning this "oil tanker" pessimism around is going to be as great an electoral challenge for the tories as the 'kippers are. Fighting on 3 fronts, eh?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 21, 2014)

> 12.28pm GMT
> 
> For the record, here are the latest YouGov GB polling figures.
> 
> ...



Only 1 poll, but that LD figure seems slightly anomolous given.....


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2014)

I think we now can conclude that remaining lib-dem voters are horrible sexists and facilitators of harassment and oppression.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think we now can conclude that remaining lib-dem voters are horrible sexists and facilitators of harassment and oppression.


 It is somewhat staggering that 1 in every 10 folk who can be bothered to engage with the charade of rep.dem. are still contemplating a vote for this shower. Extraordinary, really.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> It is somewhat staggering that 1 in every 10 folk who can be bothered to engage with the charade of rep.dem. are still contemplating a vote for this shower. Extraordinary, really.


Luckily there are a dwindling number of seats where their vote will make the slightest of difference to the result.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

The Tories are edging closer to defeat



> The public’s mood currently is settled into a steady state, with support split across four parties and Labour holding a modest, but consistent lead. Neither the economic recovery, nor the A2 migration “crisis”, nor the various much trumpeted policy initiatives floated by government and opposition have yet had any discernible impact.





> As polling day gets closer, the ticking clock will loom larger in the parties’ minds, too. If the Conservatives poll share remains static as evidence of a robust economic recovery continues to pile up, pressure will build on David Cameron and George Osborne. Conservative backbenchers and activists who currently shower them with plaudits for the return of growth will soon turn against them if this growth does not deliver new voters. In particular, the tensions arising from Ukip’s continued double digit polling will only worsen, as the party divides between those who insist success requires imitating Nigel Farage and stealing his proposals, and those who worry that “out Ukip-ing Ukip” is impossible and damaging to the Conservatives’ credibility with moderate voters. Conversely, on the Labour benches, each successive month of steady leads will calm the nerves of those worried about Ed Miliband’s weak personal poll ratings, and anxious that the economic recovery undermines the credibility of the party’s focus on the “cost of living crisis”. Dissenters within the party are unlikely to raise their voices when they risk jeopardising a small but sufficient lead in polling, and each month of relative unity and harmony will help Labour’s image as a credible governing alternative, particularly if the Conservatives are wracked by conflicts over Ukip and Brussels.


----------



## treelover (Jan 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> this is amazing.
> 
> it's made me laugh more than anything else i've seen today.



Brown has lost a lot of weight and he looks very content, though of course he gets his wack without even going to the HOP.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 22, 2014)

treelover said:


> Brown has lost a lot of weight and he looks very content, though of course he gets his wack without even going to the HOP.



If you're referring to that pic, it's from 2010.

As is this:-


----------



## Favelado (Jan 23, 2014)

brogdale said:


> If you're referring to that pic, it's from 2010.
> 
> As is this:-



"A-haaaaaaaaaaaa!"


----------



## brogdale (Jan 23, 2014)

I'm always drawn to blog posts with maps....but this post on Political Betting must rank as one of its most useless ....to save you from wasting any time clicking it, here are the opening and closing lines:-



> ....who will actually decide the next election – Everyone, of course, but realistically the voters in the most marginal seats. Who are they, where are they, and _*what can we find out about them?
> .....*_
> 
> 
> _*So what have we have found out? Nothing that particularly stands out*_....





And the map? Here it is....






..which is great, if you're not at all interested in the 7 of the 100 most marginal that lie in Scotland or N.Ireland.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2014)

Latest YouGov / Sunday Times results 24th January :- 

*Con 32%, Lab 39%, LD 9%, UKIP 13%*

Lab lead back up to 7%

Looking at the tabs, (here), the UKIP '% damage by party share (2010) is still showing Con 18%, LD 10% and Lab 5%, with the 'kippers strongest regional showing in the Midlands & North where many key marginals lie.


----------



## Combustible (Jan 26, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Looking at the tabs, (here), the UKIP '% damage by party share (2010) is still showing Con 18%, LD 10% and Lab 5%, with the 'kippers strongest regional showing in the Midlands & North where many key marginals lie.



There seems to be a particularly bizarre set of questions on page 14 for a political poll


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2014)

Combustible said:


> There seems to be a particularly bizarre set of questions on page 14 for a political poll
> 
> View attachment 47230



Whilst they've got their panel engaged they do often ask all sorts of questions for clients; not just politics.


----------



## Combustible (Jan 26, 2014)

That makes sense. I was a bit surprised that a representative sample for a political poll is also applicable for other things but I suppose the sample already takes into account the things necessary for a lot of clients.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 28, 2014)

Couple of polls last night showing a narrowed Labour lead:-

The monthly ComRes telephone poll for the Independent..... has topline figures of:-

*CON 32% (nc), LAB 33%(-4), LDEM 9%(nc), UKIP 14%(+4). *

The one point Labour lead is the lowest ComRes have shown in their phone polls since January 2012, and its the lowest level of Labour support they’ve shown since the government’s honeymoon in the summer of 2010. Meanwhile the Sun politics team have tweeted the daily YouGov poll. That too shows the Labour lead down, in this case to two points:-

*CON 35%, LAB 37%, LD 9%, UKIP 13%.* 

That’s the lowest YouGov lead since December.​A good commentary from Anthony:-



> As ever, unusual results demand particular caution. Sure, it could be the sign of a narrowing of Labour’s lead, but just as likely it could the random variation that affects all polls. There is a temptation to assume that a movement in the polls after an event – in this case Labour’s 50p tax pledge – is a response to that effect. Labour announce a policy, the next few polls show their lead collapsing – cause and effect. I would urge restraint. At first glance this looks like an obvious and appealing narrative, but it’s a human weakness to look for patterns of this type even when they aren’t there.
> 
> Firstly, while ComRes and YouGov happened to both be published at 10pm and show a similar pattern, they aren’t the only polls published today. Populus’s Monday poll was also conducted after the 50p pledge, at roughly the same time as ComRes, and they show Labour’s lead still at seven points. Even without that, we know polls jump about from day to day, YouGov have already shown a couple of 3 point leads this month that turned out to just be normal sample variation.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2014)

Would not be panicking if i was labour.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Would not be panicking if i was labour.



Not with the 'kippers holding firm in the low teens!


----------



## savoloysam (Jan 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Would not be panicking if i was labour.



I would (not that I think they will be much better) the pre election engineering is well under way and so far it's not going well for them. Also *if* Scotland votes for Independance. Labour's days as a force in this country could well be over.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> I would (not that I think they will be much better) the pre election engineering is well under way and so far it's not going well for them. Also *if* Scotland votes for Independance. Labour's days as a force in this country could well be over.


 What are the indicators that it's not going well for them? Why is it not going well for them?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 28, 2014)

Smithson has been tweeting some of the ComRes (ITV) poll findings in the light of the ONS economy data:-



and...



As said upthread....the "voteless recovery" ?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 28, 2014)

> Tonight’s daily YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of :-
> 
> *CON 34%, LAB 37%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 12%*
> 
> ...so a second YouGov poll with a somewhat lower Labour lead than of late. Again, could still be margin of error, or perhaps we are seeing the lead narrowing. Time will tell.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Smithson has been tweeting some of the ComRes (ITV) poll findings in the light of the ONS economy data:-
> 
> View attachment 47357
> 
> ...



Ouch ...

Good thing for the mainstream parties that the Daily Mail can convince their base that hating foreigners will cause public utilities to be renationalised then ...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Ouch ...
> 
> Good thing for the mainstream parties that the Daily Mail can convince their base that hating foreigners will cause public utilities to be renationalised then ...



...and (Smithson is posting) more polling evidence (from Ipsos MORI)of their 'agenda setting'.....

The tories' dilemma; as 'economic growth' inevitably returns, voter concern slips away to focus on other areas of 'concern', some of which obviously relate to UKIP's position... 



....and others that have traditionally drawn voters towards Lab...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 29, 2014)

Scotland's education secretary, Mike Russell, will today claim UK immigration policy is being "driven by UKIP and a nasty xenophobia".


----------



## brogdale (Jan 31, 2014)

> The Sun's YouGov poll has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 32%, LAB 42%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%.*
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 31, 2014)

Not an opinion poll, but some real voters...albeit a small number.

This little local by-election in Lichfield (Micky Fab's constituency...not a marginal...more of a rock-solid tory stronghold) shows a Con held seat going to the LDs! But what might set alarm bells ringing at tory HQ is the fact that they've polled less than Lab & UKIP to come in fourth place.

http://www.lichfielddc.gov.uk/info/...acy/1751/councillor_vacancy_in_chadsmead_ward


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 31, 2014)

> The Sun have tweeted out tonight’s YouGov poll – topline figures are CON 32%, LAB 42%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%


http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8606

Now the numbers are pretty unlikely. Big moves in a few days dont happen without something massive happening.

But on the same token, Osborne can shove his housing bubble recovery  up his arse so far as a bounce in the polls goes.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 31, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8606
> 
> Now the numbers are pretty unlikely. Big moves in a few days dont happen without something massive happening.
> 
> But on the same token, Osborne can shove his housing bubble recovery  up his arse so far as a bounce in the polls goes.


50% tax rate?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 31, 2014)

free spirit said:


> 50% tax rate?


 Might be, but with polling it's all about the trend...



> When an unusual poll comes along I personally rather discount it – more often than not it’ll just be a blip. When the same happens two days in row it gets my attention, but I wouldn’t conclude anything. When you get three in a row I normally take it seriously, it looks as though something is afoot.
> 
> But it can still just be random chance. Right now we don’t really know what the position is. It could be that tonight’s poll is an outlier and other polls will continue to show lower leads. Alternatively it could be that actually nothing’s changed and its all just been random variation around the six point lead we’ve had for months. As ever, time will tell.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Might be, but with polling it's all about the trend...


ay, I realise that.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 1, 2014)

Tonight's Sunday Times/ICM "Wisdom Index" poll results are out:-

*Labour are believed to win 33% share of the vote if an election were held tomorrow, with the Tories on 31%. The Liberal Democrats (16%) continue to out-perform their conventional poll standing and UKIP are predicted to win 12%.12%*
*
Lab  : 33%
Con  : 31%
LD	: 16%
Ukip: 12%
*​The term "Wisdom" in the poll title relates to the distinctive polling methodology based on the 'wisdom of crowds' notion. Instead of asking for individual vote intentions it asks for "_a dispassionate prediction of what the outcome of the election will be_". An examination of the methodology and its evaluation in the 2010 GE can be found here.

Martin Boon's commentary includes the following observations...



> Over time, there is one feature of the Wisdom trend that is irrefutable – *Labour’s predicted share has pretty consistently declined from a high of 39% in May 2012, to pretty much where it stands now (33%). The Conservatives have flat-lined in the 29-32% range*, which they will hope to break out of now that positive economic noises are being heard from many quarters....The *Liberal Democrats (16%) continue to out-perform their conventional poll standing and UKIP are predicted to win 12%.*


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 2, 2014)

I dislike any notion of 'wisdom' in 'crowds', especially crowds who blame foreigners and benefit claimants for stuff (that's a general observation from me, rather than anything particularly pro-Labour or anything).

But possibly I don't understand that poll or its methodology properly (right now  ).


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 2, 2014)

Some people are to clever by half ,of all the polling organisations how close were they to the result of a GE.me i will go by butchers he got it right last election


----------



## brogdale (Feb 2, 2014)

> This week’s YouGov/Sunday Times poll is up here. Topline voting intention figures are:-
> 
> *CON 34%, LAB 39%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 11%.*
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2014)

Forgot to post this snippet i spotted elsewhere over the weekend:



> For the Sunday Times Messrs Rallings and Thrasher have done an analysis on all the votes in council elections since May, I think their National Equivalent Share of the vote is
> 
> Labour 34%, Tories 28%, UKIP 17%, Lib Dems 13%.
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Feb 5, 2014)

Interesting graphic from Ipsos MORI....obviously only what folk are telling pollsters....but, nonetheless...



MORI's Roger Mortimer observes:-

_“When the Conservatives were able to combine the advantages of opposition with their own natural advantage of drawing their core support from the heavily-voting groups of the public, they had a big lead over Labour in their ability to turn their raw support into votes; now, with Labour reaping the opposition benefits, the two forces work in opposite directions and things are more finely balanced._​
_What the change means is that filtering the voting intentions by certainty of voting will have less of a pro-Conservative effect on our headline figures, and sometimes (when the red line in the chart edges above the blue one) may even favour Labour instead…”_​


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2014)

Further evidence that we've entered a temporary* period of 3 and a half party politics....

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...ngs-which-should-see-much-bigger-ukip-shares/

* until the LDs cease to exist completely.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 10, 2014)

Latest from the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ter-2009-european-elections-guardian-icm-poll

Bad news for the Lib Dems, good news for UKIP on Europe but not Westminster.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Latest from the Guardian
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ter-2009-european-elections-guardian-icm-poll
> 
> Bad news for the Lib Dems, good news for UKIP on Europe but not Westminster.


Their bad news as regards Westminster is achieving their second highest ever icm polling and pushing the lib dems into fourth?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 14, 2014)

> Today’s Populus and YouGov polls both have six point leads for Labour. Populus’s topline figures in their twice weekly poll are:-
> 
> *CON 32%, LAB 38%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 14% *(tabs are here).
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Feb 16, 2014)

This week’s -/Sunday Times results are here. Topline voting intentions are:-

*CON 32%, LAB 39%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 12%.*

There was also an Opinium poll in the Observer with topine figures of:-

*CON 28%(-1), LAB 37%(+1), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 17%(nc).* 

and there's been shed-loads of polling saying that Cameron & the tory coalition have handled the floods badly: good.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 16, 2014)

Fair bit of polling consistency generally, atm.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 20, 2014)

Quite an interesting Welsh poll


> Roger calculates that if repeated at a Welsh Assembly election Labour would retain 30 seats, so still the tinest whisper short of an overall majority, and UKIP would enter the Assembly for the first time with 5 seats. If the European election intentions were repeated in May Labour would return two MEPs, the Conservatives and UKIP one each, meaning Plaid would lose out.


No doubt its those Jews with their capitalist ways.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ...and (Smithson is posting) more polling evidence (from Ipsos MORI)of their 'agenda setting'.....
> 
> The tories' dilemma; as 'economic growth' inevitably returns, voter concern slips away to focus on other areas of 'concern', some of which obviously relate to UKIP's position...
> 
> ...



nearly 100% increase in concern about immigration in 12 months...Project Hate must be really paying off because there's certainly not been that increase in actual immigration. Interesting that "race relations" is snuck in with that, aren't the martyr myth migration bleaters always insisting that the issues are quite different? Or something.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Fair bit of polling consistency generally, atm.


 ...and some more (of the same)...



> This morning’s YouGov daily poll for the Sun has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 34%, LAB 39%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 12%.*
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Feb 23, 2014)

...and Smithson (again) points out the consistency of Lab polling and the near Sisyphean task facing the tories in attempting to build parity of seats, let alone a majority.....



> The big message....is how constant the LAB figure has been within a range over the two months of 38.4% to 39%.
> The Tory share, as the top chart shows, has been much more likely to fluctuate.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Feb 23, 2014)

Latest YG polling:-



> ....the weekly YouGov/Sunday Times poll is here and has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 32%, LAB 39%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%.*



the poll also included a question about the coalition's welfare reforms etc...



> YouGov repeated a question from last April about the government’s welfare reform package as a whole, freezes, caps, bedroom tax, etc. Back in *April 2013 56% of people said they supported them, 31% were opposed*. Now *49% support them, 38% are opposed* – so still more in support than against, but a significant movement over the last year.



Still depressing, but an interesting trajectory nonetheless.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 23, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Latest YG polling:-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Its encouraging in that supporting the reforms is a passive  'default' position for most people - they are accepting what they are being told by the most of the media and politicans. To oppose that you have to have an 'active' position - you have to have had direct contact with the reality of whats happening or had to actually find out it out for yourself. 

Remember pretty much every day one of the newspapers with be running a smear about benefit scroungers etc. 

Also those who oppose the benefit attacks will very likely care a lot more about it than those who passively support it.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 25, 2014)

Not a polling story...but this is an interesting political development....



> David Cameron is preparing to fight the next general election on a clear promise to the British people not to form a second coalition government even if he falls short of a Commons majority, The Telegraph has learnt.
> 
> The Prime Minister wants to make a commitment in the Conservative Party election manifesto not to sign a second power-sharing deal with a smaller party in the event of a hung parliament next May, it is understood.



My first reaction is that this signals very clearly Cameron's parlous position within his own party. Having last year attempted to assuage his back benchers with the promise that any further coalition agreement would have to be ratified by the parliamentary party, he has now had to reveal his high-stakes strategy early.

Setting aside the fact that few voters will actually believe Cameron, this gambit  does appear to offer some glimmer of hope for the LDs. Cameron is now opening himself up to anti-tory tactical voting in both Con-Lab and Con-LD seats. In the context of polling that stubbornly rejects the view that the tories will get anywhere near a majority...this all smacks of desperation from Cameron.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 25, 2014)

Is that a message directed to ukip protest voters?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 25, 2014)

The Boy said:


> Is that a message directed to ukip protest voters?



It might be yeah, after all the "A vote for UKIP is a vote for Comrade Miliband" line doesn't really work if there's a Tory-UKIP pact of some description.

So they're trying to kill UKIP rather than acccommodate it. Interesting.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 3, 2014)

Updated graphic from Electoral Calculus....



Some evidence of a mirror image between the blue & purple lines?

For those of a nervous disposition..... I'll repeat an earlier post and point out where the blue line is on the left hand vertical axis. With that support the tories failed to win a majority. Until they exceed that % they've not got a hope.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 4, 2014)

Smithson's pie-graph watch...

With *36% of 2010 LD voters saying Lab 2015*, and _*18% of 2010 tory voters saying UKIP 2015*_...the tories remain fucked.

As Smithson says...worth keeping an eye on those two %s.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2014)

Indy ComRes looking like their monthly has a big labour boost tonight +7/8%. Which would suggest their 1% labour lead last month was a margin of of error thing with labour fully undervalued and tories fully overvalued.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2014)

Confirmed now:

CON 30 -2
LAB 38 +5
LD 10 +1
UKIP 11 -3


----------



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2014)

Smithson nails the 'UKIP hurting all parties" meme....

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...es-away-from-the-tories-than-any-other-party/

Crucial quote....



> This is based on studies showing that white, working class men who finished their education at secondary school are being disproportionately attracted to Farage’s party.
> 
> That might indeed be true *but were these Labour supporters in the first place?*


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 7, 2014)

It's what I've been saying from the beginning these people were always working class Tories certainly in the South. Up North it's a more complex picture but there's not enough of them to seriously threaten Labour especially in 2015 when people will be voting to get the Tories out and not to give Labour a bloody nose.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 9, 2014)

http://euobserver.com/news/123367



> BRUSSELS - Europe's far-left are set to outnumber the Liberals in the next European Parliament, according to a pan-EU opinion poll published on Wednesday (5 March).
> 
> In the second of a series of fortnightly forecasts in the three months before Europe's 400 million voters go to the ballot booths from 22-25 May, Pollwatch Europe forecasts that the Parliament's leftist GUE group would see its number of MEPs swell to 67 seats and become the third largest group in the assembly.
> 
> ...


----------



## J Ed (Mar 9, 2014)

Anyone know much about the Italian Tsipras List? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Europe


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2014)

Rather fittingly, Smithson has posted graphics of today's YouGov polling on railway renationalisation.....

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...tion-poll-that-bob-crowe-1961-2014-never-saw/

Unsurprisingly* t*he tory supporters least favourable to renationalisation....but still at 50% for!.

Mr Crow would have enjoyed that.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Anyone know much about the Italian Tsipras List? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Europe



there is an Italian politics thread in the international forum, might be worth asking there


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 12, 2014)

Latest Graun poll here

Lab 38% (nc), Tories 35% (+1%), LibDems 12% (+1%), UKIP 9% (-2%), Others 7% (-1%).

The Analysis' section at the foot of that article is interesting, especially about the limits to how high UKIP looks capable of climbing.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 18, 2014)

http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/1124/bbc-breakfast-cost-of-living-.htm



> ·		 More Britons say that their personal financial situation has got worse  (31%) over the last 12 months than say that it has improved (17%), however half (51%) say that it has stayed the same.
> 
> ·	  However, Britons are more likely to say that they think their personal financial situation will improve (28%) than get worse (19%) over the next 12 months.[/quote


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Unsurprisingly* t*he tory supporters least favourable to renationalisation....but still at 50% for!.
> 
> Mr Crow would have enjoyed that.


 
UKIP voters are the second keenest on 75%.   Mind, they probably want steam trains brought back too with ostentatiously uniformed station staff strutting about like sergeant-majors making the trains 'run on time'...


----------



## J Ed (Mar 25, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/24/labour-tories-populus-comres-polls-jon-cruddas



> Ed Miliband has come under further pressure with two new polls suggesting the Labour lead over the Conservatives is narrowing.
> 
> The head of Miliband's policy review, Jon Cruddas, added his voice to calls from a coalition of Labour thinktanks and senior party figures who have called for a strategic change in direction.
> 
> A Populus poll published on Monday showed Labour on 35% and the Tories on 34%; Comres also showed a narrowing, with Labour on 36% and the Tories on 31% echoing the findings of two weekend polls that suggested George Osborne had won favour with the contents of last week's budget.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 25, 2014)

wait a few more days before making any rash assumptions on this. The Labour vote hasn't actually gone down very much, there seems to be a bit of movement between Tory and UKIP rather than any significant decline in Labour, which is still averaging around the 37/38 they have been for quite a while. I think the publiclity of the budget and the fact UKIP are a bit quieter than usual has had an impact. 

And we've been over the Guardian's reportage of the polls narrowing before - they've got their own agenda at work here.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 25, 2014)

Delroy Booth said:


> And we've been over the Guardian's reportage of the polls narrowing before - they've got their own agenda at work here.


That's true but there have been a number of polls over the last week which have shown the Labour lead shrinking, in this case there might be something to it.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 25, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> That's true but there have been a number of polls over the last week which have shown the Labour lead shrinking, in this case there might be something to it.



Perhaps but in most of those cases the lead has only shrunk due to increasing Tory support, not because Labour's is declining. They're still where they've been for the most of the last 2 years, 37/38 with a margin of error of 3, the Tories are creeping up to an average of 33, 34 and UKIP is dropping down to about 10. That won't remain the case if UKIP do well at the Euro elections, which is looking likely.

I should've had a bet on UKIP finishing first at the euro's you'd have got great odds on that a year or two ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2014)

This is simply a one/two day extension of past temp closings that soon passed. You only need two diff polls with tories at top of their MOE and and labour at the bottom for the guardian to quickly construct a narrative of pressure on a failing miliband.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 30, 2014)

The weekly YouGov/Sunday Times poll is out here. Topline voting intentions are CON 33%, LAB 40%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 11%

Bit of an outlier for the past week, but that might wipe the smirk of off Osbornes face.


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 30, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> The weekly YouGov/Sunday Times poll is out here. Topline voting intentions are CON 33%, LAB 40%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 11%
> 
> Bit of an outlier for the past week, but that might wipe the smirk of off Osbornes face.


That suprised me because the last couple of ugov polls have had small leads .I am not upset by this poll espially as it upsets georgy porgy


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 31, 2014)

The Opinium/Observer poll from yesterday had it much tighter :

Labour 35% (- 2%), Tories 33% (+ 2%), UKIP 15% (- 1%), LD 10% (nc).

Unsurprisingly that story has the Observer spinning it the way butchers suggested.


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 5, 2014)

Looks like back to normal youguv poll  this morning 
CON 32%, LAB 38%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 13%


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2014)

Yes, that's three six point leads in a row now.


----------



## JTG (Apr 6, 2014)

shagnasty said:


> Looks like back to normal youguv poll  this morning
> CON 32%, LAB 38%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 13%


OMG, how are The Guardian going to spin this now?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Top up today:


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Healthy lead for labour  EXCEPT FOR TWO DAYS -OMG!!!!!!


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 10, 2014)

That's surveyed a couple of days ago, before peak Millergate.  Next polls will be interesting - though doesn't feel like Labour have made much capital out of the sacking.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> That's surveyed a couple of days ago, before peak Millergate.  Next polls will be interesting - though doesn't feel like Labour have made much capital out of the sacking.


Nothing is effecting anything. The trend is a labour  lead by more than enough to win a general election, Passing stuff like millar will not swing support for either side but  fuck them all - but they're already figured in.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 12, 2014)

So the biggest story of Osbornes budget is there is no story. The last big set piece before the UKIPfest that will be the Euro elections and his last real budget before the elections and it only created a week of good polling. The Euros will less than a year to the GE, so the state of 'project Cameron' will be under a lot of scrutiny from the tories. Those in marginals will be starting to sweat heavily. 
It took the crash to give them a shot at power post Major and the abiding memory people they will leave with many people is a sort of chummy, posh, cronyism. Far from the fire breathing, tax cutting friend of the upper working\lower middle classes they so crave to be seen as.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 12, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> Far from the fire breathing, tax cutting friend of the upper working\lower middle classes they so crave to be seen as.



UKIP seem to be filling that gap, don't they?


----------



## JHE (Apr 12, 2014)

From some careful academic poll-watchers:



> Regular readers of this blog will know that we are cautious about identifying trends in what is often stable opinion, and also wary of using figures on polling leads, which are subject to more volatility and random variation. The underlying pattern here is however clear – the gap between the top two parties is steadily narrowing. Our main chart suggests this is the product both of rising Conservative support and falling Labour support, and also suggests that this is happening despite no decline in support for UKIP, who many argue are the main cause of recent Conservative weakness


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2014)

Large rise for labour lead in this months Obsever/Opinium poll +5%

Lab 36 (+3)
Con 30 (-2)
Ukip 18 (+3)
LD 7% (-3).

Let's see how they spin this one. That's a really ow


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2014)

Independent on Sunday have similar figure to the above for all but the rise in labour share, but have same size lead:

CON, 29% (-3)
LAB, 35% (nc)
LD 7%. (-2)
UKIP.  20% (+4)


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 12, 2014)

sadly enough, I'm looking forward to what mays euros do to the polls verall. Obviously its a different set of motivations, a different election and ETC but I can't help but think a strong UKIP showing in the euros will affect domestic polls. Nearly 2015 as well. These lot have just been on smash n grab really.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Independent on Sunday have similar figure to the above for all but the rise in labour share, but have same size lead:
> 
> CON, 29% (-3)
> LAB, 35% (nc)
> ...



Hmmm.... highest UKIP number for ComRes...and just look what exposure for Clegg has done...7 %!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2014)

Some interesting student polling, key points:



> Liberal Democrats at lowest ebb with students since 2004
> 
> YouthSight’s latest polling research finds the Liberal Democrats popularity amongst students at a 10 year low. At their peak (April 2010) the Liberal Democrats were polling 50% of the student vote, while the most recent figures show their student support at 6%





> Labour still students top choice
> 
> Students are still more likely to vote for Labour than any other party if there were a general election tomorrow. Student polling results are traditionally more variable and more left wing than those of the general public. YouthSight’s most recent wave of results shows that 43% of students would vote Labour, compared to 37% of the general electorate. The pattern is reversed for the Conservatives, who are polling at 33% overall but have only 24% of the student vote.





> Scottish students want to remain part of the UK
> 
> The polls on Scottish independence are narrowing, with the most recent results the closest yet, placing the Yes vote at 41% and the No vote at 46% [4] . YouthSight’s recent research with Scottish students suggests that they are less supportive of independence than the wider Scottish population, with 37% favoring independence and 58% preferring to stay as part of the UK.



Not sure the figues back up such a definitive reading on that last one.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 14, 2014)

Some of us on here have been looking at the LD to Lab crossbreak %'s for some time, and it's good to see that Smithson now intends to feature this crucial stat as a weekly tracker feature:-

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...rs-to-lab-the-voters-who-form-labours-crutch/

'Labour's crutch' consistently above 30%.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 14, 2014)

channel 4 have done a focus group on lib dem defectors. Supports the view that will not be going back to nick. Suprised that more research has not been on this - a lot more focus on UKIP. But its this group who will decide the election. 

http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/100414


----------



## treelover (Apr 14, 2014)

> *Support for Tories falls as post-budget boost is deflated after Maria Miller row*
> Guardian/ICM polls finds Conservatives down three points at 32%, with Labour on 37%, Lib Dems on 12% and UKip on 11%
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-falls-budget-boost-deflated-maria-miller-row




New poll in the Guardian, apparently no 'budget bounce' or lost anyway.


----------



## treelover (Apr 14, 2014)

> Labour still students top choice
> Students are still more likely to vote for Labour than any other party if there were a general election tomorrow. Student polling results are traditionally more variable and more left wing than those of the general public. YouthSight’s most recent wave of results shows that 43% of students would vote Labour, compared to 37% of the general electorate*. The pattern is reversed for the Conservatives, who are polling at 33% overall but have only 24% of the student vote.*




Apart from the Tory Boys, etc, it is usually quite hard to find students who will admit to voting Conservative.


----------



## killer b (Apr 14, 2014)

Have you ever tried?


----------



## treelover (Apr 14, 2014)

In the past, yes.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 15, 2014)

Much polling from yesterday...



> ...the new monthly ICM poll for the Guardian......figures are:-
> 
> *CON 32%(-3), LAB 37%(-1), LDEM 12%(nc), UKIP 11%(+2)*.
> 
> ...



Also some ICM Euro polling...



> European voting intentions.....
> *
> CON 25%(nc), LAB 36%(+1), LDEM 6%(-3), UKIP 20%(nc), GREEN 6%(-1)*.
> 
> .....other recent European polls have been showing Labour and UKIP in a battle for first place and the Conservatives off in third place. In contrast ICM are still showing UKIP third, and the Lib Dems now equal with the Greens on a measly 6 percent. Why ICM are showing a lower level of European support for UKIP than other pollsters is unclear – there is no obvious methodological reason. ICM weight their European voting intention by likelihood to vote which tends to help UKIP and they include UKIP and the Greens in their European election prompt, so it shouldn’t be a question wording issue. I can only assume it is something to do with the ongoing contrast between the levels of UKIP support recorded in telephone and online polls.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 15, 2014)

UKIP are older, less likely to be on the internet.  Probably also more suspicious and private and less likely to answer the phone to strangers or engage with pollers (the whole 'get off my property/get out of my country' thing).

A competent polling company will 'weight' for all this though, so fuck only knows.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2014)

Some london polling in the evening standard today (yougov):



*Westminster* :

Labour 42% (+5)
Conservative 34% (-1)
Ukip 11% (+10)
LibDems 9% (-13)

*London Borough Elections *

Labour 40% (+7)
Conservative 34% (+2)
Lib Dems 12% (-10)
UKIP 9% (+8)


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Some london polling in the evening standard today (yougov):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a suspicious looking value. What's the frequency of this poll?


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 15, 2014)

Is that selective results, or all that they reported?  Can't find it online.  Knowing the sympathies of the Standard, any chance that they're putting this out there to highlight the '_Vote UKIP and you'll let Labour in'_ message?

ETA - I might be unclear here whether the 'Westminster' refers to Westminster City Council (area or political seat(s)), or Westminster parliamentary elections - could you clarify?


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 15, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> That's a suspicious looking value. What's the frequency of this poll?



My assumption would be that's based on current poll vs. what was polled at previous election(s) - would make sense with those numbers (massive collapse of lib dems, rise of UKIP who probably didn't stand in a lot of seats last time round).


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 15, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> My assumption would be that's based on current poll vs. what was polled at previous election(s) - would make sense with those numbers (massive collapse of lib dems, rise of UKIP who probably didn't stand in a lot of seats last time round).


Sounds likely, cheers.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 15, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> ETA - I might be unclear here whether the 'Westminster' refers to Westminster City Council (area or political seat(s)), or Westminster parliamentary elections - could you clarify?



Westminster in this context means General.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2014)

Yes, to the above, general election and the other questions - don't know when last polled but large UKIP rise and lib-dem collapse indicates long time. Can't find details beyond the general right now. Will post when found them/they're posted.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 16, 2014)

Not actual polling....but from Smithson's blog...



(as of last night)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2014)

On betting, the lib-dems have come in from 5-1 to 7-2 to be totally wiped out in the euros.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 16, 2014)

I want Warsi or Shapps for the next PM. Imagine the comedy potential. The revolution would happen much faster.  Got me any odds on either of those two?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 17, 2014)

> Yesterday's YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of:-
> 
> * CON 33%, LAB 39%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 11%.*
> 
> *A rather more typical six point Labour lead after a three pointer yesterday.*



Usual source.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2014)

Surprised it's as high as 6% tbh....



> Support for the Liberal Democrats amongst student voters has slumped catastrophically since the last election, a new poll reveals today.
> 
> A poll of 1,200 students in higher education institutions throughout the UK reveals it has fallen from a high of 50 per cent just before the last election, following leader Nick Clegg's first TV debate of the campaign, to just six per cent in the latest poll.
> 
> ...



and Anthony @YouGov says the methodology was valid...



> Just for the record though, today’s Independent has a properly conducted poll of students by YouthSight(we’ve met them here before, under the name of Opinionpanel). This was a panel based survey amongst undergraduate full-time students, recruited via UCAS and validated through an ac.uk email address, weighted by type of university (Russell, pre-1992, post-1992, specialist), year of study and gender.



Also posted in LD Shit thread.


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Usual source.





> "YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead now just two points, plus highest rating for UKIP since last Nov: CON 33%, LAB 35%, LD 11%, UKIP 15%
> 9:55 PM - 17 Apr 2014 "



eh, just seen this one


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Surprised it's as high as 6% tbh....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




but will they vote?, students seem more disillusioned than for many years.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> eh, just seen this one


 Oh yeah, there's certainly been some narrowing in the YG polling with recent polling looking more like 2011 numbers than that for much of the last two (mid-term) years....

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/yougov-voting-intention

but the scale of the challenge for the tories is very evident; as I keep on saying...look at the far left of the graph showing what failed to secure them a majority in 2010, and then look how far short they are of even that.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> but will they vote?, students seem more disillusioned than for many years.


 
I'm figuring they'll be quite motivated in LD held Uni town seats.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 19, 2014)

Tonight's ICM Euro poll for the Sunday Telegraph:-

*Lab 30%, UKIP 27%, Con 22%, Others 13%, LD 8%.*


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

This is worth a read on which seats are simply not going to change hands no matter what - and it's a hell of a lot - and the small number of decisive swing seats/voters etc.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 22, 2014)

LD -> Lab stable at 33%.



> The first post-holiday weekend Populus poll has very little change though the LAB lead moves from 1% to 3% – all within the margin of error.
> 
> *LAB 36 (+1), CON 33 (-1), LD 10 (+1), UKIP 13 (-1).*
> 
> T*he poll also shows that 33% of 2010 LDs who voiced a voting intention said they had switched to LAB*. Amongst all 2010 LDs, including don’t knows and wont’t votes, the proportion was 24%. This is all pretty much in line with what we’ve seen.



From here.


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 22, 2014)

The most damaging thing the tories have done is getting into bed with libdems ,the votes that sdp originally took from labour have returned to labour


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2014)

> The first two post-Easter polls today share a three point lead for Labour.
> 
> The twice weekly Populus poll has toplines of:-
> *
> ...



Source.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2014)

...and another Euro poll:-



> This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun also had their latest European election voting intention figures. The topline figures continue to show Labour and UKIP battling it out for first place, with the Conservatives off in third :–
> 
> * LAB 30%, UKIP 27%, CON 22%, LDEM 10%, GREEN 6%.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Quartz (Apr 24, 2014)

> the BNP look almost certain to loose their two seats. 

Thank goodness.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 24, 2014)

Quartz said:


> > the BNP look almost certain to loose their two seats.
> 
> Thank goodness.



They've had their day in the sun.  The BNP brand has become even more toxic and UKIP will be mopping up all the soft nationalist vote.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2014)

Today's 'Westminster' polling...



> ....the second of Populus’s* two twice-weekly polls is out this morning and has topline figures of:-
> 
> * CON 35%, LAB 35%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 13%.*
> 
> The Conservatives and Labour are neck and neck on 35% a piece. Tabs are here.



...and...



> ...the daily YouGov poll for the Sun had topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 32%, LAB 38%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 14%* (tabs here).
> 
> As ever, look at the polls as a whole, don’t make the error of looking more at the ones that give more unusual or exciting results.



* 





> The last time we saw a poll without a Labour lead was MORI’s October poll last year. That one didn’t herald a great crossover, it was just a blip. You probably shouldn’t get excited about this one yet either – it could be a further narrowing of the polls, or could just be normal variation within the margin of error. Populus tend to show some of the smaller Labour leads anyway, probably as a result of their weighting scheme (Populus weight by party ID, in a similar way to YouGov, but weight Labour to a lower level of identification).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, look at this academic madness.


He's now done a 6 month update and comes up with:

Approximate probabilities of key outcomes
Pr(Con largest party) = 59%
Pr(Lab largest party) = 41%
Pr(Con majority) = 33%
Pr(Lab majority) = 19%
Pr(Hung parliament) = 48%
Pr(Hung parliament with Con largest party) = 26%
Pr(Hung parliament with Lab largest party) = 22%

So, when labour had their biggest poll lead  - steady around 7-8% he had the tories on 57% chance of winning a majority (labour on 15%). Now they've reined them in to a 3-5% lead he makes the tories chances of a majority only 33% and labour 19%.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He's now done a 6 month update and comes up with:
> 
> Approximate probabilities of key outcomes
> Pr(Con largest party) = 59%
> ...


----------



## kabbes (Apr 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He's now done a 6 month update and comes up with:
> 
> Approximate probabilities of key outcomes
> Pr(Con largest party) = 59%
> ...


The kind of person that gives statistics a bad name


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 25, 2014)

kabbes said:


> The kind of person that gives statistics a bad name



Should be shot through the heart.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2014)

Today's STimes/YG 'Westminster' poll:-



> The weekly YouGov/Sunday Times poll is up online here. Topline figures are:-
> 
> *CON 31%, LAB 36%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 15%.*
> 
> UKIP at 15 is high by their recent standards, though we’ve seen a couple in recent weeks. Also worth noting is that the Greens are on 4%, once again, high by recent standards but something that’s popped up a couple of times this week. I suspect in both cases there is something of the impending European elections boosting parties outside the traditional big three. This also happened at the last European elections, though back then it was impossible to confidently distinguish it from the effect of the expenses scandal.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2014)

YouGov find that *45% of over 60's,* (highest turn-out cohort), intend to vote UKIP in the Euros...

*UKIP (45%), Con (20%), Lab (19%), LD (8%), Oth (8%). (for this cohort)*



> ....45% of those who expressed a voting intention said UKIP....The oldies are, as is well known, much more likely to turn out to vote. In this poll 58% said they were 10/10 certain to vote compared with 46% for the sample as a whole.....This is one poll and there are the usual caveats about sub-sets – though this segment represented 525 people.



...but the challenge for Farage to carry over Euro success into the Westminster poll is demonstrated by this...



> ...*only 20% of this same subset said they would choose UKIP when asked who they’d been voting for at the general election...*



This being their most favourable demographic, it presently looks likely that a mid-teen share of the popular vote is more realistic estimate of the GE UKIP share.

Also posted in UKIP thread.


----------



## brogdale (May 1, 2014)

If this Survation Euro polling for London, (change on 2009 %), offers any clue about how the GE will pan out, it looks like Labour won't need much help from UKIP to take the GL marginals...


----------



## brogdale (May 1, 2014)

...and YouGov's national Euro polling for today's 'Sun' provides these numbers:-

*LAB 29%, UKIP 28%, CON 22%, LDEM 9%, GREEN 8%.*



> ...the fieldwork was done over several waves of daily polling, so has a chunky sample size of 5000 or so.... Unlike the ComRes and TNS polls earlier this week YouGov still have Labour and UKIP almost neck and neck for first place. Note also *the Greens, just a single point behind the Lib Dems in the race for fourth place*.


*
*


----------



## Dogsauce (May 1, 2014)

The previous two polls were weighted on 'likelihood to vote' - any similar weighting on this one?

LDs beaten into fifth by the greens would be sweet - I suspect greens have better motivated voters too, though I've not noticed any press for them (or anyone else really other than 24hr rolling UKIP).


----------



## redsquirrel (May 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> If this Survation Euro polling for London, (change on 2009 %), offers any clue about how the GE will pan out, it looks like Labour won't need much help from UKIP to take the GL marginals...


That's still a pretty good result for UKIP considering that London is one of their weaker areas, similar to the polling data in Scotland.


----------



## brogdale (May 2, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> That's still a pretty good result for UKIP considering that London is one of their weaker areas, similar to the polling data in Scotland.


 It is, and Smithson's monthly tracker, (%change MoM), gives them further cheer...






Bad month for the coalition, given that the economic numbers are all being manipulated to correlate with the electoral cycle.


----------



## brogdale (May 4, 2014)

2 GE & 2 Euros from YouGov today (for STimes & Sun)...

The 2015 GE numbers were:-
.... the Sun on Sunday poll has:-

* CON 33, LAB 36, LD 10, UKIP 15.* 

The S Times Westminster voting intentions poll from YouGov:-

*CON 33, LAB 36, LD 9, UKIP 15.
*
and for the Euros the Sun on Sunday poll has:-

*UKIP 29, LAB 26, CON 23, LD 10, and GRN 9.*

STImes:-

*UKIP 29, LAB 28, CON 22, LD 7, and GRN 8. *(LDs fifth!)


----------



## Dogsauce (May 4, 2014)

More motivated to vote green if it pushes LDs into fifth.

Is there a risk that such an achievement would cause Clegg to be ejected and then improve their standing with a new leader? I'd rather he remained a liability up to the GE than go sooner.


----------



## brogdale (May 7, 2014)

Crucial stuff from the BES mega-survey...



> Professor Jane Green of Manchester University says: “Our data show that *more than half of people, 57.6%, intending to vote for UKIP in the May 2014 European Parliament election also intend to vote for UKIP in the 2015 general election*, whereas the proportion was half that number at 25.5% in 2009.
> 
> “UKIP European Parliament voters are also more decided about how they will vote in the general election next year than they were about the 2010 general election in 2009.
> 
> ...








Forget any 'closing of the gap' with Lab, this will terrify the tories.


----------



## treelover (May 7, 2014)

What happens if UKIP do get some seats in the GE?, they could form a coalition with the Tories, a horrifying prospect.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

The best they can do is 2 or 3 seats, and the wider effect of a good ukip vote is less tory seats nationally. Meaning chances of a tory-UKIP coalition are zero, there's no _extra _seats being won on the right.


----------



## treelover (May 7, 2014)

Really hope you are right


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 7, 2014)

it's nothing to do with butchers being right, the maths just aren't there. The only people talking about UKIP winning more than one or two seats are idiots who don't understand the electoral system.


----------



## Quartz (May 7, 2014)

treelover said:


> What happens if UKIP do get some seats in the GE?, they could form a coalition with the Tories, a horrifying prospect.



I'm still holding out for a complete collapse of the traditional parties and a governing UKIP / Green alliance.


----------



## killer b (May 7, 2014)

UKIP / Class War would be better.


----------



## killer b (May 7, 2014)

interesting exchange between hodges & ashcroft here. When's the spring conference?


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

Hodge wrote yet another piece that the election is already lost for labour - all the pollers laughed at him, one accused him of being a star example of how to brutally use stats for a short term end. Hodges is nothing, he's like A8 - he just speaks to and for a tight circle. The piece is madness.

Ashcroft has marginal polling coming out after the euros. He's telling Hodges that his view is in big trouble.


----------



## killer b (May 7, 2014)

I know Hodges is pointless slime. I'm just itching to see Ashcroft's marginal polls...


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2014)

killer b said:


> I know Hodges is pointless slime. I'm just itching to see Ashcroft's marginal polls...


Soz. Don't know when spring conf is but ashcroft is committed to releasing the figues pretty much in june/end of may.


----------



## brogdale (May 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Soz. Don't know when spring conf is but ashcroft is committed to releasing the figues pretty much in june/end of may.


 According to Smithson...



> The big polling event of May 2014, exactly a year before general election, will be the publication by Lord Ashcroft of his latest mega sample polling of the marginals.
> 
> This is due to be made available during the weekend immediately after the May 22nd local elections and immediately before the results of the Euro elections are announced. The former usually come on the Friday while with the latter elections the UK follows the rest of the EU and makes the results known on the Sunday evening.
> 
> So in this short window we get the updated Ashcroft marginals poll which is a follow up to his last major survey of the key seats last September just before the start of the 2013 conference season.



So, two weeks Saturday...basically.


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2014)

Populus' monthly aggregate data for the key national polling numbers on 'switchers'....

Firstly, how are the 2010 coalition voters, (mainly LD obs),switch to Lab numbers holding up?






and then the 2010 coalition voters, (mainly Con obs),switch to UKIP numbers holding up?






Not sure how that shoddy, unfunny PPB from Lab fits into the strategy of retaining the yellow defectors?


----------



## brogdale (May 10, 2014)

Tonight's GE polling:-

Survation for the MailoS...

*Lab 33% (-1), Con 28% (-5), UKIP 20% (+2) , LD 10% (+2)
*
and Opinium for the Obs...
*Lab 33% (-1), Con 29% (-3), UKIP 20% (+2), LD 9% (+2).
*
Hmmm..... two polls putting the vermin in the 20s, as UKIP breaks into the 20s. Just to reiterate, these numbers are Westminster 2015 polling. FTR Survation also has UKIP on 32% in the Euros, 5 points clear of Labour.

e2a: Anthony @ YG has this to say of Opinium & Survation's UKIP numbers...



> Opinion tend to give UKIP some of their highest scores but even by those standards its a high score – *the highest Opiniun have shown since last summer’s 21%*.  Survation are the other company that tends to give UKIP their highest scores *but again the 20% is the highest since last summer. *


----------



## brogdale (May 11, 2014)

YG for STimes....



> The regular YouGov/Sunday Times poll has topline figures of:-
> 
> * CON 31%, LAB 38%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 13%*
> 
> – we’ve had a week of YouGov poll with quite low Labour leads, including a couple with leads of just one point. This seven point lead suggests they were just co-incidence and what we’re actually seeing is normal random variation around an underlying lead of 3 or 4 points (tabs are here.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2014)

Ashcroft has been hinting at something over the weekend -  now we know what:

CON 34%
LAB 32%
LDEM 9%
UKIP 15%.

Need more info on this.


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ashcroft has been hinting at something over the weekend -  now we know what:
> 
> CON 34%
> LAB 32%
> ...



Put into "Electoral Calculus" (usual caveats etc.) that gives Lab 16 short of a majority...with 18 LD survivors! Hmmm....

e2a: and UKIP = 0


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2014)

..and Anthony has looked at the methodology....apparently it is, as you would expect of Ashcroft, OK on face value, but subject to the usual MoE etc....



> Methodological details of the poll are as follows – the poll is past vote weighted (accounting for false recall, so the Tories are actually weighted slightly lower than than in 2010, Labour slightly higher), the voting intention question is prompted for the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems like most other companies. Results are weighted by likelihood to vote and a proportion of people who say don’t know are re-allocated to the party they voted for in 2010.
> 
> There is nothing here that should produce unduly pro-Conservative figures, in fact it’s broadly the same methods as Populus used to use in their telephone polls before they switched to online polling, and their polls were normally inline with other companies. What to make of the Tory lead then? Well, the poll seems methodologically sound, but it’s subject to the same margin or error as any poll, so treat it with the same caution you would if ICM or YouGov or MORI had popped up with a slim Tory lead. It might be a sign that the Tories have overtaken Labour, or might just be a an outlier, wait and see if it’s repeated it in other polls.


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2014)

Some other polling today that suggests a degree of convergence Con/Lab...



> Following the surprise Ashcroft poll earlier on today ICM’s monthly poll for the Guardian is also showing a lead for the Conservative party. Their topline figures are:-
> 
> * CON 33%(+1), LAB 31%(-6!), LDEM 13%(+1), UKIP 15%(+4).*
> 
> ...


*

*


----------



## free spirit (May 12, 2014)

erm, people who say they don't know are allocated to the party they voted for in 2010... can't see how that could possibly benefit the party of government in their poll rating.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 13, 2014)

Minus 6% is surely a freak Labour rating. Dubious poll? Need to know more.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 13, 2014)

I reckon the more plausible a tight Tory victory becomes, the more likely UKIP types will go for them to keep labour out. If it looked like a lost cause more would vote UKIP to show Cameron where he's going wrong. This could boost the Tories further if it holds up.

Imagine another five years of being ruled over by Gove, Hunt, Shapps etc. I know the alternative isn't great, but still.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 13, 2014)

That assumes UKIP voters are all natural Tories which isn't the case. 

But certainly in Tory held marginals they might be more likely to be Tory and prepared to vote tactically against Labour - I'm certainly sure that in many areas in the GE as it becomes Clearwater they won't win more than 1 seat their vote will fall back to around 6%

It does look like we're possibly seeing a poll narrowing here is it because with the proximity of the Euros people are being reminded that Labour are timidly pro-Europe? Admittedly not an important issue but one that is more prominent right now?


----------



## killer b (May 13, 2014)

The polls are definitely narrowing, I don't see the point of being in denial about it. I'm baffled why though.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 13, 2014)

killer b said:


> The polls are definitely narrowing, I don't see the point of being in denial about it. I'm baffled why though.



Oh I agree they're narrowing just trying to throw some ideas around about why that might be...

Could it be due to Labour finally anouncing some solid policies? The box has been opened and the cat is dead...


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Oh I agree they're narrowing just trying to throw some ideas around about why that might be...
> 
> Could it be due to Labour finally anouncing some solid policies? The box has been opened and the cat is dead...


 Could be, or it could reflect on Miliband's continuing negative polling/perception, or it could even reflect UKIP's increasingly 'populist' appeal to trad Lab voters, (the other day on R5 I heard a UKIP talking head arguing against the tories proposed higher threshold for strike action on the basis that working peoples' rights and wages require protection and organised labour needs the ultimate 'weapon' of strike action....needless to say no such noises came from the Lab bod), or we could be just looking at the normal poll volatility seen close to real polling.

This graph has one very obvious omission, but it does show that the convergence has more to do with falling Lab polling that rising tory numbers. The vermin look pegged at a % well below that level needed to give them any hope of forming an administration.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 13, 2014)

It could be that they were creeping up with the improved economy, then got knocked back with the shambles around the Maria Miller sacking. Now that's been forgotten it could be back to the natural rebound in support.  Another tory shambles is never far away so expect more volatility.

Wonder if Labour will panic? The papers will speculate on 'knives being out' at the flimsiest of prompts, won't they?


----------



## killer b (May 13, 2014)

Still waiting to see this improved economy tbh. precious little evidence of it round my ends.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 13, 2014)

yeah it sort of looks like the housing bubble got re-inflated so now ozzie can claim recovery.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 13, 2014)

killer b said:


> Still waiting to see this improved economy tbh. precious little evidence of it round my ends.



The problem is that in many of the seats in London and the South East which Labour need to win back there was never huge evidence of a shit economy anyway and it's easier to believe stories of an economic recovery especially among the people most likely to vote.

I think it will be the West and East Midlands marginals where the real battle takes place in 2015 - this is where floating voters have seen and felt austerity in action.


----------



## Quartz (May 13, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah it sort of looks like the housing bubble got re-inflated so now ozzie can claim recovery.



Isn't it supposed to take a year or two to filter through? 

Or trickle down?


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2014)

Improving economy (lets just use that term for now) doesn't straightforwardly translate into tory votes - it's how that improvement is seen as effecting (or not) people and their families, and if it's not helping them, who it _is _effecting. 

On the two crossover polls - we need a week of this to be able to draw any conclusions. What we can say is that they don't show the tory vote rising - instead they remain at a level that will almost ensure they would not win a general election.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 13, 2014)

killer b said:


> Still waiting to see this improved economy tbh. precious little evidence of it round my ends.



We've just been told that our hours will be increasing from 37.5 to 40 in October, a 6.7% increase.  They're offering a 2% pay rise for this change (not pro-rata, so a pay cut). This is on top of a pay freeze we just had in April.  This is for a nationwide construction-industry related consultancy.

Recovery my arse.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 13, 2014)

As ever, I'd like to know the percentages for don't know / don't care / fuck the lot of them

I suspect the latter coalition is growing stronger all the time.

What is hard to tell is to what extent the fall in labour support is because people don't see the point in voting for yet another tory party, or because people are frightened of 'red ed' and labour is seen as too radical and not enough like the tories. 

I know the new-labour machine will interpret it as the latter...


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> As ever, I'd like to know the percentages for don't know / don't care / fuck the lot of them
> 
> I suspect the latter coalition is growing stronger all the time.
> 
> ...


Let's make sure the fall is real first.


----------



## free spirit (May 13, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> We've just been told that our hours will be increasing from 37.5 to 40 in October, a 6.7% increase.  They're offering a 2% pay rise for this change (not pro-rata, so a pay cut). This is on top of a pay freeze we just had in April.  This is for a nationwide construction-industry related consultancy.
> 
> Recovery my arse.


I worked for an organisation once and had been invited down to a full staff meeting at head quarters, team building sort of thing for most of the day, then they had a mass meeting about some changes they wanted to make, at which it turned out that because everyone had been racking up too many extra hours and needing more time off in lieu that they wanted to change the standard hours from 40 per week to 45 per week to reflect the hours we were actually working......... but not raise our salaries at all.

I was quite surprised to find that I seemed to be the only person objecting to this change. Left / kicked out within a couple of weeks of this, and found that they refused to pay for the time off in lieu hours accrued as well.

Pretty odd organisation that one, I'm still baffled that nobody else seemed to think it a bit off to add an extra 5 hours to the working week without an increase in salary to match.


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2014)

Yesterday's YG/Sun weekly Westminster poll numbers were:-

*Con 34%, Lab 34%, LD 8%, and UKIP 15%.
*
As Smithson says, this caps a poor week of polling for Lab and he speculates that Lab's poor/minimal focus or message re. the Euro's has knocked on to all polling. He observes that..


> The last time that Labour was that low with the firm was in June 2010 only weeks after the party’s GE2010 defeat.



but, despite this convergence largely due to Lab poll dipping, the vermin remain well short of any % of the popular vote that would give them another administration. Their 2010 GE share was over 36%, and even that left them short of a majority, so parity on 34% is no good to them...in fact such a result would leave Lab just short of a working Majority by a couple of seats.


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2014)

IpsosMORI's latest 'Westminster' poll for the standard has Lab back in lead, but the whole thing looks a bit Euro-influenced...I mean Greens +5!



> Topline figures show Labour still ahead, but their lead falling :–
> 
> *CON 31%(nc), LAB 34%(-3), LDEM 9%(nc), UKIP 11%(-4), GREEN 8%(+5).*
> 
> I don’t have a decent spreadsheet of historical trend data for the Greens, but that is likely their highest level of Green support for some time, presumably a result of the publicity from the European elections.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2014)

Back to normals then:

Today's Populus online poll has:
LAB 36 (nc)
CON 32 (-3)
LD 10 (+2)
UKIP 13 (nc)


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Back to normals then:
> 
> Today's Populus online poll has:
> LAB 36 (nc)
> ...


and, amongst a slew of weekend polling, tonight's monthly ComRes online poll for the Independent on Sunday and Sunday Mirror has a similar Lab lead with topline voting figures of:-

*CON 29%(nc), LAB 33%(-2), LDEM 8%(+1), UKIP 19%(-1), Others 11%.*

That represents a slight reduction in the Labour lead since the last ComRes online a month ago, but still a comfortable lead.


----------



## treelover (May 17, 2014)

Is 4% a year before a GE a comfortable lead?


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2014)

treelover said:


> Is 4% a year before a GE a comfortable lead?


 Who knows what may happen over the next year, but if that polling translated into popular vote Lab would have an overall majority of 46 seats. Comfortable?


----------



## treelover (May 17, 2014)

Ok, tx


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2014)

Staines has posted this graphic of the *latest Euro polling* from the big 5 pollsters....






The discrepancy between yesterday's Com Res and ICM polls is very obvious and even the usually reliable Anthony at YG has struggled to fully explain differences, but he does offer some clues about what might have contributed to the stark difference...



> I expect some readers will be hoping for some explanation for the gap between these polls. I’m afraid I don’t have a simple one to offer. Some of it might be down to *ComRes using a very strict turnout filter, taking only those respondents who said they were 10/10 certain to vote, something which has tended to help UKIP*. ICM’s tables aren’t yet available, so I don’t know for sure what they’ve done with turnout, but if their last online Euro poll is any guide *they weighted by turnout (so people who say they are 10/10 certain to vote are counted in full, people who say they are 9/10 certain to vote are counted as only 0.9 of a vote, and so on down). That would still help UKIP, but not as much as a strict 10/10 only policy.* However, that really can’t explain the whole of a ten point difference in UKIP support.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 18, 2014)

It seems as though the Tories lead in the polls was akin to an amyl nitrate (poppers) buzz: it doesn't last very long and you wonder what the fuck happened.


----------



## Balbi (May 18, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> It seems as though the Tories lead in the polls was akin to an amyl nitrate (poppers) buzz: it doesn't last very long and you wonder what the fuck happened.



Combined with a slight worry that you might have shit yourself


----------



## JTG (May 18, 2014)

Your ears go a bit hot and you end up with a headache?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

Balbi said:


> Combined with a slight worry that you might have shit yourself


That was just Seymour.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2014)

A little bit more amyl for the vermin...



> This morning’s Populus online poll became the third pollster in a week to show The Conservatives ahead, it is also the first online pollster to show the Blues ahead since March 2012.
> 
> *Con 35 (+3), Lab 34 (-2), LD 8 (-2), UKIP 14 (+1).*



As Smithson says....



> For Labour, whilst this polling maybe disheartening, all the polls that have shown the Cons ahead, Lab would still be the largest party in Parliament, and more than likely, Ed would still be PM, as _*the Cons need to 6-7% ahead to stop a net loss of seats to Labour.*_
> 
> All eyes will be on Lord Ashcroft’s phone poll which will be out at 4pm today.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2014)

...and that 2nd weekly Ashcroft poll...

*Con 29% (-5), Lab 35% (+3), LD 9% (-), UKIP 14% (-1).

*


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

Lol

I wonder why he went quiet. Wait for the marginals.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

I haven't picked through this myself (Ashcroft i mean) but someone i trust on polling data has. They say that the lib-dems are on 9% but 66% of that 9% are open to voting other than lib-dem. There is no solidity to that 9% - it can only rest on local reputation etc.


----------



## HST (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I haven't picked through this myself (Ashcroft i mean) but someone i trust on polling data has. They say that the lib-dems are on 9% but 66% of that 9% are open to voting other than lib-dem. There is no solidity to that 9% - it can only rest on local reputation etc.



Very interesting. I'm sure the lib dems will hang on in their rural strongholds but I hope to see them destroyed as a national party.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I haven't picked through this myself (Ashcroft i mean) but someone i trust on polling data has. They say that the lib-dems are on 9% but 66% of that 9% are open to voting other than lib-dem. There is no solidity to that 9% - it can only rest on local reputation etc.


 Yeah...swot it says...but, then again, they're all quite large %s....but, yeah...66% potential waverers....will terrify the LDs.


----------



## HST (May 19, 2014)

My nearest lib-dem council is Sutton. I can't see that changing. http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/new...pare_the_parties_seeking_your_vote_in_Sutton/


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2014)

HST said:


> My nearest lib-dem council is Sutton. I can't see that changing. http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/new...pare_the_parties_seeking_your_vote_in_Sutton/


No, something really quite extraordinary would have to occur for the LDs to lose Sutton....

I suppose the tories might pick a few more seats in S&W of the borough, but with 'kipper candidates likely to hoovering up some 'natural' tory voters I doubt much will change tbh.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2014)

ComRes' 'final' Euro poll....



> ComRes have released what they say is their final poll before the European elections on Thursday. Topline figures are:-
> 
> * CON 20%, LAB 27%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 33%, GRN 6%*.
> 
> The lead for UKIP is far more modest than the eleven points in their weekend poll, but is still pretty robust. The Conservatives remain in third place, the Lib Dems and Greens continue to battle for fourth place. Tabs here.



Anthony then goes on to look at how the various weighting/filtering has produced different numbers....and using the 6 sets of figures to (very unscientifically) produce a mean across the range...here are the 'poll of polls'...

* CON 22%, LAB 28%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 28%, GRN 8%*...

so still neck and neck for the popular vote % victory and fourth place.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 20, 2014)

Greens beating Clegg would be very funny, I want to see that happen.


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Greens beating Clegg would be very funny, I want to see that happen.


 Yes. Unfortunately The latest *Euro poll *from TNS doesn't differentiate the 'others' so we can't see the Green number.



> We have another final European poll, this time from TNS. Their topline figures for European voting intention are:-
> 
> * CON 21%, LAB 28%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 31%, OTHER 13%*
> 
> – much closer than their previous poll which had a nine point lead for UKIP. It’s based on only those certain to vote, but from a four-point verbal scale rather than a 0-10 scale, so it’s not as strict a filter.


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2014)

Tonight's Survation poll carries a stat that will worry 'the political establishment'....


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 20, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Tonight's Survation poll carries a stat that will worry 'the political establishment'....



That's got to fuck the Tories hardest surely, given that UKIP tend to take votes off labour in safer seats?


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's got to fuck the Tories hardest surely, given that UKIP tend to take votes off labour in safer seats?


 Yes.


----------



## treelover (May 20, 2014)

> UKIP is still on course to win the European elections despite Nigel Farage’s catastrophic week, a Daily Mirror poll reveals.
> The forecast is a huge blow to David Cameron, who sees his Tory party slump to third place with 24 hours before voters to go until the polls.
> Our survey puts UKIP at 32% with Labour closest behind on 27%.
> The Conservatives – clear winners in the 2009 European elections – are set for a dismal third spot with 23%.
> ...



Daily Mirror final poll: for Euro elections, Ukip first with 32%, L/P, 27% claims Tories will be third.


----------



## CNT36 (May 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yes. Unfortunately The latest *Euro poll *from TNS doesn't differentiate the 'others' so we can't see the Green number.


Some guff about that on the Guardian site yesterday- http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/20/green-party-support-media-ukip


----------



## Quartz (May 22, 2014)

It's pissing down here at the moment which won't help the turnout.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2014)

Quartz said:


> It's pissing down here at the moment which won't help the turnout.


I think you still have some explaining to do elsewhere chimp.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

Big Ashcroft poll of marginals released later today.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

One thirty is planned time of release into the wild.


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2014)

Ooh, it's like Christmas come early.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 24, 2014)

killer b said:


> Ooh, it's like Christmas come early.



All your anoraks in one big package.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

Ashcroft has already released details of his (4000 sample) Euro 'exit' polling, and finds a 'kipper *"stickiness index" of 51%* for the GE. This is slightly lower than some polling undertaken prior to the Euros that were showing 60%+. Looking at the 49% potential 'leakage' 14% are DK, but the bulk of 32% split 2 : 1 to the tories & labour respectively. 

As with everything at the moment, no knock-out blows in any of that.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

Summary of the marginals:



> In the last few weeks I have polled more than 26,000 voters in 26 constituencies that will be among the most closely contested between the Conservatives and Labour at the next general election.
> 
> Across the battleground I found a 6.5% swing from the Conservatives to Labour – enough to topple 83 Tory MPs and give Ed Miliband a comfortable majority. But this is a snapshot, not a prediction. The research also found that most voters in these seats are optimistic about the economy, and only three in ten would rather see Mr Miliband as Prime Minister than David Cameron. As I have found in the Ashcroft National Poll, half of voters say they may change their mind before the election – and there is still a year to go.



Longer detailed summary here (pdf)


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

So, of the 26 marginals labour would gain or hold them all apart from one tory hold. And look at the UKIP vote in those tory held seats - almost the same as in the labour seats, maybe even slightly higher in the latter - but costing tories those seats whilst costing labour nothing whatsoever.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

In terms of vote across these seats:

LAB (41%)
CON (29%)
UKIP (18%)
LD (8%)


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So, of the 26 marginals labour would gain or hold them all apart from one tory hold. And look at the UKIP vote in those tory held seats - almost the same as in the labour seats, maybe even slightly higher in the latter - but costing tories those seats whilst costing labour nothing whatsoever.


 
In a word, fucked.

26,000 sample...impressive.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

...and that single tory hold is thanet south - Farages expected personal target - polling there was: 
Con: 32
Lab: 31
UKIP 27


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2014)

Does the Cameron / Miliband head-to-head bit of the poll mean anything, or is it just there to give the tory reader a glimmer of hope?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> 26,000 sample...impressive.



A billionaire with a chronic psephology habit, and a bottomless craving for Victoria Crosses.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

killer b said:


> Does the Cameron / Miliband head-to-head bit of the poll mean anything, or is it just there to give the tory reader a glimmer of hope?


It'll mean an attempted tory focus on those two, a presidential style election - but you only need look at the way people are saying they currently intend to vote to see how little it means right now.

edit: and bear in mind, if the tories make it personal, look how that backfired with Farage.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> ...and that single tory hold is thanet south - Farages expected personal target - polling there was:
> Con: 32
> Lab: 31
> UKIP 27




Just noticed the slightly earlier ComRes marginal polling with a much lower 1% swing, but based on a sample size exactly 26 times smaller than Ashcroft.


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It'll mean an attempted tory focus on those two, a presidential style election - but you only need look at the way people are saying they currently intend to vote to see how little it means right now.


...and a labour response to try and make Miliband look more commanding and magisterial. Oh joy.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> A billionaire with a chronic psephology habit, and a bottomless craving for Victoria Crosses.



Yeah, the bent tory banker of Belize and all that, but his polling is almost certainly the best that there is in the UK.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It'll mean an attempted tory focus on those two, a presidential style election - but you only need look at the way people are saying they currently intend to vote to see how little it means right now.
> 
> edit: and bear in mind, if the tories make it personal, look how that backfired with Farage.



As in Osborne's repeated line this morning on 'Today'...."people have to ask themselves do they want David Cameron as Prime Minister, and the Conservative government (sic) or Ed Miliband..."

That'll be it now.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, the bent tory banker of Belize and all that, but his polling is almost certainly the best that there is in the UK.



Yup, I don't know what his motive for doing this is, but those are some rich datasets, and as far as I can tell it's all sound methodology etc


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Yup, I don't know what his motive for doing this is, but those are some rich datasets, and as far as I can tell it's all sound methodology etc


 
Wot he says


----------



## Pere Duchesne (May 24, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Yup, I don't know what his motive for doing this is



As owner of Dods, he funds Politics Home, Total Politics, The House magazine, Civil Service Live and a host of other loss-making ventures of a similar stripe, because it gives him a platform. Essentially, he wants to be taken seriously as an opinion-former and can afford to buy that position. It's part of the picture for him to pay for  polls which are more useful than the lightweight ones commissioned by newspapers.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

Pere Duchesne said:


> As owner of Dods, he funds Politics Home, Total Politics, The House magazine, Civil Service Live and a host of other loss-making ventures of a similar stripe, because it gives him a platform. Essentially, he wants to be taken seriously as an opinion-former and can afford to buy that position.



That said, there's nothing to suggest that his polling methodology and published data represent anything other than opinion taking.


----------



## Pere Duchesne (May 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> That said, there's nothing to suggest that his polling methodology and published data represent anything other than opinion taking.



No, and even when his analysis is highly partial (he's at odds with three-quarters of his party) it's very considered, and carefully rooted in the data. Credit where it's due.


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2014)

I was starting to quite like Ashcroft, until he did that interview with the Fabian magazine. Some things are beyond the pale.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

YG's Anthony has Ashcroft's marginal swing pretty much in lock-step with the national picture...



> *UPDATE:* Actually I’ve just spotted that the fieldwork in the Tory held seats was done earlier than the fieldwork in the Labour held seats. *So comparing the swing in Con-Lab seats to the swing in national pollsat the time the polls were done shows no difference at all (both show swing of 5.5%).* Comparing the swing in Lab-Con seats to the swing in national polls _at the time those polls were done_ shows Lab doing about 1.5 points better in seats they already hold.



Makes thing easy, I suppose?


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

Ashcroft's question to UKIP voters about their preferred next government appears to undermine the tories crude "vote UKIP, get Labour" meme. Seems like nearly half of them (43 : 37) want that outcome anyway!


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2014)

A couple of fairly unexciting polls this morning...



> The weekly *YouGov poll for the Sunday Times* also had only a one point lead for the Labour party:-
> 
> * CON 34%, LAB 35%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 13%.* Tabs here.
> and...
> ...



but Survation's poll had mainly post local election results fieldwork...was there a bounce factor for the 'kippers?



> Topline figures there, with changes since Survations last pre-election poll, are:-
> 
> *CON 27%(-1), LAB 32%(-3), LDEM 9%(+1), UKIP 23%(+2)*.
> 
> Survation show some of the highest UKIP scores anyway, but the *23% is a record high for UKIP even by their standards* – the first in what I’d expect to be many polls showing a post-election boost for UKIP.


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2014)

Calling the anoraks....

YG's Anthony bigs up YG in the Euro 'post-mortem'...



> CONLABLDUKIPGRNAverage Error
> ACTUAL RESULT23.925.46.927.57.9
> YouGov222692710_*1.4*
> (-1.9)(+0.6)(+2.1)(-0.5)(+2.1)_
> ...



tbf I think YG did do pretty well on this. As Anthony says in conclusion...



> At a purely personal level though, getting UKIP right at the next election is the biggest challenge currently facing pollsters, so I’m relieved that in the first real proper national test we got it right. Phew!



e2a : sorry that box reads bollux...go to the site to read.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Lovely stuff:

Internal ICM polling shows Clegg would lose his Sheffield Hallam seat in 2015



> The electoral oblivion apparently confronting the Liberal Democrats as led by Nick Clegg was underscored on Monday by leaked opinion polls in four seats showing that the party will be wiped out





> The electoral oblivion apparently confronting the Liberal Democrats as led by Nick Clegg was underscored on Monday by leaked opinion polls in four seats showing that the party will be wiped out.
> 
> Commissioned by a Lib Dem supporter from ICM and subsequently passed to the Guardian, the polling indicates that the Lib Dem leader would forfeit his own Sheffield Hallam constituency at the next election.





> The polls show that if Clegg remains leader he would lose in Sheffield Hallam to Labour by 33 points to 23. He would even come behind theConservatives. In the 2010 election, Clegg obtained 53% of the popular vote.


----------



## JTG (May 26, 2014)

I fully intend to be able to answer 'yes' in future years when I'm asked 'were you still up for Clegg?'


----------



## Riklet (May 27, 2014)

The trail of broken promises can only end with a rolling head.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Lovely stuff:
> 
> Internal ICM polling shows Clegg would lose his Sheffield Hallam seat in 2015



Smithson is continuing to pick away at the ICM polling...



> > What struck me are not just the numbers but the fact that *serious money is being spent on the effort to try to get Clegg out.*
> >
> > Constituency surveys like this are just about the most complex and expensive political polling that you can do. They can only be carried out by phone and the bill for this job will have been *tens of thousands of pounds*. It also takes time and planning. It is not the sort of thing that could have been commissioned last week.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Ashcroft has his new weekly poll out today
LAB (31%)
CON (29%) 
UKIP (17%)
LD (8%)

Within that though:

18% of swing voters say they are: moving "towards" Cons, 58% away.
Labour 22% towards -53% away
Lib Dems 10% towards 63% away

That backs up the marginal polling favourable to labour last week and suggests the lib-dems hole has not yet been dug deep enough.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 27, 2014)

I'd be really interested in seeing a study that would provide some demographic info about those that didn't vote last Thursday. In fact, you could work out some basic stats if you know anything about who did vote. Has anyone done any polling on that yet?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

Smithson looking at 'kipper underestimation in single-seat polling....









> *It is important to recall that all the polls in that contest, as the chart shows, understated the purples by quite some margin. None of them had UKIP any higher than third place.*
> It was a similar pattern in Corby in November 2012 when the Tories were trying to hang on to the seat following Louise Mensch’s decision to quit politics. The final Ashcroft poll had UKIP on just 6% – they ended up on 14.3%.
> 
> By-elections, of course, are susceptible to late swings which is what can make them so exciting. But I believe there are other methodological reasons why the polls have struggled with UKIP in by-elections in particular the reallocation of don’t knows or refusers to what they said they did at the previous general election.
> ...



Ashcroft's tomorrow!

(Also posted in Mercer thread.)


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2014)

Ashcroft national polling - accidentally posted in newark thread:



LAB - 34% (+3)
CON - 25% (-4)
UKIP - 19% (+2)
LDEM - 6% (-2)

Blimey.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 2, 2014)

6


----------



## brogdale (Jun 2, 2014)

Tories 25% = lowest share of national poll since Dec 2001...apparently.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 2, 2014)

> and this morning’s Populus poll had figures of:-
> 
> *CON 32%, LAB 37%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 13%*.
> 
> While that doesn’t look notable at first sight, *Populus tend to show some of the lowest Labour leads, so five points is actually the largest they’ve shown since February.*



Source.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ashcroft national polling - accidentally posted in newark thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Have you got a link for that mate? most recent one I can find went on UK polling report on 27 May (and I think that was a couple of days old cos the guy said he'd been laid up) - figures were: CON 29%, LAB 31%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 17%


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Have you got a link for that mate? most recent one I can find went on UK polling report on 27 May (and I think that was a couple of days old cos the guy said he'd been laid up) - figures were: CON 29%, LAB 31%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 17%



Sure thing.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2014)

it's on the appropriately named website lordashcroftpolls.com

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/06/ashcroft-national-poll-con-25-lab-34-ld-6-ukip-19/


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2014)

and yougov weighs in: LAB 36% CON 30% UKIP 17% LIBDEM 8%


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2014)

killer b said:


> and yougov weighs in: LAB 36% CON 30% UKIP 17% LIBDEM 8%


UKIP's 17% equals their previous record YG high of May 2013 following the county council elections.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 8, 2014)

Today's Opinium Westminster poll...

*Lab 35% (+2), Con 31% (-1), UKIP 19% (0), LD 6% (-1).

*


> Labour’s lead appears to be widening, UKIP’s support appears to be solid, whilst for the Lib Dems they hit their lowest share with this pollster since July 2013. The fieldwork was before the Newark by-election.[/QU*OTE]*


----------



## brogdale (Jun 8, 2014)

The YouGov/Sunday Times poll is here and also has a four point Labour lead:-

*CON 33%, LAB 37%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 14%.*


----------



## brogdale (Jun 12, 2014)

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 11th June :-

* Con 34%, Lab 36%, LD 6%*, UKIP 14%*
*
* = lowest ever YG % for LDs*


----------



## brogdale (Jun 14, 2014)

ComRes for IoS:-

*Lab 34% (+1), Con 32% (+3), UKIP 18% (-1), LD 7% (-1), Gr 4% (0).
*
Another 2% gap and sub 10% LD poll.
*
*


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ComRes for IoS:-
> 
> *Lab 34% (+1), Con 32% (+3), UKIP 18% (-1), LD 7% (-1), Gr 4% (0).
> *
> Another 2% gap and sub 10% LD poll.


Is 4% for the greens quite high their catching up with libdems


----------



## brogdale (Jun 15, 2014)

YG's Sunday Westminster polling...



> There are two YouGov polls in the Sunday papers – one for the Sunday Times (tabs here) and one for the Sun on Sunday (tabs here). Voting intention figures are:-
> 
> * CON 33%, LAB 37%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 13%*
> 
> ...



On the economy...



> Looking at the economy first, the proportion of people thinking the economy is improving continues to tick upwards. 49% now think the economy is showing signs of recover (34%) or is on its way to full recovery (15%). This is also translating into people being more likely to think that the government are doing a good job running the economy – 45% now think they are doing well at managing the economy, 44% badly. Just a one percent net positive, but the first time the government have managed a positive since way back in November 2010.
> 
> However, at a personal level the public are still pessimistic. More people still expect to be worse off next year than better off (by 34% to 18%), and asked about their own local area in the Sun on Sunday poll people still think there are fewer jobs, people have less money to spend and the shops are less busy.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 16, 2014)

Ashcroft's latest monthly Westminster poll sees the Lab>Con lead widen again as UKIP recede...







> The latest Lord Ashcroft phone poll has just been published and the numbers have a more familiar ring to them. UKIP is down from the dizzy heights of 19% that they chalked up in the immediate aftermath of their EP14 success. The LDs are up from the miserable 6% they were on at the end of May.
> 
> But it’s the gap between LAB and CON that really matters and although the blues are up the red team is up a bit more.
> 
> When the Ashcroft poll was launched at the start of May the Tories had a 2% lead so today’s numbers are something of a reverse.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 17, 2014)

That ashcroft lib dem tory marginals poll is being released Thursday.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 18, 2014)

With the football being on, has he picked a good day to bury bad news maybe?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 19, 2014)

Ashcroft tory/lib-dem marginals:



> Across the Tory-Lib Dem battleground I found the Conservative vote share down 8 points since 2010 to 33% – but the Lib Dems down by nearly twice that, falling 15 points to 28%. Labour were up 5 points on their general election performance to 14% in these seats, and UKIP up 14 points to 18%.





> Even on this more realistic formulation, the results amount to an effective 3.5% swing from the Lib Dems to the Tories since 2010. This would be enough for the Conservatives to unseat 15 Lib Dem MPs if this were to happen across the board next May.





> But UKIP are not just a problem for the Tories. Those who voted Lib Dem at the last election were as likely to say they would switch to UKIP (13%) as to say they would switch to Labour (13%). A further 11% said they intended to vote Conservative. The party is literally losing votes right, left and centre.



Not got time to dig any deeper right now.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ashcroft tory/lib-dem marginals:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Lot's in there, but Ashcroft is quite sensibly heavy on the caveat this time...



> ....the results amount to an effective 3.5% swing from the Lib Dems to the Tories since 2010. *This would be enough for the Conservatives to unseat 15 Lib Dem MPs if this were to happen across the board next May.*
> 
> But one big lesson from this research is *not to assume any kind of uniform swing* where the Lib Dems are concerned. The swing to the Tories was as high as 9% in Newton Abbot, but in the Lib Dem-held seats of Cheadle, Eastleigh and Sutton & Cheam the swing was in the other direction. There was also no straightforward regional pattern. Though swings were generally less favourable to the Tories in urban and suburban seats, in Cornwall they ranged from 2.5% (St Ives) to 8% (Truro & Falmouth). The swing to the Conservatives in Wells (3%) was less than half than in neighbouring Somerton & Frome (7.5%).


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 19, 2014)




----------



## J Ed (Jul 1, 2014)

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8884



> The monthly ComRes telephone poll is out tonight and has topline figures of CON 30%(nc), LAB 32%(-3), LDEM 7%(-1), UKIP 18%(+4). Changes are since the last ComRes telephone poll, just before the European election.
> 
> Meanwhile the daily YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 37%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%. The two point Labour lead there is the lowest that YouGov have shown for about a fortnight, but again, not beyond the normal margin or error for an average lead of four points or so.
> 
> Two polls showing a reduced Labour lead of two points, plus the Ashcroft poll showing a Tory lead. There will be a temptation to interpret this as a “Juncker effect”. On the other hand Populus’s poll this morning had a four point Labour lead, the changes in ComRes are month-on-month, so don’t need to be related to the last couple of days and there’s really nothing here yet that couldn’t be normal sample variation. For now I would’t read too much into it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2014)

Lots of volatility in the ashcroft polling recent - today is:

CON 27
LAB 35
LD, 7
Ukip 17
GRN 7

Underlying message is tories in big trouble with lack of sustained lead or clear deficits.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 21, 2014)

After a bit of break, (in here), some interesting national polling...

Today's Populus and Ashcroft nationals both show Lab leads over falling %'s for the vermin....





Ashcroft's appears to show UKIP gains hurting the tory scum again.

Meanwhile Smithson has been busy plotting the LD -> Lab %'s and finds a remarkable consistency across the past year...





As Prof John Curtice says...


> _“..basically the reason why *the Labour party is in the lead is because of the loss of Liberal Democrat support to Labour. It goes all the way back to 2010 and it’s not obvious that it’s going to go back anytime soon…*_
> 
> _..I see no reason why the general election should result in a transfer of voters back from Labour to the Liberal Democrats unless there is a severe decline in Labour’s ability to offer anything. Because in a sense those Liberal Democrat voters that are going to Labour are primarily there because of push rather than pull..”_


----------



## brogdale (Jul 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Lots of volatility in the ashcroft polling recent - today is:
> 
> CON 27
> LAB 35
> ...


Snap!

Yes, Cameron's 're-shuffle' was clearly an attempt to shape the succession; they know they're gonna lose.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2014)

Ashcroft polling on CON/Lab ultra-marginals - summary:



> In my latest round of battleground research I have returned to the fourteen Conservative-held seats with Labour in second place that I first polled in the spring. The most striking feature is that rising support for UKIP has eroded the swing to Labour. Though the Tories are down a point on their share in March and April in these seats, Labour are down by three points and UKIP are up five.
> 
> There are three points worth noting about this. First, the most immediately striking effect of this shift is that UKIP now lead in two seats – Thurrock and Thanet South. They have also jumped to second in Great Yarmouth, where the Tories are now ahead, having been behind Labour in my previous round of polling.
> 
> ...





> As for the Liberal Democrats, their 4% share on this battleground represents an 11-point drop since 2010. If these results were repeated next May the Lib Dems would lose their deposit in ten of these fourteen seats. Only one in five Lib Dem voters from 2010 who named a party said they would vote Lib Dem again at the next election; 36% said they would vote Labour, 17% UKIP, 13% Conservative and 11% Green.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ashcroft polling on CON/Lab ultra-marginals - summary:


Sober analysis from Anthony Wells...



> The average picture in the national polls is unchanged since April – the national swing from Con to Lab in GB polls conducted during the time Ashcroft did his latest fieldwork was 5.4% from Con to Lab. Lord Ashcroft’s findings in the marginal polls however *have shown a slight weakening in the Labour position relative to the Conservatives,* looking at just the 12 ultra-marginal seats the Conservatives are down by about 1.5% on average, Labour down by about 2.7%, *UKIP up by about 4.5%. This looks like a European boost – the previous poll was done before the European election campaign, this one started in mid-June.* The average swing in the ultra-marginals is now 4.9 from Con to Lab, meaning an increase in UKIP support has slightly hurt Labour. *While the difference is too small to really make a fuss about, it also means that Ashcroft’s polls now show a slightly smaller swing in Con held marginals than nationally – in line with what we’d expect given the normal incumbency effect.*
> 
> In two of the seats polled, Thanet South and Thurrock, UKIP were ahead in voting intentions, which will be enormous help for them in convincing voters they are a viable general election vote in the local area.


----------



## treelover (Jul 22, 2014)

> _“..basically the reason why *the Labour party is in the lead is because of the loss of Liberal Democrat support to Labour. It goes all the way back to 2010 and it’s not obvious that it’s going to go back anytime soon…*_
> [/QUOTE
> 
> 
> After New Labours rebirth at the National Policy Forum who can be sure.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2014)

Tell you what, come back next week with the latest polling results and let us know if the lib-dem voters intending to switch to labour have suddenly abandoned the party since an irrelevant internal party meeting.


----------



## treelover (Jul 22, 2014)

It is not irrelevant, it is going to provide much of the basis for the manifesto.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2014)

treelover said:


> It is not irrelevant, it is going to provide much of the basis for the manifesto.


And it's not going to effect the polling in the slightest - so it's irrelevant to polling. Utterly. And learn to quote ffs.


----------



## treelover (Jul 22, 2014)

grow up, the quotes don't always work.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2014)

treelover said:


> grow up, the quotes don't always work.


The quotes _always_ work. You get them wrong - year after year after year. 

No response to the political point? That a forum that most lib-dem to labour switchers haven't heard of and don't care about won't effect their voting in the slightest? And that to think that it will and that this represents "New Labours rebirth" is to misread the current political situation within and without labour and also demonstrate that prior to this _shocking turn of events_ you had some faith in labour.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 22, 2014)

treelover said:


> grow up, the quotes don't always work.


They do if you're a competent human being


----------



## miktheword (Jul 29, 2014)

The
*Tories 'more likely to raise taxes' than any other party - and Labour would win election if held tomorrow, poll reveals*

*Just one in four respondents think a Labour government would hike taxes*
*Figures from Ashcroft's poll will be a blow to Chancellor George Osborne*
*It put Tories on 32% and Labour on 34%, with Ukip 14% and Lib Dems 9%*
figures, which will be a blow to Chancellor George Osborne, were revealed in the latest poll by Lord Ashcroft, the former Tory Party deputy chairman.
It put the Tories on 32 per cent and Labour on 34 per cent when the public were asked who they would vote for were an election held tomorrow.

The Lib Dems were on 9 per cent and Ukip on 14 per cent. The Tory figure was up five points, Labour down one and the Lib Dems up two. Ukip was down three points.
A separate poll for the Independent newspaper showed Labour amassing a six-point lead over the Tories.

The ComRes poll saw the Tories drop to 27 per cent, their lowest in that poll since 2010, and down three points in a month.
Labour was on 33 per cent, up one point. Ukip was down one point to 17 per cent and the Lib Dems up one point to 8 per cent.
Labour was in the lead despite more than half of voters saying Ed Miliband would put them off voting for the party. When asked, 54 per cent agreed with that statement and 41 per cent disagreed.
One in five said they would be more likely to vote Labour if Tony Blair were party leader. That includes one in eight Tory supporters and one in ten Ukip supporters.

not posting link due to many usual objections.
daily mail


----------



## brogdale (Jul 30, 2014)

For all you trend-spotters.....from Smithson...the YG monthly average %s since beginning of 2013:-


----------



## miktheword (Aug 2, 2014)

could also be on the guardian is shit thread.. but their predictability re headlines is laughable.

yesterday, they had as a headline following a poll

*Three in 10 Conservative voters would prefer Ukip coalition in 2015 – poll*
Tory support for Ukip pact narrowly trails that for another deal with Lib Dems in event of hung parliament next year

you had to get to the seventh paragraph for a brief mention that

_The poll gave Labour a seven-point lead on 36%, to the Tories' 29%, with Ukip on 19% and the Liberal Democrats trailing on 7%._
_http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/01/conservative-voters-ukip-coalition-poll_



as someone mentioned BTL, it also allows them to say 'Labour lead falling ' next time, as headline..

.one day later..

*Labour's lead over Tories narrows in latest Observer/Opinium poll*


Labour's lead over the Conservatives has fallen slightly to three points although support for both is up at the expense of the Liberal Democrats and Ukip, according to the latest Observer/Opinium poll.

Ed Miliband's party stands on 35%, up one point on a fortnight ago while the Tories are up one point to 32%. Ukip is on 15%, down two, and Nick Clegg's Lib Dems have also fallen two points to 7%.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/02/observer-opinium-poll-labour-lead-narrows


both are up by a point though?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 2, 2014)

miktheword said:


> both are up by a point though?



Predictably it's a typo...the vermin are +2 compared to last Opinium.

More here.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 3, 2014)

Christ, just imagine a Tory-UKIP coalition though. I'll be claiming asylum in a newly independent Scotland, thank you very much.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 3, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Christ, just imagine a Tory-UKIP coalition though. I'll be claiming asylum in a newly independent Scotland, thank you very much.



With one, at most. UKIP MP. Even as a nightmare, it's pretty far-fetched.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 3, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> With one, at most. UKIP MP. Even as a nightmare, it's pretty far-fetched.



True, but then so was the plot to Sharknado and we all know what happened.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 3, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> True, but then so was the plot to Sharknado and we all know what happened.




If only Shakespeare were alive today...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 3, 2014)

Sharknado is a retelling of the Tempest and I believe the sequel is subititlied Shark ado about Nothing


----------



## brogdale (Aug 7, 2014)

Survation marginal polling good for Lab...



Though, as Smithson says Unite had more than one reason for commissioning the poll.... 



> A reason why UNITE sponsored the poll was to look at public views on the NHS in the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). If the NHS is included the union is concerned that US private healthcare companies would be allowed to bid for contracts within the NHS. *68% told Survation that they opposed the inclusion of the NHS*.
> 
> Clearly UNITE is trying to raise awareness. My guess is that very few people have any knowledge whatsoever about the planned trade deal.



..and it has gained some MSM attention...

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...hs-exempt-us-trade-pact-ttip-eu-privatisation


----------



## free spirit (Aug 7, 2014)

wow, look at that swing in the marginals from Lib Dem to Labour.

Lib dems can not win here...

I assume that's what's happened there, not a swing of actual voters moving from tory to labour, presumably they're mostly going to UKIP.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 11, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/11/labour-soar-past-tories-seven-point-lead-icm-poll



> Ed Miliband has overturned a narrow Tory advantage to take a commanding seven point lead after a bruising week for David Cameronin the wake of the resignation of Baroness Warsi over the Gaza crisis, according to a new Guardian / ICM poll.
> 
> In a boost for Labour, which is embarking on a pre-election summer campaign called The Choice, the party has seen its support increase by five points over the last month to 38%, a share it last recorded in March. The Tories see their support fall by three points to 31% – last recorded in June – giving Labour a seven-point lead. In last month's Guardian / ICM poll the Tories had a one-point lead over Labour – 34% to 33%.
> 
> The Liberal Democrats are unchanged on 12%, while Ukip sees a one-point increase in its support to 10%.


----------



## treelover (Aug 12, 2014)

Expect the Tories to lash out, disabled, claimants, migrants, beware.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 12, 2014)

They're going to do that anyway. Lynton Crosby's not being paid by them to play nice


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 12, 2014)

treelover said:


> Expect the Tories to lash out, disabled, claimants, migrants, beware.



Yes because they haven't targeted them already


----------



## brogdale (Aug 12, 2014)

treelover said:


> Expect the Tories to lash out, disabled, claimants, migrants, beware.


 You are Kinnock AICMFP


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 20, 2014)

Ashcroft polling "the second tier of Labour targets with bigger Conservative majorities" that labour have to win

Swing to Labour extends deeper into Tory territory



> In the eight Conservative-held seats in this round, which the Tories won in 2010 with majorities of up to 3 per cent, there was little good news for the incumbents. Here I found Labour leads of between 4 points (Lincoln) and 13 points (Plymouth Sutton & Devonport), and swings of between 3.5 per cent and 7.5 per cent. The overall swing to Labour across the eight seats was 6.5per cent – comparable to the seats with smaller Conservative majorities I have previously surveyed.



Other stuff from findings:



> Just under seven in ten 2010 Conservative voters said they currently intended support the party again at the next election. Former Tories were nearly twice as likely to say they would now vote UKIP (17% of 2010 Conservative voters) as Labour (9%); one in ten 2010 Labour voters also said they would vote UKIP. Among those who voted Liberal Democrat at the last election, only just over a quarter of those naming a party (27%) said they would vote Lib Dem again. Just under a third (32%) said they would switch to Labour and 12% said they would support UKIP.
> 
> Two fifths (41%) of Conservative defectors to UKIP ruled out going back to the Tories, and 59% of Lib Dem switchers to Labour said they would not go back to their previous party. Overall 42% of those who voted Lib Dem in 2010 said they would definitely not do so again at the next election. Fewer than one in ten of all voters in these seats (9%) said they were potentially open to voting for any of the four parties.





> As for the outcome of the next election, 36% of voters in the Tory seats said they would like to see a Labour government, and 27% a Conservative government. One fifth said they would like a coalition, either between the Conservatives and Lib Dems (10%) or Labour and the Lib Dems (11%). Lib Dem voters themselves were divided as to whether they wanted a coalition with Labour (41%) or the Tories (41%). 82% of both Labour and Conservative voters said they wanted their own party to govern alone; around one in seven of each party’s voters would rather see them in coalition with the Lib Dems.



Full tables at link.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 26, 2014)

A polling boost for UKIP from Populus...






Up 4 
% to a record high for Populus..


> This follows an increase in the UKIP share in the ComRes online poll for IoS/S Mirror – published at the weekend and the last YouGov poll have Farage’s party up from its average for the month of about 12% to 14%.
> 
> We need to see more polls, of course, but the theory was that UKIP would fade after the May Euros and headed for GE2015.
> 
> Well these numbers suggest that that is not happening.



Also posted in UKIP MPs thread.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 2, 2014)

Ashcroft puts UKIP on 56% in Clacton

http://www.conservativehome.com/pla...-lead-over-the-tories-in-my-clacton-poll.html


----------



## treelover (Sep 2, 2014)

is that possible and if it is, what an enditement of uk politics and yes all the 'progressive' parties,


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2014)

treelover said:


> is that possible and if it is, what an enditement of uk politics and yes all the 'progressive' parties,


Is what possible?


----------



## treelover (Sep 2, 2014)

That they will get 56% of those that vote, that's an incredible number.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 2, 2014)

treelover said:


> That they will get 56% of those that vote, that's an incredible number.


imbecile


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2014)

treelover said:


> That they will get 56% of those that vote, that's an incredible number.


Of course it's possible. It's the seat with the most favourable demographics in the country, a popular candidate who has already won the seat once with a large majority, and with the national party with the wind in its sails.

The question i'm interested in though is, is there anything at all which you don't see as a damning indictment of the left? And why is this a damning indictment of 'uk politics' - this is how safe non-threatening rebellions always happen.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The question i'm interested in though is, is there anything at all which you don't see as a damning indictment of the left? And why is this a damning indictment of 'uk politics' - this is how safe non-threatening rebellions always happen.



Since he doesn't answer questions I will answer for him, the only things that are not damning indictments are the latest big announcement from big exciting new campaigns in which case they're the best thing ever until a few weeks later when they join the ranks of the indictments.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 7, 2014)

By-election for Heywood and Middleton.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/07/jim-dobbin-labour-mp-heywood-middleton-dies


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2014)

Ashcroft and Populus today

Ashcroft:

LAB - 35% (+2)
CON - 28% (-2)
UKIP - 18% (=)
LDEM - 8% (=)
GRN - 6% (=)

Populus:

Lab 36 (-2)
Con 34 (+2)
LD 9 (+1)
UKIP 12 (-2)


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 28, 2014)

Mega ashcroft poll at 2-  8000 surveyed. Normal size for national polls is 1000. This is national, and marginals and ex-tories and loads of other interesting stuff apparently.I shall be in the pub and watching the golf, so don't expect any analysis from me straight off.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Mega ashcroft poll at 2-  8000 surveyed. Normal size for national polls is 1000. This is national, and marginals and ex-tories and loads of other interesting stuff apparently.I shall be in the pub and watching the golf, so don't expect any analysis from me straight off.


At first glance...



> Since the 7th of May 2010 it has been clear that to win a majority, or probably even to remain the largest party, the Conservatives are going to need more votes at the next election than they received at the last one.



And...


> Next we come to the Defectors – who unfortunately rather outnumber the Joiners. Only 63% of those who voted Conservative in 2010 say they would do so again tomorrow.



Wow


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 29, 2014)

There's plenty of seriously unwelcome news for the Tories in Ashcroft's latest.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2014)

Kellner piece on potential small party outcomes of GE 2015 - suggest 10 UKIP and 25 SNP is a possibility. I think he may well be making the mistake that i think others are making - of just adding past referendum YES votes from labour supporters seamlessly onto the existing SNP vote.


----------



## andysays (Sep 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Kellner piece on potential small party outcomes of GE 2015 - suggest 10 UKIP and 25 SNP is a possibility. I think he may well be making the mistake that i think others are making - of just adding past referendum YES votes from labour supporters seamlessly onto the existing SNP vote.



There was a similar piece from him in yesterday's Guardian.

I didn't read it as saying the hypothetical outcome (10 UKIP, 25 SNP, LD 30 and, crucially, Lab and Con very close) was likely, but that if all those factors *did* come together, it would give a situation where a multi-party coalition was needed. It's interesting, if at all, as a mathematical exercise.

But one thing it does suggest to me is that with five parties competing for seats, there are increasingly complex possible outcomes and it becomes more difficult to translate nationwide polling into numbers of seats (which is why the more focussed polling is important)


----------



## bemused (Sep 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> But one thing it does suggest to me is that with five parties competing for seats[..]



Do you think this is because the two major parties have become increasingly generic?

UK politics depresses me, they've managed to strip all the powers away from the only group I cared about when I voted - local councilors - and now the major parties are two sides of the same coin. There is no real choice at the national level and the impact of your vote at a local level has been diminished to the point that it's meaningless. 

Personally I tell people I vote for UKIP just because I like the confused look on their face - in reality the Tory vote is weighed here and any contradictory vote doesn't count anyway. 

Before people get too excited about a UKIP vote I generally vote for any independent on the sheet.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 30, 2014)

Could potentially be more SNP (and labour) in Scotland if the lib dem vote collapses, though I think some of the polling has shown it holding up better than expected where they have seats, it's the shifting of that vote to labour in other seats that'll fuck the tories.  Depends whether UKIP targetting the Labour vote will offset some of the gains they get from disillusioned liberals.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 30, 2014)

Get all your money on UKIP getting 10-15% of the vote in the GE


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2014)

Heywood and Middleton by election polling from survation:

Heywood & Middleton poll 
LAB - 50% 
UKIP - 31% 
CON - 13%
LDEM - 4%

2010 election was:
Labour 40.1   
Conservative 27.2  
LD  22.7   
UKIP  2.6

So massive tory/lib-dem shift to UKIP - and smaller lib-dem-->labour shift.


----------



## chilango (Oct 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Heywood and Middleton by election polling from survation:
> 
> Heywood & Middleton poll
> LAB - 50%
> ...



A LibDem lost deposit would be nice.


----------



## Santino (Oct 2, 2014)

Does LD stand for Lost Deposit?


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Heywood and Middleton by election polling from survation:
> 
> Heywood & Middleton poll
> LAB - 50%
> ...



Could it also be a big LD shift to labour, and a fairly big labour shift to UKIP partly offsetting this?  I'd imagine the LD-UKIP transition would be less likely than Labour-UKIP, what with their 'base' being Guardian Reader types.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 3, 2014)

I take it the Heywood and Middleton byelection is the same Thursday as Clacton -- October 9.

To me that poll, if at all accurate, means that some earlier media hype about UKIP's chances of actually gaining that seat in Manchester was utter cobblers ...


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 3, 2014)

I see TUSC got a very creditable 1% in the Harringay council by election


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 3, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> I take it the Heywood and Middleton byelection is the same Thursday as Clacton -- October 9.
> 
> To me that poll, if at all accurate, means that some earlier media hype about UKIP's chances of actually gaining that seat in Manchester is utter cobblers ...



I think that was labour talking up ukips challenge tbh.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 3, 2014)

Could very well have been, true ....


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Could it also be a big LD shift to labour, and a fairly big labour shift to UKIP partly offsetting this?  I'd imagine the LD-UKIP transition would be less likely than Labour-UKIP, what with their 'base' being Guardian Reader types.


Could be, but i see it more like the wythenshawe by-election where a similar labour vote in the 40s went back to a previous vote in ther 50s whilst UKIP hoovered up lib-dems and tories. Ex-labour voters are coming back in these seats.


----------



## JTG (Oct 3, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Could it also be a big LD shift to labour, and a fairly big labour shift to UKIP partly offsetting this?  I'd imagine the LD-UKIP transition would be less likely than Labour-UKIP, what with their 'base' being Guardian Reader types.


I dunno, the make up of the LD vote can be curious. Plenty of people voting for them in the past who were a long way from the Guardian liberal types


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 3, 2014)

JTG said:


> I dunno, the make up of the LD vote can be curious. Plenty of people voting for them in the past who were a long way from the Guardian liberal types



True, in some cases they've done well with strong local candidates who've reached out across the political spectrum (probably by appearing in the local press standing next to things and looking concerned), and UKIP I think has similar appeal in some places (against a background of the parachuting of candidates by the two big parties).

No polls for Strood yet?  I hear rumours the tories are going to throw everything at that to try and keep it.  UKIP are favourite with the bookies.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2014)

The tories have to throw everything at it to cut UKIP off at the pass. I think they'll win that one. Last time i looked around from 15-20% of 2010 lib-dems say they're voting UKIP iirc.


----------



## andysays (Oct 3, 2014)

I realise the actual date hasn't been set yet, but when is the Strood by-election likely to be?

ETA: and who gets to "call" it? Is it the Tories because they won it last time, or UKIP because their (new) man is resigning, or does it work according to guidelines uncontrolled by one party or another?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2014)

andysays said:


> I realise the actual date hasn't been set yet, but when is the Strood by-election likely to be?
> 
> ETA: and who gets to "call" it? Is it the Tories because they won it last time, or UKIP because their (new) man is resigning, or does it work according to guidelines uncontrolled by one party or another?


Convention says the tories  - but there is no set rule. Labour i think  (def one party) moved one when they shouldn't have at some point in this parliament. Nov 6th i think fav.


----------



## andysays (Oct 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Convention says the tories  - but there is no set rule. Labour i think  (def one party) moved one when they shouldn't have at some point in this parliament. Nov 6th i think fav.



Thanks. I've just come across this, which suggests you're right about convention, but that potentially any MP can call it*.

It also says the date of the by election is determined by the date the writ is moved, but doesn't say how long after it will be.

 at self for relying on wikipedia

ETA * UKIP don't have any MPs ATM, though they may do soon...


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 3, 2014)

andysays said:


> I realise the actual date hasn't been set yet, but when is the Strood by-election likely to be?
> 
> ETA: and who gets to "call" it? Is it the Tories because they won it last time, or UKIP because their (new) man is resigning, or does it work according to guidelines uncontrolled by one party or another?


The Chief Whip of the Party who held the seat last traditionally  "moves the Writ", as it's called.  But as Butchers says, that's only a convention and others have usurped it in the past.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 3, 2014)

andysays said:


> Thanks. I've just come across this, which suggests you're right about convention, but that potentially any MP can call it.


You beat me.


----------



## andysays (Oct 3, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> You beat me.



That's OK, it's not a race...



... but if it was, I'd have won


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 3, 2014)

andysays said:


> ... but if it was, I'd have won


Aye, but only by resorting to Wikipedia.


----------



## andysays (Oct 3, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Aye, but only by resorting to Wikipedia.


----------



## andysays (Oct 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> ... Nov 6th i think fav.



Potential for a Guy Fawkes-based campaign from someone then...


----------



## JTG (Oct 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Convention says the tories  - but there is no set rule. Labour i think  (def one party) moved one when they shouldn't have at some point in this parliament. Nov 6th i think fav.


Think it was the LDs for Oldham East & Saddleworth


----------



## treelover (Oct 3, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> I see TUSC got a very creditable 1% in the Harringay council by election




Maybe its time to move on for TUSC.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 3, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> I see TUSC got a very creditable 1% in the Harringay council by election


What ward was if? If it was in the East of the borough it's one of the worse far-left results there for a long time


----------



## andysays (Oct 3, 2014)

It was Woodside. Have a look at this.

And here is the result for that ward in May

Doesn't look like TUSC have done that much worse now compared to then. They have done significantly better in other wards further east though, including mine.


----------



## miktheword (Oct 3, 2014)

Research saying UKIP could have more influence in marginal than maybe thought...methodology may need looking at, defines 'marginals' as 20 point gap..not sure how this matches up with those seats ever changing hands...



http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...f-more-than-200-seats-at-the-general-election


Seats at direct "risk" from Ukip 

Predictably, the Conservatives were the most at risk from the Ukip threat, with 111 marginal seats affected by the Ukip surge. The gap, though, was not large: Labour have 83 target seats at stake with Ukip as a complicating factor.


----------



## andysays (Oct 4, 2014)

No one seems to have mentioned this



> *Tories lead Labour in YouGov poll for first time in two-and-a-half years*
> YouGov poll after party conferences finds Conservatives would win 35% and Labour 34% if general election were tomorrow



It's just one poll, and theres no figures given for any other party, or predictions for number of seats, but might this be a sign that something significant is happening?


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 4, 2014)

Post-conference blip. It'll iron out when people remember what a fucking shambles they all are.


----------



## JTG (Oct 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> No one seems to have mentioned this
> 
> 
> 
> It's just one poll, and theres no figures given for any other party, or predictions for number of seats, but might this be a sign that something significant is happening?


From UKPR, polls in the last week:
Ashcroft – CON 32%(+5), LAB 32%(-1), LDEM 8%(-1), UKIP 17%(nc), GRN 4%(-2)
Populus – CON 34%, LAB 36%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 14%, GRN 5%
ComRes/Indy – CON 29%(+1), LAB 35%(nc), LDEM 10%(+1), UKIP 15%(-2)
YouGov/Sun – CON 31%, LAB 36%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 15%, GRN 5%

I'd say post conference bounce, it'll go back in a week or two

There's some interesting Ashcroft LD marginal polling, not sure if it was mentioned here. Shows them with varying success in LD/Tory marginals (ahead in SUtton & Cheam, Eastleigh and Eastbourne; behind in Chippenham, Somerton & Frome, Taunton and Berwick). LD/Labour marginals are all going Labour atm with fairly large swings - he polled Redcar, Cambridge, Hornsey & Wood Green and Cardiff Central, with only Bermondsey & Old Southwark showing a small LD lead


----------



## andysays (Oct 4, 2014)

JTG said:


> From UKPR, polls in the last week:
> Ashcroft – CON 32%(+5), LAB 32%(-1), LDEM 8%(-1), UKIP 17%(nc), GRN 4%(-2)
> Populus – CON 34%, LAB 36%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 14%, GRN 5%
> ComRes/Indy – CON 29%(+1), LAB 35%(nc), LDEM 10%(+1), UKIP 15%(-2)
> ...



Thanks. 

So there has been a generalish swing towards the Tories, but the one I linked to in the Guardian is the only one which gives the Tories a lead. Why have they chosen to only mention that one, I wonder? 

As you say, likely a post-conference blip, rather than definite indication of anything more permanent.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2014)

It was the Sun not the guardian. But pretty meaningless in itself. No swing trend to tory. 3-4% lead solid.


----------



## andysays (Oct 4, 2014)

The story I linked to was in the Guardian, but maybe the Sun also reported similar


----------



## JTG (Oct 4, 2014)

Guardian love reporting on how the election's going to result in a hung Parliament so of course they big this poll up


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2014)

andysays said:


> The story I linked to was in the Guardian, but maybe the Sun also reported similar


It's a YG/Sun daily poll. They do them daily, YG, for the SUN.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 4, 2014)

What paper was it for?


----------



## The Boy (Oct 4, 2014)

Telegraph, I think?


----------



## andysays (Oct 4, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What paper was it for?



What do you need, a full page headline?

*It's The Sun what run it!!!*


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 4, 2014)

JTG said:


> Guardian love reporting on how the election's going to result in a hung Parliament so of course they big this poll up




Most Guardian writers/editors dream, indeed fantasise (and deeply infuriatingly), about a hung Parliament. Tongues so far up the LibDems' fundaments that it blocks their view of reality.

One or two of their readers prefer to read and analyse Ashcroft and other polls properly


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 4, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Most Guardian writers/editors dream, indeed fantasise (and deeply infuriatingly), about a hung Parliament. Tongues so far up the LibDems' fundemants that it blocks their view of reality.
> 
> One or two of their readers prefer to read and analyse Ashcroft and other polls properly



Most people who exclusively read the Guardian must think a hung Parliament and Lib/Lab coalition is virtually guaranteed. That's all they've been printing for the last four years.


----------



## JTG (Oct 4, 2014)

Their desperation to make the party look relevant post-2015 is hilarious. They're a margin of error in Scottish polls ffs


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 4, 2014)

Looking forward to the Guardian's sad efforts to 'analyse' the imminent steamrollering of the Lib Dems 

Time for a not very recently used pic ....


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 4, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Most people who exclusively read the Guardian must think a hung Parliament and Lib/Lab coalition is virtually guaranteed.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 5, 2014)

Key word in that post from goldenecitrone is 'exclusively' though


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 5, 2014)

I do think the Libdems will hang on to more seats than some people are making out - about 25 - 35 probably. This is due to the fact that they do have a core vote, plus there is an incumbency factor for their "better" MPs. 

The interesting thing with regards to the Libdems in 2015 will be to see their further hollowing out and reduction in relevancy across huge swathes of the country. They will once again become a party of the South West and Scotland with only a few diminishing pockets elsewhere. 

so their national vote will be tiny but they will be saved by FPTP


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 5, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I do think the Libdems will hang on to more seats than some people are making out - about 25 - 35 probably. This is due to the fact that they do have a core vote, plus there is an incumbency factor for their "better" MPs.
> 
> The interesting thing with regards to the Libdems in 2015 will be to see their further hollowing out and reduction in relevancy across huge swathes of the country. They will once again become a party of the South West and Scotland with only a few diminishing pockets elsewhere.
> 
> so their national vote will be tiny but they will be saved by FPTP


I don't think they'll have much left in Scotland, they were already losing some ground to the SNP and since 2010 they've been hit hard and the polling in the aftermath of the referendum shows the SNP vote going up at their expense. They'll hang on in the Islands but what once was one of their Heartlands won't be for that much longer.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 5, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I do think the Libdems will hang on to more seats than some people are making out - about 25 - 35 probably. This is due to the fact that they do have a core vote, plus there is an incumbency factor for their "better" MPs.
> 
> The interesting thing with regards to the Libdems in 2015 will be to see their further hollowing out and reduction in relevancy across huge swathes of the country. They will once again become a party of the South West and Scotland with only a few diminishing pockets elsewhere.
> 
> so their national vote will be tiny but they will be saved by FPTP



I will be betting on them to hold Stockport west or whatever it is round here .


----------



## brogdale (Oct 5, 2014)

Survation's polling for Reckless' Rochester & Strood by-election looks like it'll be an interesting tussle between the parties of the right...






particularly when the 2010 "no-shows" are statistically discounted...





Not one to put yer money on.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 5, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> I don't think they'll have much left in Scotland ... They'll hang on in the Islands but what once was one of their Heartlands won't be for that much longer.



Why? Most of Scotland rejected independence, and where they are the incumbent party, they'll likely pick up a lot of 'stop the SNP' votes.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2014)

Have you actually seen the lib dem polling results in Scotland¿


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Have you actually seen the lib dem polling results in Scotland¿


Ole!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2014)

Not sure how that happened there.


----------



## JTG (Oct 5, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Survation's polling for Reckless' Rochester & Strood by-election looks like it'll be an interesting tussle between the parties of the right...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Does this indicate that much of the Labour/Tory vote is pre-existing support who turned out in 2010 with a large chunk of UKIP's being 2010 no shows?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 5, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Why? Most of Scotland rejected independence, and where they are the incumbent party, they'll likely pick up a lot of 'stop the SNP' votes.


You can dress as a penguin and piss on them in Edinburgh.

E2A Gordon is the only Liberal seat with SNP in second place.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 5, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> E2A Gordon is the only Liberal seat with SNP in second place.



I think that they might get a boost in those seats where the SNP is in lower positions too on the basis that the SNP will score more votes and splitting the anti-SNP vote might let the SNP through.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 5, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Why? Most of Scotland rejected independence, and where they are the incumbent party, they'll likely pick up a lot of 'stop the SNP' votes.


That's as daft as the argument that a lot of YES voters are forever broken from the Labour party. There are plenty of NO voters who vote for the SNP for a variety of reasons, the 2011 Holyrood elections clearly showed that and the post-Referendum polls show the LD vote down and SNP vote up.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 5, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I think that they might get a boost in those seats where the SNP is in lower positions too on the basis that the SNP will score more votes and splitting the anti-SNP vote might let the SNP through.


Name the seat you think the whig dems will increase their vote.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 5, 2014)

JTG said:


> Does this indicate that much of the Labour/Tory vote is pre-existing support who turned out in 2010 with a large chunk of UKIP's being 2010 no shows?


Yeah, cos Reckless was swivel-eyed enough that the 'kippers declined to stand a candidate against him in 2010.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 6, 2014)

Ashcroft's national poll today shows just how shite NuLabour are....coming second to the vermin government ffs...not that the scum can 'win' with such a low %.





Third vermin lead in a row.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 6, 2014)

This is so psephologically ignorant it's genius...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 7, 2014)

The Populus (national) published yesterday offered some contrast to Ashcroft's...



> Populus and Lord Ashcroft have both published new polls today. Lord Ashcroft’s poll echoes YouGov’s post conference polls in showing a small Tory lead :–
> 
> *CON 32%, LAB 30%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 17%, GRN 7%* (tabshere).
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2014)

Ashcofts's national VI polling has been so volatile that i'm sceptical. YG's post cameron speech tory bounce is more trusthworthy i think.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 7, 2014)

Ashcroft's Heywood/Midleton by poll...



> Lord Ashcroft also conducted A poll on the forthcoming Heywood and Middleton by-election. Topline figuresthere are:-
> 
> *CON 16%(-11), LAB 47%(+7), LDEM 5%(-18), UKIP 28%(+25). *
> 
> While Labour and UKIP are both a little lower than in the previous Survation poll the nineteen point lead is exactly the same, and it looks like we can expect a comfortable Labour hold.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ashcofts's national VI polling has been so volatile that i'm scaptical. YG's post cameron speech tory bounce is more trusthworthy i think.


Do you know if he, or anyone else, has graphed the output over time?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Do you know if he, or anyone else, has graphed the output over time?


I expect so - i'll have a look in a bit. Not had much time to keep up with last couple of weeks detailed polling myself.


----------



## where to (Oct 7, 2014)

The Greens. Seems to be nobody talking about them but those numbers are starting to look significant.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 7, 2014)

They're not, even if they get something like that in the Election it won't translate into seats. Indeed they are probably going to lose the seat they do have.


----------



## killer b (Oct 7, 2014)

where to said:


> The Greens. Seems to be nobody talking about them but those numbers are starting to look significant.


bless.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 7, 2014)

This YG polling could have gone in any number of threads...but here'll do....



> new YouGov research with the _Times_ Red Box reveals that the British people have serious doubts about the Lib Dems’ future as a viable political party, let alone their role in a coalition if there is a hung parliament after next year’s election.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 8, 2014)

> YouGov/Sun poll tonight: big respite for nervous Ed Miliband as Labour regain the lead, for now at least.
> 
> *LAB 34%, CON 32%, UKIP 15%, LD 8%*.


Source


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

Back to normal is my expectation now. New Polling observatory out today as well - just missed the cameron 3 day bounce though. Their monthly average is:

Lab 34.4%
Con 30.1%
UKIP 15.3%
Lib Dems 8.3%


----------



## brogdale (Oct 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Back to normal is my expectation now. New Polling observatory out today as well - just missed the cameron 3 day bounce though. Their monthly average is:
> 
> Lab 34.4%
> Con 30.1%
> ...


 Yes, but I'd expect to see some UKIP 'bounce' following the heightened news profile resulting from the election of their first MP.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yes, but I'd expect to see some UKIP 'bounce' following the heightened news profile resulting from the election of their first MP.


Yep - and at expense of tories.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 8, 2014)

UKIP would also benefit from it looking like the tories can't win, in that the battier tories will see no reason not to vote UKIP as it won't make a difference and they have nothing to lose. A closer contest won't help them, the 'avoid labour at any cost' voters will go back to the fold if they have a chance (though Labour supporters would do the same).  A bit like how they've closed out Nader from the US presidentials.  Depends how much voters think 'strategically' these days.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 8, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> UKIP would also benefit from it looking like the tories can't win, in that the battier tories will see no reason not to vote UKIP as it won't make a difference and they have nothing to lose. A closer contest won't help them, the 'avoid labour at any cost' voters will go back to the fold if they have a chance (though Labour supporters would do the same).  A bit like how they've closed out Nader from the US presidentials.  Depends how much voters think 'strategically' these days.


tbh I think a large number of those bothered to engage struggle with tactical implications, let alone strategy.


----------



## treelover (Oct 8, 2014)

> Labour has decided not to run a serious campaign in the Rochester and Strood by-election.  Instead, the party will run a token effort, just as they did in Newark, and just as they are currently doing in Clacton. -
> 
> See more at: http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/labour-rochester/4459#sthash.3FLTsr4U.dpuf




Labour not to seriously fight for Rochester?

Con (Reckless) 23,604 (49 per cent)
Lab 13,651 (28.5 per cent)
Lib Dem		 7,800 (16 per cent)
Eng Dem		  2,182 (4.5 per cent)
Green 734 (1.5 per cent) -


yet they had a decent vote last time.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

treelover said:


> Labour not to seriously fight for Rochester?


Not sure i trust Crick's instincts alone - not after his confident scotland will vote YES. I'd like to see some actual evidence.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 8, 2014)

treelover said:


> Labour not to stand in Rochester?



it explicitly says they will be standing??

ETA: arrgh he keeps editing the same post. Make new ones!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> it explicitly says they will be standing??


Yeah, i thought he had changed his post!


----------



## treelover (Oct 8, 2014)

sorry, edited post for clarity


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

Lesson there treelover - read articles beyond headlines before posting. If there is a single thing the internet should have taught people by now, that must surely be it.


----------



## where to (Oct 8, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> They're not, even if they get something like that in the Election it won't translate into seats. Indeed they are probably going to lose the seat they do have.


That's a very narrow take on 'significant'.


----------



## andysays (Oct 8, 2014)

where to said:


> That's a very narrow take on 'significant'.



Are there many seats where the size of the Green vote is likely to affect the result, in comparison to seats where, say, UKIP of even the LibDems might have a similar influence?

I ask for info, not because I'm dismissing the idea out of hand...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> Are there many seats where the size of the Green vote is likely to affect the result, in comparison to seats where, say, UKIP of even the LibDems might have a similar influence?
> 
> I ask for info, not because I'm dismissing the idea out of hand...


Brighton and one of the Norwich's - i think that's it really.


----------



## JTG (Oct 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Brighton and one of the Norwich's - i think that's it really.


Bristol West?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

JTG said:


> Bristol West?


Really can't see them doing anything beyond current levels - and softer greens going straight to labour. I noticed the other day that that Iain Dale had it down as a probable lib-dem hold. If that sort of miles-out reading is the basis for all his other lib-dem probables, then he's going to lose a lot of money.

edit: a really tight finish - which i can't see - would see them having some say if they do maintain their current vote though.


----------



## JTG (Oct 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Really can't see them doing anything beyond current levels - and softer greens going straight to labour. I noticed the other day that that Iain Dale had it down as a probable lib-dem hold. If that sort of miles-out reading is the basis for all his other lib-dem probables, then he's going to lose a lot of money.


I added the question mark because they've grown their council vote since 2010 so it's a little uncertain how that'll translate. Agree that softer Greens will be Labour - think the Green vote will be up but whether it affects the result we'll see. If we see Greens gaining at LD expense then that could help Labour. The Gloucester Road strip has been weird in the last 20 years with regard to party affiliation so I never know quite what to think tbh!


----------



## andysays (Oct 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Brighton and one of the Norwich's - i think that's it really.



To be clear (which I probably wasn't before) I'm wondering if there are marginal seats where all the potential Green vote supporting one of the two front runners would be likely to swing the result.

My (totally uninformed) hunch is that there may be a few, but not too many.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> To be clear (which I probably wasn't before) I'm wondering if there are marginal seats where all the potential Green vote supporting one of the two front runners would be likely to swing the result.
> 
> My (totally uninformed) hunch is that there may be a few, but not too many.


Brighton will see greens going labour.


----------



## andysays (Oct 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Brighton will see greens going labour.



Enough that Labour will take it? Is that a hot tip, BTW, should I rush out and put a few quid on them?


----------



## JTG (Oct 8, 2014)

Btw, that Iain Dale assessment of Bristol West is woefully inadequate. Completely misses out any assessment of the non-student electorate


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> Enough that Labour will take it? Is that a hot tip, BTW, should I rush out and put a few quid on them?


Better bets out there, but i think yes, nailed on.


----------



## where to (Oct 8, 2014)

Greens on 7% likely to be further evidence of Lib Dems increasingly not going over to Labour

And a major threat to 35% strategy if much of 7% is coming from Labour.

Both significant for Labour if trend continues.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

where to said:


> Greens on 7% likely to be further evidence of Lib Dems increasingly not going over to Labour
> 
> And a major threat to 35% strategy if much of 7% is coming from Labour.
> 
> Both significant for Labour if trend continues.


Only if the green rise means labour fall or they are going to tory in larger numbers. And it hasn't. And it only matters in seats where they hold the balance or are likely to - that's two. Sorry mate, your reading is miles off on this one.
1/3 lib-dem going to labour - that's electorally effective. A 1/3 of them going green won't mean anything - and the highest for lib-dems-->greens (and remember, these are already the least effective votes) is 11%.


----------



## where to (Oct 8, 2014)

Haven't looked at the seats so can't really comment, but presumably if at 7% in England, they're on 10%+ in quite a few seats? Or do you think that really is concentrated in a tiny handful? (Would that show up in polling?)

But I originally just meant 7% (and rising, where to? Last time this happened Ukip didn't stop.) is significant in most general sense.  for fringe politics, for big three, for labour in particular, as a sign of where things are , for Greens themselves etc. And it surprises me that nobody seems to be picking up on it.


----------



## andysays (Oct 8, 2014)

where to said:


> Haven't looked at the seats so can't really comment, but presumably if at 7% in England, they're on 10%+ in quite a few seats? Or do you think that really is concentrated in a tiny handful? (Would that show up in polling?)
> 
> But I originally just meant 7% (and rising, where to? Last time this happened Ukip didn't stop.) is significant in most general sense.  for fringe politics, for big three, for labour in particular, as a sign of where things are , for Greens themselves etc. And it surprises me that nobody seems to be picking up on it.



It's not just to do with crude nationwide numbers though, it's to do with how those votes or potential votes are distributed in particular seats, and crucially, how all the other votes are distributed in those particular seats.

I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about why the Green party never quite took off to the extent that they're truely electorally significant, and how/why UKIP have, but this thread isn't the place for it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

where to said:


> Haven't looked at the seats so can't really comment, but presumably if at 7% in England, they're on 10%+ in quite a few seats? Or do you think that really is concentrated in a tiny handful? (Would that show up in polling?)
> 
> But I originally just meant 7% (and rising, where to? Last time this happened Ukip didn't stop.) is significant in most general sense.  for fringe politics, for big three, for labour in particular, as a sign of where things are , for Greens themselves etc. And it surprises me that nobody seems to be picking up on it.


In constituency polling they just don't show up. They only show up in a i hate them all national poll.

There's a reason people you might expect to pick upon it not thinking it means anything. They don't think that it means anything. There's no reason at all why they would.


----------



## where to (Oct 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They only show up in a i hate them all national poll.



And they didn't before.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

where to said:


> And they didn't before.


They've been up there before. They've even had results that high before - in i hate them all elections. The result is always 1/4 million people vote for them when it counts. If they increase their vote in the same way as the last decade they'll have 300 000 votes and the same effect. With 50 000 of them in two seats.

I'm normally in agreement with your readings, but this is nowhere near.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 8, 2014)

What were they polling before the 2010 election?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> What were they polling before the 2010 election?


Don't know - prob 1%.


----------



## where to (Oct 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They've been up there before. They've even had results that high before - in i hate them all elections. The result is always 1/4 million people vote for them when it counts. If they increase their vote in the same way as the last decade they'll have 300 000 votes and the same effect. With 50 000 of them in two seats.
> 
> I'm normally in agreement with your readings, but this is nowhere near.


We'll see.  I'm definitely not making any election predictions, it looks a soft 7% (if polls actually correct). I'm definitely not suggesting they are here to stay either. Over 5% is when I think things become worth monitoring though.

I do think its a sign of Labour weakness though, when they should have most of that 7% locked down.

And of general discontentment.


----------



## elbows (Oct 8, 2014)

The greens polled within the same sort of range in the 2009 european election as the 2014 one, thats as far as I've got so far.

It's premature to compare them with UKIP since we don't yet know what UKIP can actually do with their current momentum come a general election.

I don't think there are too many seats where the green vote will upset the result. But if I thought this was more likely then I'd certainly pay attention to how many seats they stand in this time and how many they did historically. 

In terms of how the greens have actually faired electorally, this article is too old to include the 2010 general election but sections of it are pretty handy for studying performance prior to that:

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/bp/journal/v3/n2/full/bp20085a.html


----------



## The Boy (Oct 8, 2014)

Is there a geographical breakdown of the green vote anywhere? 

 Can't see them really having any effect on the vote outside of the one or two obvious seats, but would be interested to see what they are polling North of the border.


----------



## elbows (Oct 8, 2014)

The Boy said:


> Is there a geographical breakdown of the green vote anywhere?
> 
> Can't see them really having any effect on the vote outside of the one or two obvious seats, but would be interested to see what they are polling North of the border.



There are full results by each constituency for the 2010 general election on this page. You'll need to press the show link next to the constituency table header to see the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_election_results

Given how few seats they've tended to be able to save their deposit in, its not surprising I can't find prettier, e.g. map, versions of this info.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Really can't see them doing anything beyond current levels - and softer greens going straight to labour. I noticed the other day that that Iain Dale had it down as a probable lib-dem hold. If that sort of miles-out reading is the basis for all his other lib-dem probables, then he's going to lose a lot of money.
> 
> edit: a really tight finish - which i can't see - would see them having some say if they do maintain their current vote though.



Don't know where he gets the idea that Leeds NW will stay lib dem from either.

This seat was labour 2 elections ago, and the big swing to lib dems last election was an anti tory, with a huge student vote swung on the fees issue, as well as a large number of people who work in the 2 universities living in the area.

If they keep it it will only be down to nobody else getting their act together in the campaign, but labour could easily win this seat despite the apparently massive lib dem lead.

Loads of local anger as well about a badly thought out trolley bus scheme the council are trying to push through against fierce local opposition, and the MP has done fuck all about it / sat on the fence most of the time.

To put some numbers on it, the tories have had 11-12k votes every election since 2000 down from 16k in 97, the combined lib dem and labour vote has been relatively steady at around 28-32k since 92, for half that time Labour took the majority of that, more recently the lib dems, but really they both have around 10k core vote, 10k floating between them as an anti tory vote for whichever of the 2 looks the most likely to be winning / has the best campaign / best sounding policies for students.

Worth noting in this that this constituency was historically tory for a long time, with liberals/sdp and labour splitting the majority anti tory vote at similar levels since the 70s, and we only stopped having a tory in 97 when labour stormed it taking 2500 votes from the lib dems in the process, where lib dems had been slightly ahead of them at the previous election.

So that 11k lead over labour at the last election doesn't really mean anything if labour got their act together here, particularly if they hammered the lib dems over tuition fees, but mainly just on letting the tories in and giving them the cover to carry out their devastating policies. I doubt that 10k anti-tory swing vote is going to let them off the hook, unless labour run a really shit campaign.


----------



## elbows (Oct 8, 2014)

As for north of the actual border, the Scottish greens are a separate party that have had reasonable success with the voting system used for the Scottish parliament, although I think they only stand for regions rather than constituencies. The energy injected into Scotlands politics by the referendum means they have increased their membership substantially and some recent poll has them capable of getting 9 MSPs. I think they've only got 2 at the moment but had as many as 7 at one point, back in 2003.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 9, 2014)

elbows said:


> As for north of the actual border, the Scottish greens are a separate party that have had reasonable success with the voting system used for the Scottish parliament, although I think they only stand for regions rather than constituencies. The energy injected into Scotlands politics by the referendum means they have increased their membership substantially and some recent poll has them capable of getting 9 MSPs. I think they've only got 2 at the moment but had as many as 7 at one point, back in 2003.


Aye, it was the polling rather than voting history I was thinking of.  I've seen the suggestion that they'll be increasing their vote in the SP, but was just curious if any of the polls had a geographical breakdown for their vote on the GE to see if it was also translating to increase share there.


----------



## where to (Oct 9, 2014)

Greens on 8% in SE England, 3% in Scotland for 2015 according to latest yougov.

Scotland overall is: Snp 42, Labour 29, Tory 17


----------



## where to (Oct 9, 2014)

The big one for Scottish Green will be 2016 imo


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 9, 2014)

where to said:


> The big one for Scottish Green will be 2016 imo


iirc they had a large membership boost post reff. Not as big as the SNP's boost, but large.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 9, 2014)

where to said:


> Greens on 8% in SE England, 3% in Scotland for 2015 according to latest yougov.
> 
> Scotland overall is: Snp 42, Labour 29, Tory 17


Is that from a proper poll of Scotland or just a cross-break of their usual UK wide polling?


----------



## co-op (Oct 9, 2014)

andysays said:


> To be clear (which I probably wasn't before) I'm wondering if there are marginal seats where all the potential Green vote supporting one of the two front runners would be likely to swing the result.
> 
> My (totally uninformed) hunch is that there may be a few, but not too many.



From memory there were 10 seats in 2010 where the Green vote was larger than the Labour margin of defeat (including the Green victory in Brighton), although of course you can't assume that all Green voters would otherwise vote Labour, especially in 2015 when a significant proportion of the Green vote looks like being ex-LDs with an anti-Labour bent.

I think their vote will go up quite a bit but they will probably lose Brighton. They've no chance in Norwich South which is their second strongest seat - the Green vote there in 2010 let the Lib Dems in so some voters will tactically switch back to Labour, whose vote will go up anyway from the 2010 low. Labour have also selected a good left-wing candidate there and the Greens a very stereotypical fluffy green councillor with multi-coloured jumpers who isn't imo going to look like Parliamentary material.


----------



## co-op (Oct 9, 2014)

Versus


----------



## co-op (Oct 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Better bets out there, but i think yes, nailed on.



I'm not so sure that it's nailed on. The usual reason for switching to Labour is that the Greens can't win - but in Brighton they can and have. The reason they will probably lose is that the Labour vote will just go up from its historic low in 2010 and the Green margin was very slim, but Caroline Lucas has some genuine appeal to Labour voters so it's still open.


----------



## andysays (Oct 9, 2014)

co-op said:


> From memory there were 10 seats in 2010 where the Green vote was larger than the Labour margin of defeat (including the Green victory in Brighton), although of course you can't assume that all Green voters would otherwise vote Labour, especially in 2015 when a significant proportion of the Green vote looks like being ex-LDs with an anti-Labour bent.
> 
> I think their vote will go up quite a bit but they will probably lose Brighton. They've no chance in Norwich South which is their second strongest seat - the Green vote there in 2010 let the Lib Dems in so some voters will tactically switch back to Labour, whose vote will go up anyway from the 2010 low. Labour have also selected a good left-wing candidate there and the Greens a very stereotypical fluffy green councillor with multi-coloured jumpers who isn't imo going to look like Parliamentary material.



Thanks for that. That's the sort of answer I was looking for, and the sort of number I expected.

I agree that you can't assume that all Green voters would otherwise vote Labour (or en mass for any other party), but the starting point for them being able to have the sort of electoral influence which was being hinted at would have to be that the Green vote was larger than the previous Labour margin of defeat. Obviously it would then require Labour (or whoever) to actually mobilise that potential vote on their behalf.

ETA I know a few Green party council candidates round my way. They're lovely people on a personal level (in small doses), but I can't imagine any of them storming an election to take a seat at Westminster (and as for storming Westminster the other way, forget it)


----------



## where to (Oct 9, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> iirc they had a large membership boost post reff. Not as big as the SNP's boost, but large.


Yep, more than trebled their membership. Same with SSP. Now on 6500 plus. Tactical voting in 2016 could see them win many seats via the Regional List.

E&W membership also up apparently, from 13k to 20k in 2014. Partly fracking consequence?


----------



## where to (Oct 9, 2014)

Michael Crick tweets:

1987: only 0.4% of GB voters - 1 in 250 - chose cands other than Con, Lab, SDP-Lib, SNP or PC. By 2010 nearly 10%. 2015: could be almost 20%


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 9, 2014)

80% is still high compared to most EU countries. One of the many distortions of FPTP


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 9, 2014)

In 1987 96% of the vote went to the big three
In 2010 88% of the vote went to the big three

In 1987 there was a 75% turnout
in 2010 there was a 65% turnout.

Smaller turnout = bigger significance for non-big three votes - bigger share of the pie for them. It doesn't mean massive rising support for non-big three parties. It means larger  disengagement and alienation from official political process. Which shows up very well in polls and one-off elections.


----------



## treelover (Oct 9, 2014)

> Labour have also selected a good left-wing candidate there and the Greens a very stereotypical fluffy green councillor with multi-coloured jumpers who isn't imo going to look like Parliamentary material.



Who is the left wing PPC? who was deselected, but has now been reselected, she is great, is that her?


----------



## where to (Oct 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It doesn't mean massive rising support for non-big three parties. It means larger  disengagement and alienation from official political process. Which shows up very well in polls and one-off elections.



I agree with that. 

Fringe party votes are themselves a proxy for discontentment/ alienation too imo.


----------



## co-op (Oct 9, 2014)

treelover said:


> Who is the left wing PPC? who was deselected, but has now been reselected, she is great, is that her?



Clive Lewis. When I said "good left wing", I meant "good and left wing" - I don't know his politics in detail but he does call himself "a proud socialist" on his twitter id. And he's also photogenic, articulate and (I think genuinely) working class background.

He's the guy in the photos I posted, she's the Green candidate. Looks like a mis-match to me.


----------



## where to (Oct 9, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Is that from a proper poll of Scotland or just a cross-break of their usual UK wide polling?


Just a UK WM poll.


----------



## treelover (Oct 9, 2014)

co-op said:


> Clive Lewis. When I said "good left wing", I meant "good and left wing" - I don't know his politics in detail but he does call himself "a proud socialist" on his twitter id. And he's also photogenic, articulate and (I think genuinely) working class background.
> 
> He's the guy in the photos I posted, she's the Green candidate. Looks like a mis-match to me.



Sorry, I was referring to a working class female who basically said the Tories should die and got suspended, not sure what area.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 9, 2014)

Today's YG national for the Scum...



> This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 33%, LAN 34%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 14%, GRN 6% (tabs here).*
> 
> Yesterday’s YouGov poll was also back to a small Labour lead, so it looks as if the Tory lead immediately following Cameron’s speech may have fallen away again. My advice would normally be to wait for a few more polls to see where things settle down, but of course tonight we have a potentially poll changing event in its own right – the Clacton and Heywood & Middleton by-elections.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 9, 2014)

YG lead back to 5%.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 10, 2014)

Anthony at YG dwells on the poll fails in Heywood & Middleton...



> The two polls in Clacton, conducted by Ashcroft and Survation, were both conducted more than a month before polling day, so they cannot in all fairness be compared to the final result (opinion in Clacton could easily have changed in the interim period), for the record though they were both pretty close to the actual result, certainly they got the broad picture of a UKIP landslide correct. *The two polls in Heywood and Middleton (conducted again by Ashcroft and Survation) are more worrying. They were conducted about a week and a half before the election – so there was time for some change, but not that much (and many would have voted by post before polling day). Both showed a nineteen point lead for Labour when in reality they ending up squeaking home by two points. In both cases the polls both overestimated Labour support, and underestimated UKIP support.*


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> iirc they had a large membership boost post reff. Not as big as the SNP's boost, but large.



Aye, as of this morning, 6000 members. I'm quaking in my boots.  (I probably despise the Greens more than I do the Lib Dems, if that is possible.)


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 11, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Anthony at YG dwells on the poll fails in Heywood & Middleton...



The real problem with poll accuracy, when it comes to the actual event, is turnout.


----------



## Santino (Oct 11, 2014)

7 point lead for Labour in tomorrow's Observer.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 11, 2014)

Santino said:


> 7 point lead for Labour in tomorrow's Observer.



Yep; and 'Opinium graphed over the last 2 years looks like this...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 11, 2014)

And Smithson's put up a graph of the latest ICM 'Wisdom' (of crowds) stuff...showing what % of the 2015 GE popular vote that poll respondents think that the parties will end up with...


----------



## treelover (Oct 12, 2014)

> *Labour takes seven point lead over the Tories, according to latest poll*
> Despite giving Labour a 7pt lead more people now expect the Conservatives to win the next election than Labour
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/11/labour-lead-over-tories-poll-conservatives-election




Latest Observer/Opinium poll has Labour seven points ahead, what could be the impetus for such a rise?

are Observer/Guardian polls usually favourable to labour?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2014)

treelover said:


> Latest Observer/Opinium poll has Labour seven points ahead, what could be the impetus for such a rise?
> 
> are Observer/Guardian polls usually favourable to labour?


The exact opposite. And note the writers attempt to downplay this with a wisdon index heavy piece. Labour's vote didn't alter within the MOE - tories did.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2014)

Latest from the volatile lord ashcroft (who we must remember is a tax-avoiding tory twat) polling:

Lab 32% (+2)
Con 28% n-4)
UKIP 19%, (+2)
Lib Dem 8% (twats)
Green 5% (-2)

Also another ICM/Guardian one that seems to echo the observer one:

LAB 35 (/c)
CON 31 (-2)
LD 11 (+1)
UKIP 14 (+5)

edit: bMissed the populus one from this morning:

LAB - 36% (+1)
CON - 35% (+1)
UKIP - 13% (=)
LDEM 9% (=)
GRN - 3% (-1)


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2014)

Smithson presents this ICM polling evidence showing how Lab/Con will struggle to simultaneously address the concerns of UKIP and LD waverers... 

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...e15-votes-icms-new-approach-to-whats-salient/



> *This all illustrates the strategic dilemma for for Tories. Going hard on immigration might be the right way of winning back some of the voters who’ve gone to UKIP but it is not going to cause many 2010 LD switchers to return to their allegiance.*



Though I'd say the same could pretty much be said of NuLab.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

YG's highest ever UKIP number...


> After the strong UKIP performances in the most recent Survation, Ashcrfot and ICM polls YouGov is reporting this morning that the party is on 18% – the highest ever figure from the firm.
> 
> Survation at the weekend had the party on 25% while ICM on Monday saw UKIP move up 5% to 14%. The same day the Ashcroft National Poll had the party on 19% which equalled the previous record share.
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

For comparison, the previous monthly YG numbers...


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Oct 15, 2014)

brogdale , butchersapron 

2 separate articles (neither of which I can find on their websites) turned up in my FB feed this morning ("recommended articles", not mates) claiming that UKIP could win up to 100 seats (Telegraph) or 125 seats (ITV).  Now that's patently bollocks, but to what extent?  I've read it as they will go into the GE with Clacton & Rochester so could retain both (esp Clacton), Farage will probably take Thanet South, and a couple of others are possible - maybe Eastleigh off the Lib Dems?

I ask because I have to work with a UKIP knob and he's bound to have read this crap and wave it in my face when I see him tomorrow so i'd like to be sure of my stance.  I'm under the assumption that these articles are fully paid up broadcasts by the tories, an only slightly more subtle version of waving a flag on the steps of Westminster bleating "vote UKIP, get Red Ed".

Any links to up-to-date marginal polling/analysis would be gratefully received - seen Ashcroft's most recent but someone more savvy than I would need to run the numbers beyond the headlines.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 15, 2014)

brogdale said:
			
		

> Anthony at YG dwells on the poll fails in Heywood & Middleton...





Sasaferrato said:


> The real problem with poll accuracy, when it comes to the actual event, is turnout.



That comment from Sas is spot on I reckon, and Anthony Wells remembers to mention the turnout factor as well. IMO there's been far too much made in the establishment media of Heywood and Middleton being so close, with a corresponding absence of any comment about how low turnout distorts swings and majorities.

Not claiming that Labour's campaign up there was inspiring or anything (far from) and they have to take some big responsibility for failing to do better. But the General Election simply won't be the same turnout wise. 

One factor not often mentioned is one that actually I'm not too sure about -- will there not be local government elections on the same day as the GE next year? If so that will boost turnout (to an extent anyway) in some places. 

Would that help or hinder UKIP though?


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2014)

i think its more that general elections boost local election turnout, not the other way round.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 15, 2014)

Support voting/turnout levels in both directions, surely? But I take your point.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> brogdale , butchersapron
> 
> 2 separate articles (neither of which I can find on their websites) turned up in my FB feed this morning ("recommended articles", not mates) claiming that UKIP could win up to 100 seats (Telegraph) or 125 seats (ITV).  Now that's patently bollocks, but to what extent?  I've read it as they will go into the GE with Clacton & Rochester so could retain both (esp Clacton), Farage will probably take Thanet South, and a couple of others are possible - maybe Eastleigh off the Lib Dems?
> 
> ...



No, predictions of a three figure seat haul are patent bollux. Most conventional pollsters extrapolating the general mid to high-teen national polling will perdict UKIP getting a few/handful of seats. In fact, if you go onto Electoral Calculus you'll see just how high a poll share you need to go to produce more than a couple of seats. That said, pollsters with any credibility are firing off many caveats about this state of flux with 3.5/4 party politics etc.

If I were a betting man (am not) I'd put my money on UKIP gaining between 4 and 8 seats in 2015....but who really knows?


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Oct 15, 2014)

Thanks.  Just ran the figures - Lab 33, Con 31, LD 12, UKIP 16 - and it gave UKIP 0, which I think is a bit fanciful.  Not all bad though, the seats it gave had John Hemming, Lorely Burt, Esther McVey and Jacob Rees-Mogg all on the dole queue so more power to it.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 15, 2014)

The media (and possibly UKIP) wet dream for some reason seems to be UKIP holding the balance of power, and presumably teaming up with the tories to govern.  The thought of nige selling out for some kind of teaboy role (like clegg) and having no impact on policy is appealing, although everything else about a batshit right-wing coallition scenario isn't.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 15, 2014)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Thanks.  Just ran the figures - Lab 33, Con 31, LD 12, UKIP 16 - and it gave UKIP 0, which I think is a bit fanciful.  Not all bad though, the seats it gave had John Hemming, Lorely Burt, Esther McVey and Jacob Rees-Mogg all on the dole queue so more power to it.



Pretty sure Rees-Mogg will get his cards, only scraped in last time round, and people will have more of an idea how weird he is now.  Possible that UKIP won't stand against him to help out, but that might not be enough.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

Ipsos MORI's evidence of changing perceptions of the value of voting for the tiny UKIP party...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

...and Ipsos MORI become the third pollster this week to produce a record high number for UKIP...



> Latest @IpsosMORI poll has Labour regaining the lead :-
> 
> *Con 30 (-4) Lab 33 (nc) LD 8 (+1) UKIP 16 (+1) Greens 5 (-1)*


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Thanks.  Just ran the figures - Lab 33, Con 31, LD 12, UKIP 16 - and it gave UKIP 0, which I think is a bit fanciful.  Not all bad though, the seats it gave had John Hemming, Lorely Burt, Esther McVey and Jacob Rees-Mogg all on the dole queue so more power to it.



Today's Guardian offers a map of the (probable) UKIP target seats...






"Farageland"


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2014)

_We're a farage band - we come from farage land
I don't wanna hear about what the rich are doing
I don't wanna go to where, where the rich are going
They think they're so clever, they think they're so right
But the truth is only known by Guttersnipes
_
(just popping in, go not time today - see Brogdale has answered the quesiton asked of us above - don't believe the hype!)


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 15, 2014)

I see on that map that they have depicted Greater London as an offshore island in the North Sea. What a fabulous and surreal concept. Not as surreal as the idea that UKIP could ever get sufficient seats to hold the balance of power.

What all polls don't and cannot take into account is that our "first past the post" system doesn't give the polls a chance to be valid predictors of the results of a real election.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _We're a farage band - we come from farage land
> I don't wanna hear about what the rich are doing?
> I don't wanna go to where, where the rich are going?
> They think they're so clever, they think they're so right
> But the truth is only known by Guttersnipes_


That's what I was hoping for



> _*Guttersnipes*_


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

discuss


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Oct 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Today's Guardian offers a map of the (probable) UKIP target seats...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



UKIP - putting the Great back in Grimsby.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

Whole thing, really...but 3.38 onwards...nothing really changes, does it?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 15, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> The media (and possibly UKIP) wet dream for some reason seems to be UKIP holding the balance of power, and presumably teaming up with the tories to govern.  The thought of nige selling out for some kind of teaboy role (like clegg) and having no impact on policy is appealing, although everything else about a batshit right-wing coallition scenario isn't.


Is Farage as stupid as Clegg?


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Is Farage as stupid as Clegg?


 The die was cast as soon as Clegg entered a coalition with the tories. In the unlikely event of Farage holding the balance of power after the election, do you think he'd fare any better if he did the same?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Today's Guardian offers a map of the (probable) UKIP target seats...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd be pretty surprised if they took Great Grimsby, a seat Labour have held since 1945.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Is Farage as stupid as Clegg?


Neither of them are 'stupid', but they both demonstrate psychopathy . Which one suffers the greater psychopathy/narcissism  I'd not like to say.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 15, 2014)

killer b said:


> The die was cast as soon as Clegg entered a coalition with the tories. In the unlikely event of Farage holding the balance of power after the election, do you think he'd fare any better if he did the same?



Well, yeah. Even if Farage was daft enough to think that turning your protest vote party into a minority party in an old establishment coalition was the secret to long term success, the Lib Dem's experience must surely have set him straight.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Neither of them are 'stupid', but they both demonstrate psychopathy . Which one suffers the greater psychopathy/narcissism  I'd not like to say.


Maybe not stupid, Clegg was certainly deluded at the last election.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> I'd be pretty surprised if they took Great Grimsby, a seat Labour have held since 1945.


 Ayling is certainly not an attractive character, but she ran Mitchell close in 2010....and that was standing as a tory! I'd think based on recent evidence that she could well take Grimsby as a 'kipper.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Ayling is certainly not an attractive character, but she ran Mitchell close in 2010....and that was standing as a tory! I'd think based on recent evidence that she could well take Grimsby as a 'kipper.



With an incumbent Tory government and a national election campaign going on? Nah.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> With an incumbent Tory government and a national election campaign going on? Nah.


OTWT


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> OTWT


?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> ?


Forecasting slang; only time will tell.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 15, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> The thought of nige selling out for some kind of *teaboy* role (like clegg)



Steady now.


----------



## treelover (Oct 15, 2014)

Milliband actually woke up today when responding robustly to Lord Freud's disgusting comments


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 16, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> With an incumbent Tory government and a national election campaign going on? Nah.


Grimsby is fucked, Mitchell is that old rightwing Labour that is not far off UKIP on some social issues, or at least not far off what some former Labour voters seem to have abandoned the party to find elsewhere, Labour did noting visible really for the area between 97 and 2010 except preside over further long term decline, and the council (North East Lincolnshire) has not been Labour since it was formed IIRC

I don't think UKIP will win it, but a very close second is extremely likely


----------



## brogdale (Oct 16, 2014)

YG's UKIP number reaches another record high today going from yesterday's 18% to 19% today.



> The record polling shares continue for UKIP with the latest YouGov daily poll moving up from yesterday’s 18% to 19% this morning. The latest figures have CON on 31% and LAB on 33% a joint main two party aggregate of just 64% which is a record low for this parliament.
> 
> *Of course the purples are enjoying the aftermath of their by election successes a week ago and as is being widely pointed the SDP was doing this in the early 80s only to fade at GE1983.*



I'm really not very convinced that drawing parallels with the 'product life-cycle' of the SDP yields much of value; many of the specifics and the context are so different.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 16, 2014)

Ashcroft's new marginals today at 11am.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 16, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Grimsby is fucked, Mitchell is that old rightwing Labour that is not far off UKIP on some social issues, or at least not far off what some former Labour voters seem to have abandoned the party to find elsewhere, Labour did noting visible really for the area between 97 and 2010 except preside over further long term decline, and the council (North East Lincolnshire) has not been Labour since it was formed IIRC
> 
> I don't think UKIP will win it, but a very close second is extremely likely



Agreed to all that. But... after 13 years of (a) being the government that abandoned the place (b) not campaigning because it was a safe seat (c) having Austin Mitchell as their candidate ... their vote still held up sufficiently to win the seat. In a seat where that 22% Lib Dem vote is going to completely collapse it'd be a surprise if Lab's vote didn't go up at least 5-7%  and in the context of a national election with Cameron on the tv all the time a solid percentage of those Tories are still going to vote Tory.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Ashcroft's new marginals today at 11am.


To cut to the chase...



> ....the Conservatives can afford to lose no more than 21 seats to Labour at the general election if they are to remain the largest party. Unfortunately for them, we have already identified 29 seats currently held by the Conservatives that would fall to Labour if my poll results were repeated at an election.
> 
> In other words, Labour would become the largest party if results in the seats I have already polled turned into results on election day – and there could well be more to come: while my polling has moved into seats with bigger Tory majorities I have not yet come to the “bite point” at which the potential losses end and Conservative seats consistently start to stay blue.



http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/10/back-con-lab-battleground/


----------



## brogdale (Oct 16, 2014)

Ashcroft's sophisticated polling is beginning to undermine the meme that UKIP's national polling dissipates when voters are asked to consider their own specific constituency....






Looks like a 1 to 3 % decline at most.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 16, 2014)

> *Lord Ashcroft* ‏@LordAshcroft  24m24 minutes ago
> No doubt Conservative Party internal polling will show a Conservative overall majority #*comfortpolling*


----------



## treelover (Oct 16, 2014)

> European stock markets tumble again on global growth fears – business live
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/business...amid-growth-and-ebola-fears#start-of-comments



If there is another 'correction' on the way?, how would this impact on Uk economy and of course, Tory election prospects?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 16, 2014)

treelover said:


> If there is another 'correction' on the way?, how would this impact on Uk economy and of course, Tory election prospects?


Given that they've spent that last 4-5 years pretending that the last recession and resultant increase in government debt and deficit was a result of Gordon Brown's particular incompetence and largesse, it'd have to be fatal, surely?


----------



## J Ed (Oct 16, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Given that they've spent that last 4-5 years pretending that the last recession and resultant increase in government debt and deficit was a result of Gordon Brown's particular incompetence and largesse, it'd have to be fatal, surely?


 
If it comes in June they'll no doubt repeat the trope ffs


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2014)

ComRes' monthly national for the Indy is causing a bit of a stir tonight, not for the headline numbers, but for the supplementary poll that included a prompt for UKIP as well as the "big" 3.

The topline numbers (UKIP unprompted) were:-

*CON 31%(+2), LAB 34%(-1), LDEM 7%(nc), UKIP 19%(nc), GRN 4%(nc). *

and with UKIP prompted were:-

*CON 29%, LAB 31%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 24%, GRN 5%.*

Thorough and thoughtful discussion here.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 19, 2014)

> *Andy Burnham rules out standing for the LAB leadership – get your money on Andy Burnham*


----------



## brogdale (Oct 19, 2014)

> This week’s YouGov/Sunday Times results are here. Topline voting intentions are:-
> *CON 32%, LAB 35%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 16%, GRN 5%.*


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2014)

> Opinium’s fortnightly poll for the Observer tonight has topline figures of:-
> 
> * CON 33%(+5), LAB 33%(-2), LDEM 6%(-3), UKIP 18%(+1), GRN 4%(nc).*
> 
> ...



....but, even in these times of multi-party flux, for the tories to secure the slimmest majority they would have to reverse the two main party differential gap shown on the extreme left of this graph...


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Oct 25, 2014)

Today's level showing could well be a MOE thing but that graph shows clear as day that the medium term trend is for conservatives unchanged over 2 years, labour slowly downwards.

Where's the damage to the Tories from every UKIP good result?  The local elections, the euros, Clacton?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2014)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Today's level showing could well be a MOE thing but that graph shows clear as day that the medium term trend is for conservatives unchanged over 2 years, labour slowly downwards.
> 
> Where's the damage to the Tories from every UKIP good result?  The local elections, the euros, Clacton?



Uniform swing based on national polling and UKIP's "guerrilla" tactics in challenging tory held seats are two different things.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 28, 2014)

> ....the ComRes phone poll for the Indy which has:-
> 
> *CON 30 (+1), LAB 30 (-5), LD 9 (-1), UKIP 19 (+4), GRN (4=)*
> 
> ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 28, 2014)

brogdale : Am I well out of date and over-suspicious about polls, to be sceptical about phone polls? 

(Similarly about online ones?  )


----------



## brogdale (Oct 28, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> brogdale : Am I well out of date and over-suspicious about polls, to be sceptical about phone polls?
> 
> (Similarly about online ones?  )


Always as well to be sceptical about polling and "mode effect", especially in such an 'odd' period of flux and transition to a multi-party system. That said, other polls, published yesterday, showed parity or near parity between the big 2.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 29, 2014)

brogdale 

Wondering to what extent current state of the parties polls are underestimating how polarised reaction to UKIP has been ('polarised' aka Marmite -- you'll remember me raising this a little while back) . As shown across various general 'reaction to parties' polls.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 29, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> brogdale
> 
> Wondering to what extent current state of the parties polls are underestimating how polarised reaction to UKIP has been ('polarised' aka Marmite -- you'll remember me raising this a little while back) . As shown across various general 'reaction to parties' polls.


I've not seen anything very recently, but "The Economist" did this (not very good) piece with some graphics, and back in Sept. Ipsos MORI did some fieldwork around such questions...

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/research...pular-party-but-their-leader-lags-behind.aspx


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2014)

This is the one that's getting all the headlines...possibly because it coincided with the decision from the state broadcaster to deny the Greens a place in the televised debate....



> YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of:-
> 
> *LAB 34%, CON 31%, UKIP 17%, GRN 7% LDEM 6%,.*
> 
> The Labour lead of three points is actually larger than recent YouGov polls and for the first time in a YouGov poll the Green party are ahead of the Liberal Democrats (Lord Ashcroft’s polls have shown the same a couple of times). Both findings are well within the margin of error so don’t get too excited – recent YouGov polls suggest the underlying picture is that Labour have a wafer thin lead over the Tories for first place, and the Lib Dems have a wafer thin lead over the Greens for fourth place.



As ever, wise words of caution from Anthony.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2014)

Jock Shocker for NuLab...



> *SNP take 29% lead over LAB in new Scottish poll from Ipsos-MORI*
> October 30th, 2014
> *LAB could be down to just 4 seats*
> 
> ...



'kinnel!

{Also posted in UKIP thread}


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2014)

Well, blows my ref not going to hit labour theory away  - _for now_.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _for now_.



Yes, as ever, an important rider....but pretty shocking stuff...





Slight exaggeration there...they'd be left with 4 Scot/Westminster seats according to electoral calculus...


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 30, 2014)

In reality some of those seats are going to be hard to shift. But I'd love to have a bug in Scottish Labour HQ this afternoon.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> In reality some of those seats are going to be hard to shift. But I'd love to have a bug in Scottish Labour HQ this afternoon.


Yep and yep!

But we're looking at such extraordinary polling that the psephos can't even apply uniform swing analysis...



> I don’t think swingometers offer much guidance in the case of really extreme results (*a uniform swing would be mathematically impossible on this results – for example, there are about 9 seats in Scotland where Labour got less than 19% in 2010, so couldn’t lose 19% this time round. The same applies in many seats for the Liberal Democrats)* but for the record on a uniform swing these figures would result in the SNP winning all but two seats in Scotland.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2014)

Lol


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2014)

I may start a thread on this -left wingers, are you voting and joining the nationalist?
(feel free to do before me, not happening tonight)


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I may start a thread on this -left wingers, are you voting and joining the nationalist?
> (feel free to do before me, not happening tonight)


There's already a thread. (I'm on my phone atm, or I'd track it down).


----------



## Quartz (Oct 30, 2014)

I really don't see Aberdeen South going SNP.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I really don't see Aberdeen South going SNP.


36% unassailable?


----------



## Quartz (Oct 30, 2014)

brogdale said:


> 36% unassailable?



Anne Begg seems to be a good MP and the SNP are nowhere.


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2014)

brogdale said:


> 36% unassailable?


c12% SNP last time but a hefty (c28%) Lib Dem vote which seems sure to collapse and go... somewhere. I wouldn't feel that comfortable if I were them


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2014)

JTG said:


> c12% SNP last time but a hefty (c28%) Lib Dem vote which seems sure to collapse and go... somewhere. I wouldn't feel that comfortable if I were them


 Yep...ConDems = 50% in 2010...they won't get that again.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Anne Begg seems to be a good MP and the SNP are nowhere.


You seem to be in denial.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 30, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You seem to be in denial.



Not really. I've written to her on a number of issues and had a generally good response; other people generally seem to regard her well as a constituency MP. Now, if she were to die or stand down, all bets would be off.


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2014)

She may well be highly regarded, I can quite believe that she is. But 36% of the vote is hardly a rock solid foundation on which to secure re-election in the context of what appears to be (from here in the West Country) the loss of significant sections of the Scottish Labour vote. Even if she were to lose fewer votes than in other parts of Scotland due to personal popularity, she would appear to be vulnerable to the swing to the SNP from Lib Dem/Labour suggested by this recent poll


----------



## Quartz (Oct 30, 2014)

JTG said:


> She may well be highly regarded, I can quite believe that she is. But 36% of the vote is hardly a rock solid foundation on which to secure re-election in the context of what appears to be (from here in the West Country) the loss of significant sections of the Scottish Labour vote.



This area voted solidly against independence, so I don't see a swing to the SNP; I do see a swing away from the Lib Dems to Labour - they're not going to go to the Tories instead, are they?

But we're 7 months from the election. That's a very long time indeed in politics.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 30, 2014)

It's one of those rare times I'm tempted to think Quartz is probably right


----------



## treelover (Oct 30, 2014)

JTG said:


> She may well be highly regarded, I can quite believe that she is. But 36% of the vote is hardly a rock solid foundation on which to secure re-election in the context of what appears to be (from here in the West Country) the loss of significant sections of the Scottish Labour vote. Even if she were to lose fewer votes than in other parts of Scotland due to personal popularity, she would appear to be vulnerable to the swing to the SNP from Lib Dem/Labour suggested by this recent poll




Anne Begg was disabilities minister under NL, she helped bring in the savage welfare reforms.


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2014)

Since when has voting for the SNP correlated with support for independence? It's fairly clear that isn't the case


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2014)

...and last night's polling numbers...



> YouGov have two new polls out tonight – the regular GB poll for the Sun, plus a new Scottish poll for the Times. The regular GB (Westminster) poll has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 33%, LAB 32%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 15%, GRN 7%*, putting the Conservatives ahead by a margin.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 31, 2014)

Watch the SNP join a tory-led coalition.  Imagine the wailing, it'd be worse than the Lib Dem betrayal.

Maybe Cameron's decision to have a Scottish referendum wasn't so stupid after all, it's done them no harm.


----------



## JTG (Oct 31, 2014)

I would imagine that the kind of extreme swing to one party illustrated by the Scottish polls are harder for the pollsters' methods to pin down exactly, hence the large difference between the YG and Ipsos/MORI polls in terms of SNP share. They certainly seem to have picked up a significant mood change though


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Watch the SNP join a tory-led coalition.  Imagine the wailing, it'd be worse than the Lib Dem betrayal.
> 
> Maybe Cameron's decision to have a Scottish referendum wasn't so stupid after all, it's done them no harm.



With one MP and about 8 members, it never could do them any harm. The genius was to allow NuLab's existential fear of losing it's Scot's block to desperately plead on their behalf....resulting in them err...losing their block of Scottish MPs.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 31, 2014)

Do you really see the Tories as the anything-but-the-SNP party? Or maybe Scotland is ripe for a UKIP revolution?


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 31, 2014)

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/31/labours-scottish-nightmare/

*What YouGov's new Scotland poll says about the rise of the SNP, the disappearance of 'red Nats', and the potential for a new 'normal' in Scottish politics*



> In the 2010 general election, twice as many people voted Labour as SNP. A year later, in the elections to Holyrood, the SNP comfortably defeated Labour. Whenever YouGov asked Scots about the two kinds of elections, we found a large difference. Many voters wanted SNP to govern Scotland, but Labour to govern Britain.
> 
> Now the difference has almost completely disappeared. Labour has been swept aside by an SNP surge on both fronts. The SNP leads Labour by 16 points in general election voting (a massive 19 per cent swing since 2010), and by 18 points in Holyrood voting (a far more modest two per cent swing since 2011).
> 
> Labour must face the hard truth that it is suffering not a brief setback but a more fundamental loss of respect. Just 31 per cent of Scots who voted Labour in 2010 now think the party ‘represents the views and interests of Scotland today’ very or fairly well. Fully 59 per cent think the party does this job very or fairly badly. Those are truly terrible figures. If Labour can’t reverse them by next May, its prospects north of the border are bleak indeed.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 31, 2014)

Surely these most recent polls in Scotland  have been influenced massively by the chaos Scottish Labour is in at the moment, not least their own leader throwing in the towel. 

It'd be stupidly complacent of them to imagine a new leader will magically recover their old poll share, but there's nothing like shock polls of this kind to kick complacency up the arse.

I think they'll end up recovering by next May, out of self-preservation forcing them to improve their game if nothing else. Probably only to a moderate extent though.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 31, 2014)

That's scary reading for Labour if the figures are maintained.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 31, 2014)

I'd go out on a limb and say they won't be.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2014)

Quartz said:


> That's scary reading for Labour if the figures are maintained.


Something bad for labour would be bad for labour. The think-tank strikes again.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 31, 2014)

7 months of Murphy giving it the old vote SNP get Tory shtick, then?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 31, 2014)

Will it definitely be Murphy though? Poll figures like this might help Neil Findlay a bit? I speculate only ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 31, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Poll figures like this might help Neil Findlay a bit? I speculate only ...


Nobody knows who he is.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Nobody knows who he is.


_Nobody expects_...hang on..._who_?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Nobody knows who he is.


Nonsense; everyone in Tannochbrae knows him.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 31, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Nonsense; everyone in Tannochbrae knows him.


I used to play gigs there, and he was never in the audience.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I used to play gigs there, and he was never in the audience.


Home visits?


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 31, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Home visits?


My gigs? No, in the Tannoch. And other local pubs. 

(This is actually true).


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> My gigs? No, in the Tannoch. And other local pubs.
> 
> (This is actually true).


I meant the Dr. The reason he'd have missed your gigs...geddit?


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 31, 2014)

Of course. Maybe Janet poisoned him with salmon.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2014)

Smithson reckons there's a new Rochester out tonight.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2014)

...and here it is..



> 15% lead for Reckless
> 
> There’s a new voting intention poll by Survation for the Unite union of Rochester & Strood.
> 
> ...


----------



## Quartz (Oct 31, 2014)

Lib Dems on *1%*?!


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2014)

> *Matthew Goodwin* @GoodwinMJ 1h
> Cameron should never have personally aligned himself to the Rochester&Strood result. And too many Tories said to me "it will be like Newark"
> View details ·


----------



## brogdale (Nov 1, 2014)

Interesting analysis of swing voters from Smithson's mate Herdson. (inc. some nice graphs to play with)



> ....the benefit of the LD-Lab voters has dropped from 9.5% of Labour’s share to 6.7%: still substantial but no longer election winning by itself given that the Tories’ former Lib Dems are still putting 3% on the Blues’ total. In other words, *the net effect of the Lib Dems’ collapsed vote share is a Con to Lab swing of less than 2%.*



and



> there are now three more to consider, who will play a significant part in determining how next year’s election goes: *Purple Labourites, Soft Labour Nats and Rainbow Liberals*.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 1, 2014)

That's a good article ....


----------



## brogdale (Nov 2, 2014)

Today's (Westminster) YG for ST...



> The weekly YouGov/Sunday Times poll today has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 31%, LAB 32%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 18%, GRN 6%*,
> 
> continuing YouGov’s recent trend of showing a wafer thin Labour lead (tabs are here.)



meanwhile...



> For the first time in YouGov’s polling Ed _*Miliband’s net ratings on if he is doing a good or bad job have sunk below Nick Clegg’s.*_ 18% now think Ed Miliband is doing well as Labour leader, 73% badly – a net figure of minus 55. Nick Clegg’s figures are 18% well, 72% badly, a net figure of minus 54.


----------



## treelover (Nov 2, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Watch the SNP join a tory-led coalition.  Imagine the wailing, it'd be worse than the Lib Dem betrayal.
> 
> Maybe Cameron's decision to have a Scottish referendum wasn't so stupid after all, it's done them no harm.



Nicola Sturgeon may be a bit different than Salmon, the membership has also shifted to the Left recently, but real politik may come into it.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 3, 2014)

Today's Ashcroft (Westminster) poll is remarkable...








> *The scale of the UKIP/GRN/SNP surges is breathtaking*
> That LAB falls to a record low of 29% is remarkable in itself but what is startling is that in the same poll CON is on just 30% making a big 2 aggregate of just 59%.
> 
> To put it into context. John Major’s Tories got more than 30% in the 1997 Blair landslide and LAB did better than 29% at GE10.
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2014)

Ashcroft's latest batch of marginals...






Well, he's finally found some that the tories can hold onto, and the C -> NuLab swing is down on the last set, (now 4.5%), but this really isn't great for the tories.

@LordAshcroft marginals finds UKIP at 20% in key CON-LAB battles:-

* CON 33 LAB 36 LD 6 UKIP 20 GRN 4*

How could it be with the 'kippers on 20%!

e2a : particularly good to see Cronx Centrale MP anus barfwell predicted as unemployed


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2014)

Cannock chase UKIP '_*in constituency' *_share = 30% (+26)!


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2014)

Croydon Centrale UKIP (1st question) = 23%.
wtf


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2014)

Source


----------



## brogdale (Nov 7, 2014)

This is the poll getting the headlines this morning...







> The 4% LAB margin is the biggest in any poll since YouGov recorded a 7% lead nearly a month ago. The last Survation national poll in early October had LAB and CON level-pegging.
> 
> *Survation has a reputation for producing the best shares for Farage’s party and is the only pollster that always includes it in its prompts.*
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2014)

Sack EVERYONE!!


----------



## brogdale (Nov 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Sack EVERYONE!!


 
...apart from UKIP75's fave leader...obs.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ...apart from UKIP75's fave leader...obs.


He speaks for the man is the street so is a sacred cow - such is the respect we have for the man in the street.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 7, 2014)

They had close to that in some of the marginal polling the other day (and up to 30 in one if I recall).

More panicked tory defections on the way as they seek for a way to cling on to their seats?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 7, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> They had close to that in some of the marginal polling the other day (and up to 30 in one if I recall).
> 
> More panicked tory defections on the way as they seek for a way to cling on to their seats?


Yes, some of the UKIP numbers from Ashcroft's Con/Lab "two-horse" marginals were remarkable.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 8, 2014)

More flak for Miliband (apparently) but this lends some credibility to the last Survation numbers..



Vermin in the 20's...again.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 9, 2014)

brogdale said:


> More flak for Miliband (apparently) but this lends some credibility to the last Survation numbers..
> 
> 
> 
> Vermin in the 20's...again.



Lib Dem support going up. Who are these people!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 9, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Lib Dem support going up. Who are these people!


It's not really going up, it's moving around the 6-9% range.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2014)

Vermin taking double the damage from UKIP.

After a massive polling Saturday and the ongoing speculation about Ed Miliband let’s step back for a moment and look at the wider picture.

The chart above is from the latest batch of Lord Ashcroft’s CON-LAB marginals polling with an *aggregate sample about three times as large as all the data that came out overnight*. It highlights the big development that appears not to be going away – the rise of UKIP.

It shows where the current UKIP vote in the key marginals is coming from a picture that is broadly unchanged on recent months. *For all the Farage spin his party is a much bigger threat to the Tories than LAB. *The reason why the *Tories are doing so poorly in the marginals* is that they’ve lost a lot of votes to the purples.

In eleven days time, if the polling is right and there’s been no change, the Tories will lose Rochester to UKIP adding further fuel to the purple surge and possibly encouraging other Tory MPs to jump ship as well,

In all of this *LAB has simply to hold its nerve* which it doesn’t appear to be doing this weekend.
Click to expand...
[Also posted in Miliband thread.]


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2014)

> Survation's new poll has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 29%(+2), LAB 34%(+3), LDEM 6%(-3), UKIP 23%(-1),*



Vermin still in the 20's.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 11, 2014)

Not exactly polling, but the punters seem to be realising that a tory majority is not a sensible bet...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2014)

Weak NuLab number from Ipsos-MORI monthly...lowest NL% from them since 2010...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2014)

Sound analysis from Anthony (YG)...



> As usual it’s the unusual poll that gets the attention, when it should be the trend. T*he fieldwork for the poll was conducted between Saturday and Monday when the media was full of stories about Labour having a leadership crisis,* so naturally enough people have concluded that Labour’s leadership row has damaged them in the polls.
> 
> Except the MORI poll wasn’t the _only_ poll conducted at the weekend. I*CM also had a poll in the field at the same time, which showed Labour one point ahead* (though down three on the previous month). Lord Ashcroft also had a poll conducted at the weekend, which showed a one point Conservative lead, but no change from the previous week. Populus had a poll conducted over the weekend too – it showed Labour holding on to a two point lead. YouGov had a poll conducted Sunday to Monday and another one since then, both showed a one point Labour lead, unchanged from last week.
> 
> The fact that this is the largest Conservative lead and the lowest Labour score for years is meaningful in its own way. It’s reflection of a general trend that has shown Labour drop from an average lead of around six points at the start of year, to an average lead of around about one point now. What the six polls we’ve had since the weekend don’t agree on is that last weekend’s row over Miliband’s leadership had any huge impact on this pre-existing trend.


----------



## DownwardDog (Nov 13, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Weak NuLab number from Ipsos-MORI monthly...lowest NL% from them since 2010...




Is the abbreviated version of all this wonkery that in the last couple of years UKIP are +10%, Labour are -10% and Conservatives about the same?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 13, 2014)

brogdale : the 'certain to vote' number as a proportion of exactly what whole though? 

Has anyone analysed that convincingly, because I'd struggle to even start .... </relies on wonkery  >


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> brogdale : the 'certain to vote' number as a proportion of exactly what whole though?
> 
> Has anyone analysed that convincingly, because I'd struggle to even start .... </relies on wonkery  >


 LtV methodology varies between pollsters, and this is one factor that can lead to different polling numbers. In the case of the Ipsos-MORI poll they ask their sample to estimate how likely they are to vote on a numerical, (0 - 10), scale. Then, if they want to produce numbers that reflect the preferences of those "absolutely certain to vote" they restrict their analysis to those in the sample describing their likelyhood to vote as 10/10.

The %s relate to the particular column in which they fall, for instance that 30% Con in the first "Total" column is calculated by finding 247 (Con pref) as a % of 822 (Total voting) = 30%. Whereas, in the second ("Absolutely certain") column, the 32% Con derives from 178 as a % of 556 = 32%.

The overall "Total voting" figure is calculated by taking the overall total sample, (1011 people interviewed), minus those stating that they are "undecided", "would not vote", "refused" or "will vote for another party but don't know which". In the case of this poll those numbers were 1011 - 99, 79, 8 & 3 = 822.


----------



## miktheword (Nov 16, 2014)

Labour poll lead grows to four points – but only 1 in 5 sees Miliband as PM

Level of support for Labour leader to head country falls but party’s predicted vote share remains strong despite infighting


Guardian..still all presidential.. just can't help themselves

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...d-grows-miliband-prime-minister-support-falls



also


Labour also ahead on Yougov:


Britain Elects ‏@britainelects · 1m1 minute ago 
National Opinion Poll (YouGov) 
LAB - 33% (+1) 
CON - 31% (-2) 
UKIP - 18% (+3) 
LDEM - 7% (-1) 
GRN - 5% (-1)


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

miktheword said:


> Labour poll lead grows to four points – but only 1 in 5 sees Miliband as PM
> 
> Level of support for Labour leader to head country falls but party’s predicted vote share remains strong despite infighting
> 
> ...


 That ComRes/SIndy 19% for UKIP is of some interest; Anthony @YG points out that ComRes are in a process of methodological change, moving towards consistent prompting of UKIP. The implication of the latest number (comparing like with like) is that UKIP are actually -5 on last month. Though, of course, this is only one poll...



> On the face of it there is very little change from a month ago, the Conservatives are down one, Lib Dems up one. However, there is actually an important methodological change. As regular readers will remember, last month ComRes did a split sample experiment in their online poll, with half the sample being asked voting intention with UKIP in the main prompt, half not. This apparently made 5 points difference to UKIP, with the prompted half of the sample showing UKIP up on 24%. ComRes have now switched over to prompting for UKIP all the time in their online and telephone polls, but it obviously didn’t have the same dramatic effect in this month’s poll. I suppose comparing prompted-poll to prompted-poll UKIP are down 5 points since last month, but perhaps last month’s was an anomoly and the impact of prompting is just less than the split-sample experiment suggested.
> 
> ComRes’s press release suggests they have also tweaked their weightings this month. I’ll update with details once they are confirmed, but looking through the tables nothing jumps out at me so it is probably relatively minor.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

miktheword said:


> National Opinion Poll (YouGov)
> LAB - 33% (+1)
> CON - 31% (-2)
> UKIP - 18% (+3)
> ...



The tables for that YG are still showing the following:-

Labour holding more of 2010 vote ("core"?) than tories; 77% >71%
LDs only retaining 27% 2010 vote
Labour gaining twice as much as tories from exLDs 30% > 15%
UKIP over twice a likely to gain ex-tories  as ex-Lab   22% > 10%
Greens picking up 4 X as many from LD than Lab  12% > 3%
LDs still getting smashed in two age cohorts most affected by fees
Tories still reliant on the oldies living in the SE.(without them they'd struggle to be at 27%).


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Neither of them are 'stupid', but they both demonstrate psychopathy . Which one suffers the greater psychopathy/narcissism  I'd not like to say.



Anyone who kicks themselves to the top of any organisation has more than a touch of psychopathy.

I'm surprised that no one is mentioning the SNP, who, God forbid, could be the power brokers if the Labour vote in Scotland does turn out to be as dismal as the polls predict.

What I hope is that those of us who voted NO! will support Labour and <spits> the Lib Dems. This next election will be more about who you don't want to win, than whom you do want to win. I will be voting and canvassing for Labour at the next Scottish elections, and voting for them next year in the GE.


----------



## Sue (Nov 16, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Anyone who kicks themselves to the top of any organisation has more than a touch of psychopathy.
> 
> I'm surprised that no one is mentioning the SNP, who, God forbid, could be the power brokers if the Labour vote in Scotland does turn out to be as dismal as the polls predict.
> 
> What I hope is that those of us who voted NO! will support Labour and <spits> the Lib Dems. This next election will be more about who you don't want to win, than whom you do want to win. I will be voting and canvassing for Labour at the next Scottish elections, and voting for them next year in the GE.


 
I thought you were a Tory?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 16, 2014)

Sue said:


> I thought you were a Tory?



You are some years behind the times. I _was _a Tory voter, however, the current government disgusts me. I would not consider voting Tory again ever (well, only when the current leading clique goes, and they will likely outlive me.) again.

I had been a Conservative supporter for 46 years.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 17, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> What I hope is that those of us who voted NO! will support Labour and <spits> the Lib Dems. This next election will be more about who you don't want to win, than whom you do want to win.



Yes. I would not be surprised to see an informal Lib Dem / Labour agreement to this effect.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

Eh? You think labour will call on labour no voters to vote lib dem?


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Yes. I would not be surprised to see an informal Lib Dem / Labour agreement to this effect.


I would; very.

In which constituencies do you expect Labour to informally ask their supporters to vote Lib Dem?


----------



## Quartz (Nov 17, 2014)

Shetlands, Orkneys, other Lib Dem strongholds. But I doubt it will go as far as asking voters to support the Lib Dems: I think it will be more of a lack of campaigning on behalf of their own candidates.


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2014)

There's no Lib Dem vote left to prop up outside the Orkneys and Shetlands


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Shetlands, Orkneys, other Lib Dem strongholds. But I doubt it will go as far as asking voters to support the Lib Dems: I think it will be more of a lack of campaigning on behalf of their own candidates.


Orkney & Shetland is one constituency for Westminster. It's never ever been Labour since parties began.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Shetlands, Orkneys, other Lib Dem strongholds. But I doubt it will go as far as asking voters to support the Lib Dems: I think it will be more of a lack of campaigning on behalf of their own candidates.



Not much an agreement then really is it? They already generally don't campaign strongly in areas they know they're never going to win. But this time and specifically in scottish seats they are going to do the exact opposite of what you say because of the wider disgust at lib-dems and the chance to make inroads on their traditional vote.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 17, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Orkney & Shetland is one constituency for Westminster. It's never ever been Labour since parties began.



That hasn't stopped them trying. I think Mr Carmichael is pretty safe but with the increased political activity, why tempt fate?



JTG said:


> There's no Lib Dem vote left to prop up outside the Orkneys and Shetlands



Really? Gordon, for instance, was a 4-way marginal. Berwickshire and West Aberdeenshire are LD / Tory marginals - better a LD than a Tory!


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Really? Gordon, for instance, was a 4-way marginal. Berwickshire and West Aberdeenshire are LD / Tory marginals - better a LD than a Tory!


According to latest polling, yes really


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> That hasn't stopped them trying. I think Mr Carmichael is pretty safe but with the increased political activity, why tempt fate?



So let's get this right - you first argue that in these seats labour will do an informal deal with the lib-dems to not try too hard. Then you follow this up by arguing that they will try in these seats as they have done so in the past.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Really? Gordon, for instance, was a 4-way marginal. Berwickshire and West Aberdeenshire are LD / Tory marginals - better a LD than a Tory!


What makes you think the tories will win that seat from 4th rather than the SNP or labour?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

Today's Ashcroft weekly National poll...vermin struggling to break out of the 20's, and the combined "big 2" total <60% for third week running.

*Con 29%, Lab 30%, LD 9%, UKIP 16%, Greens 7% & SNP 4%.*


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2014)

I sense a possibility for the Green share to increase slightly as their numbers get reported more widely


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

I wonder if lib dems want proper PR now?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Today's Ashcroft weekly National poll...vermin struggling to break out of the 20's, and the combined "big 2" total <60% for third week running.
> 
> *Con 29%, Lab 30%, LD 9%, UKIP 16%, Greens 7% & SNP 4%.*



What's 4% as MPs? about 26? The Scottish polling is showing SNP prospective number as 40. I wonder if sufficient weight is being given to the Scottish situation, because that is where Labour is most vulnerable. Fucking ironic, isn't it. If you had told me ten years ago that I would be voting for Labour in national elections, I would have said you were barking.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> What's 4% as MPs? about 26? The Scottish polling is showing SNP prospective number as 40. I wonder if sufficient weight is being given to the Scottish situation, because that is where Labour is most vulnerable. Fucking ironic, isn't it. If you had told me ten years ago that I would be voting for Labour in national elections, I would have said you were barking.



4% nationally. Not in scotland. ffs. They're only 8% of the state.


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2014)

Yep, that's a whole UK figure. To have the SNP show up as a significant % of a UK wide poll means they're scoring some pretty impressive numbers in Scotland. As we knew already


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

JTG said:


> Yep, that's a whole UK figure. To have the SNP show up as a significant % of a UK wide poll means they're scoring some pretty impressive numbers in Scotland. As we knew already


Yep, that's right.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 17, 2014)

JTG said:


> Yep, that's a whole UK figure. To have the SNP show up as a significant % of a UK wide poll means they're scoring some pretty impressive numbers in Scotland. As we knew already



I'm not sure that's the case. The SNP is a regional party (duh), and, per Q1, they only polled 88 people in Scotland, of whom only 62 were certain to vote. That's ~1 per (Westminster) constituency. I find it difficult to believe that that is a reasonable sample to make any prognostications about Scotland.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

_I'm 88 people - i've never been polled._


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I'm not sure that's the case. The SNP is a regional party (duh), and, per Q1, they only polled 88 people in Scotland, of whom only 62 were certain to vote. That's ~1 per (Westminster) constituency. I find it difficult to believe that that is a reasonable sample to make any prognostications about Scotland.


OK, so look at the Scotland specific polls with larger samples that back up this smaller number


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I'm not sure that's the case. The SNP is a regional party (duh), and, per Q1, they only polled 88 people in Scotland, of whom only 62 were certain to vote. That's ~1 per (Westminster) constituency. I find it difficult to believe that that is a reasonable sample to make any prognostications about Scotland.




The total number of UK parliamentary electors in 2013 was 46,139,900, a fall of 0.5% from 2012.
On December 1, 2011:

4.01 million people were registered to vote in the local government and Scottish Parliament elections – an increase of 23,250 (0.6 per cent) compared to December 1, 2010
3.94 million people were registered to vote in UK Parliament elections – an increase of 12,613 (0.3 per cent)



So the Scottish electorate = 8.5% of total for UK parliamentary elections.
Recent polls have put SNP support between 40 & 50%.
Hence 4% of the UK polling.
Simples.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 17, 2014)

JTG said:


> OK, so look at the Scotland specific polls with larger samples that back up this smaller number



You mean like the one they lost 55 to 45? And much of that 45 was in Glasgow? The one which showed that there was great variety in SNP support?


----------



## weepiper (Nov 17, 2014)

edit: article
sample size of 1001


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> You mean like the one they lost 55 to 45? And much of that 45 was in Glasgow? The one which showed that there was great variety in SNP support?


No, ones like this from 30-10-2014.
Sample size 1078. SNP on 43%.


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> You mean like the one they lost 55 to 45? And much of that 45 was in Glasgow? The one which showed that there was great variety in SNP support?


I wasn't aware that the SNP was available as an option in that particular ballot


----------



## Sue (Nov 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> You mean like the one they lost 55 to 45? And much of that 45 was in Glasgow? The one which showed that there was great variety in SNP support?


  You live in Scotland, you followed (and contributed to) the referendum thread. You know better than this, surely...?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

Some reading for Quartz 

http://newleftreview.org/II/89/neil-davidson-a-scottish-watershed



> ....for the majority of Yes campaigners, the movement was not primarily about supporting the SNP, nor even about Scottish nationalism in a wider sense. As a political ideology, nationalism—_any_ nationalism, relatively progressive or absolutely reactionary—involves two inescapable principles: that the national group should have its own state, regardless of the social consequences; and that what unites the national group is more significant than what divides it, above all class. By contrast, the main impetus for the Yes campaign was not nationalism, but a desire for social change expressed through the demand for self-determination. It was on this basis that independence was taken up by a broad range of socialists, environmentalists and feminists.





> In 2013, a Westminster Coalition spokesman said that a ‘crushing defeat’ was needed: if 40 per cent or more of the population backed calls for independence, ‘pressure could build’. [34] In the absence of that crushing defeat the Labour leadership, seeing housing schemes like Northfield in Aberdeen, Fintry in Dundee, Craigmillar in Edinburgh or Drumchapel in Glasgow awaken to political life, must be recalling the words of that arch-Unionist Sir Walter Scott to Robert Southey, shortly before the Scottish General Strike of 1820: ‘*The country is mined beneath our feet.’* [35] Indeed it is.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> No, ones like this from 30-10-2014.
> Sample size 1078. SNP on 43%.



That's better, but does it take into account the highly regional nature of SNP (edit: and Lib Dem) support? I'll also note that it under-emphasises Unionist support: on page 3 it says 47% of those polled said they voted Yes and 50% said they voted No and the weighting table (under Political Party Identification) indicates that not only did they not correct for this but they emphasised Nationalist support.

I trust you found the Trust / Do Not Trust figures suitably amusing? I'm shocked - shocked I tell you - that Cameron is on 70% Do Not Trust.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> That's better, but does it take into account the highly regional nature of SNP (edit: and Lib Dem) support? I'll also note that it under-emphasises Unionist support: on page 3 it says 47% of those polled said they voted Yes and 50% said they voted No and the weighting table (under Political Party Identification) indicates that not only did they not correct for this but they emphasised Nationalist support.
> 
> I trust you found the Trust / Do Not Trust figures suitably amusing? I'm shocked - shocked I tell you - that Cameron is on 70% Do Not Trust.


In England we too have regionally differentiated party support; doesn't mean that the tories aren't on 29% and nuLab 30%, does it?


----------



## Quartz (Nov 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> In England we too have regionally differentiated party support



But is it differentiated to the same degree? The swings in government would suggest not.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> But is it differentiated to the same degree? The swings in government would suggest not.



You're not making sense.


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> But is it differentiated to the same degree? The swings in government would suggest not.


Eh?

There are parts of England (swathes of the Home Counties for eg) where Labour support is miniscule to the point of being invisible. Ditto the Tory vote in areas of the north of England


----------



## Quartz (Nov 18, 2014)

JTG said:


> There are parts of England (swathes of the Home Counties for eg) where Labour support is miniscule to the point of being invisible. Ditto the Tory vote in areas of the north of England



Don't underestimate the Tory vote, or rather, those who entertain the possibility of voting Tory. And there are other parties. For instance, Windsor & Maidenhead, a true-blue constituency if ever there were one, has been becoming a Tory / LD marginal. And places like Yorkshire have both Tory and Labour MPs. And places in the north, like (picking Barnsley at random) Penistone & Stockridge, a split-off of Barnsley, are Tory / Labour marginals. Barnsley Central, another offshoot, is solidly Labour, BTW.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2014)

Yeah I know 

That's not what I was saying really


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 18, 2014)

Quartz said:


> You mean like the one they lost 55 to 45?


People were not voting Yes or No to the SNP in the referendum, they were voting Yes or No to independence. 



> And much of that 45 was in Glasgow?


Glasgow is the biggest city in Scotland, with about 24% of the Scottish population.  Much of any Scotland-wide population percentage will be in Glasgow.  And again, while there was a Yes majority, there wasn't an SNP majority in that poll, as that wasn't what was being asked.  (And indeed, when it has been asked in elections, there has not ever been an SNP majority in Glasgow).

Look at the electoral history of Greater Glasgow.  Indeed look at Scotland as a whole - there are vanishingly few Labour/SNP marginals.  Or should I say "were"? We'll see. (This is where I'd sound a note of caution to SNP supporters: when May comes and your party doesn't quite achieve the wipeout the polls suggest, this will be presented as a "Damp Squib For SNP").



> The one which showed that there was great variety in SNP support?


Well, we can extrapolate that the SNP stronghold in the North East didn't vote for independence, but that rather undermines your suggestion of SNP-Yes equivalence.

Mind you, recent opinion polls seem to show that Yes voters have swung behind the SNP (although that is not the same as the reverse - we can't say that previous SNP voters have swung behind independence).


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

Latest Scottish polling still points to NuLab melt-down, though not quite such a complete implosion as suggested by the earlier IPSOS-Mori poll that had NuLab getting 1 seat. 

Survation's numbers (change on Survation's Sept numbers)...

SNP 46% (=9), Lab 24% (-15), Con 17% (-1), LD 6% (+3)....

give NuLab 5 seats.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

> This afternoon there was also some reporting of a new Opinium poll (tabs here). Opinium don’t seem to have officially released voting intention figures, but they are provided as crossbreaks on a new poll, so we can see that the VI figures would have been:-
> 
> *CON 34%, LAB 33%, LDEM 5%, UKIP 18%, GRN 4%.*
> 
> This would be the first Tory lead from Opinium since the Omnishambles budget, and *the lowest any poll has shown the Lib Dems so far this Parliament.*


----------



## Quartz (Nov 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ...



They're lumping the 'No opinion' people in with the 'Don't knows' which seems a bit off. You can know that something isn't going to affect your vote.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

Quartz said:


> They're lumping the 'No opinion' people in with the 'Don't knows' which seems a bit off. You can know that something isn't going to affect your vote.


What are you quoting?


----------



## Quartz (Nov 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> What are you quoting?



Your quote of the Opinium poll.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 19, 2014)

Somebody on Political Betting asked if Yes was over-reported during indyref then is SNP support being over represented as well now? I thought it was a fair question


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 20, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Somebody on Political Betting asked if Yes was over-reported during indyref then is SNP support being over represented as well now? I thought it was a fair question




I wondered that too. I certainly think you wouldn't go far wrong (if you were a betting man, which I'm not) to punt on the actual GE outcome for the SNP ending up at a significantly lower level than shown in current polls. 

Can't easily believe that Labour getting themselves a new leader in Scotland can make their standing _worse_ than current leaderless levels. However much of an arse Jim Murphy** might be _politically_ , he will at the very least be more _organised_.

**(I'm assuming for the state of discussion that Labour's new leader in Scotland will be him. Who knows though?)


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 22, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> I wondered that too. I certainly think you wouldn't go far wrong (if you were a betting man, which I'm not) to punt on the actual GE outcome for the SNP ending up at a significantly lower level than shown in current polls.
> 
> Can't easily believe that Labour getting themselves a new leader in Scotland can make their standing _worse_ than current leaderless levels. However much of an arse Jim Murphy** might be _politically_ , he will at the very least be more _organised_.
> 
> **(I'm assuming for the state of discussion that Labour's new leader in Scotland will be him. Who knows though?)


This may interest you:

http://paulhutcheon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/scottish-labour-tensions-part-54.html


----------



## miktheword (Nov 22, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/22/labour-three-point-lead-tories-poll-ed-miliband

Labour has maintained a three-point lead over the Tories in the latest Opinium/Observer poll, which shows a minor improvement in Ed Miliband’s leadership ratings and widespread scepticism about Tory pledges to cut taxes after the next election.

The poll – taken between Tuesday and Thursday last week and before the results of the Rochester and Strood byelection and the fall-out from the “white van” tweeting row – puts Labour on 33% (up one point on a fortnight ago), and the Conservatives also up one on 30%.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 24, 2014)

Today's Populus (online panel-base) poll..


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Today's Populus (online panel-base) poll..



That's pretty good reading for labour and pretty bad for articul8


----------



## brogdale (Nov 24, 2014)

...and for fellow 'anoraks'....Smithson has undertaken a little, limited research of his own into the apparent discrepancy between on-line and phone-based methods of polling...

Basically.... Lab on-line > phone
				  Con on-line = phone
				  LD   on-line < phone
				UKIP  on-line > phone
				  GR  on-line > phone

e2a...and...I should have said..
phone polling = IPSOS-Mori, ICM, ComRes(phone) & Ashcroft 
on-line, panel-base = Populus, YouGov, Opinium, ComRes (online) & Survation

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...-while-the-phone-surveys-best-for-ld-and-grn/


----------



## brogdale (Nov 24, 2014)

Anthony from YG awards the Express this year's "*coveted UKPR crap media reporting of polls award*" for this headline...





> Full tabs for the YouGov/Sun on Sunday poll are now up here. The slightly larger sample than usual was to make sure they had a good sub-sample of Sun readers, which the Sun used in yesterday’s analysis of the poll to look at what their own readers thought. The Express, however, has decided to report the Sun reader crossbreak as a national poll – obviously it wins the coveted UKPR crap media reporting of polls award. Just to be crystal clear UKIP are not in second place in this poll. The headline figures for this poll were CON 33%, LAB 34%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 15%. The figures quoted in the Express relate only to respondents who read the Sun.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 24, 2014)

Someone should tell the commentators on that Express article.  I haven't quite the heart to burst their bubble.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 24, 2014)

Ashcroft's weekly national poll is not good news for the vermin...



> Labour are five points ahead in this week’s Ashcroft National Poll, conducted over the past weekend. Labour’s share is up two points since last week at 32%, with the Conservatives down two at 27%, the Liberal Democrats down two at 7%, UKIP up two at 18%, the Greens unchanged on 7% and the SNP up one point at 5%.



...and Smithson has the English numbers...


----------



## weepiper (Nov 24, 2014)

SNP 5% across the UK! That's bonkers. What sample numbers are we talking here?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's pretty good reading for labour and pretty bad for articul8


Why?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 24, 2014)

weepiper said:


> SNP 5% across the UK! That's bonkers. What sample numbers are we talking here?


We've been over this (on the previous page http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/political-polling.307208/page-38#post-13541015) 

It means that the nationalists are polling 50%+ in Scotland.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> We've been over this (on the previous page http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/political-polling.307208/page-38#post-13541015)
> 
> It means that the nationalists are polling 50%+ in Scotland.



i get that but it's still pretty startling to see.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 24, 2014)

weepiper said:


> i get that but it's still pretty startling to see.


Oh yeah; Sample 1004


----------



## brogdale (Nov 24, 2014)

Looking exclusively at the 533 English constituencies in Ashcroft's polling puts UKIP on 22%. And just look what that does to the vermin....the 'kippers are warfarin.



> The [tories] secured 39.2% of the English vote against Labour’s 28.1. The poll today has LAB with a 6% lead in England thus suggesting an 8.5% swing to it from the blues since the last general election.
> 
> This is far far larger than anything we have seen for quite some time in the full GB polls.
> 
> ...



http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/11/24/labours-scottish-crisis-is-masking-what-could-be-even-more-significant-the-tory-collapse-in-england/


----------



## JTG (Nov 24, 2014)

Yeah but eternal Tory majority if Scotland leaves. Hang on...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 24, 2014)

and a reminder that Ashcroft's polls (albeit volatile) are conducted by phone polling...


brogdale said:


> Lab on-line > phone
> Con on-line = phone
> LD on-line < phone
> UKIP on-line > phone
> GR on-line > phone


----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2014)

The 'kippers don't buy the vermin's "recovery"...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2014)

ComRes polling of marginals - 40 closest tory/labour seats:

LAB 39%(-2)
Con31%(+1)
UKIP 18%(+1)
LDEM 7%(+1)

Brief look and link to tabs here.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2014)

Ashcroft's excited about decapitation...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> ComRes polling of marginals - 40 closest tory/labour seats:
> 
> LAB 39%(-2)
> Con31%(+1)
> ...



In these English marginals Labour are clearly hanging on to the shed LDs, and the vermin are still hurt by the drift to UKIP, but for every Con/Lab marginal south of the border, there's a Lab/SNP one north of it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> In these English marginals Labour are clearly hanging on to the shed LDs, and the vermin are still hurt by the drift to UKIP, but for every Con/Lab marginal south of the border, there's a Lab/SNP one north of it.


I think it'd take the current very high polling to put the SNP/Labour marginals anywhere near 20 - whereas there's circa 100 in labour/tory where a 5% swing to labour would win the seat - and the same the other way, labour seats that a small swing to tory would win for them.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think it'd take the current very high polling to put the SNP/Labour marginals anywhere near 20 - whereas there's circa 100 in labour/tory where a 5% swing to labour would win the seat - and the same the other way, labour seats that a small swing to tory would win for them.


But still a sound (polling) case for including many scot's seats in the marginal category? Smithson appears to be hinting that Ashcroft might be including some in his marginal poling.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> But still a sound (polling) case for including many scot's seats in the marginal category? Smithson appears to be hinting that Ashcroft might be including some in his marginal poling.


I certainly would, esp if i was after some mischief making - which Ashcroft does seem to be. Yesterday he was playing up the possibility of a doncaster decapitation if tories switched to UKIP - meaning UKIP must be in 2nd in that seat in his polling. We'll see later anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

Ashcroft stuff rolling - UKIP/Tory could help labour kill Clegg:


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

Lib-dems doing better in the seats they hold where they are challenged by tories than nationally:


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

UKIP turning seat after seat into three way marginals 6 months before the election.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 27, 2014)

I guess Cameron is a bit more secure than the other three then?  A direct UKIP challenge to him would actually be pretty funny.  Maybe they can get Clarkson to stand.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> I guess Cameron is a bit more secure than the other three then?  A direct UKIP challenge to him would actually be pretty funny.  Maybe they can get Clarkson to stand.


He's safe as houses - and ashcroft wouldn't dare poll that seat anyway!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

Summary


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ashcroft stuff rolling - UKIP/Tory could help labour kill Clegg:


Rather bizarrely Smithson headlines those numbers by saying "*Farage in trouble in Thanet South..*"

So that's..

Con  34% (-14)
UKIP 29% (+23)
Lab  26%  (-5)
LD	 7%  (-8)

..and it's Farage that's "in trouble" ?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Rather bizarrely Smithson headlines those numbers by saying "*Farage in trouble in Thanet South..*"
> 
> So that's..
> 
> ...


Over excited by last two UKIP wins and suggestion he should have stood in first.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 1, 2014)

*"Uniform swing is now worse than useless – it is positively misleading"*

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/12/01/uniform-swing-rip/


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2014)

Ashcroft has amended that donacaster poll and apologised for a series of rather large errors:



> Corrected data tables are below, as is an amended summary of the results. In a nutshell, Labour lead UKIP by 29 points in Doncaster North, not twelve; Miliband leads Cameron as best PM by 14 points, not one point; Miliband’s constituents would rather see him as PM than Cameron; they give him the highest ratings of the four main party leaders, not the third highest; and they trust Miliband and Balls more on the economy than Cameron and Osborne, not the reverse.


----------



## miktheword (Dec 6, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/06/observer-opinium-poll-autumn-statement-labour-lead

Labour has stretched its lead over the Tories to five-points but now lags further behind the Conservatives on the crucial issue of economic credibility, according to the latest Observer/Opinium poll.


Is there a separate vote on 'economic competence' at general elections?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

miktheword said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/06/observer-opinium-poll-autumn-statement-labour-lead
> 
> Labour has stretched its lead over the Tories to five-points but now lags further behind the Conservatives on the crucial issue of economic credibility, according to the latest Observer/Opinium poll.
> 
> ...


They are so desperate to get that 'but' in. Each poll it's a different 'but'.


----------



## treelover (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ashcroft stuff rolling - UKIP/Tory could help labour kill Clegg:



Sheffield Hallam with a few exceptions is a pretty affluent seat, does this mean many of the wealthy, possibly ex tories there will be voting UKIP?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 15, 2014)

Smithson continues to highlight just how badly the vermin are scoring in English parliamentary constituencies...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 16, 2014)

Greens outpolling the lib dems by 2% in the latest you gov - a first. 

CON 32%, LAB 34%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 14%, GRN 8%.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ashcroft stuff rolling - UKIP/Tory could help labour kill Clegg:


So, if in Sheffield Hallam, would it be ok to vote or even campaign for labour?

I'm not in Sheffield Hallam, but that does look like there's a massive coalition scalp to be had there. I'd love him to get kicked out on his arse.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 16, 2014)

I think it would be acceptable to support whoever was best place to topple Clegg


----------



## Roadkill (Dec 16, 2014)

This ComRes/Independent poll is interesting.  Showing the usual Labour lead, albeit only by three points, but suggests fairly strong opposition to Osborne's cuts programme, and that few people believe either main party can cut spending without damaging the NHS or other key services.


----------



## Roadkill (Dec 16, 2014)

free spirit said:


> So, if in Sheffield Hallam, would it be ok to vote or even campaign for labour?
> 
> I'm not in Sheffield Hallam, but that does look like there's a massive coalition scalp to be had there. I'd love him to get kicked out on his arse.



Personally, I don't think I could bring myself to campaign for Labour, but I'd vote for them if it could mean Clegg getting the boot.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 16, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think it would be acceptable to support whoever was best place to topple Clegg



Sad thing is that he'll walk straight into some EU gravy train commissionaire-type role on getting booted out, he'll not be down at Executive Job Club or getting sanctioned any time soon.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

free spirit said:


> So, if in Sheffield Hallam, would it be ok to vote or even campaign for labour?
> 
> I'm not in Sheffield Hallam, but that does look like there's a massive coalition scalp to be had there. I'd love him to get kicked out on his arse.



Read on, the poll was false. But if it weren't you should campaign for UKIP to achieve a decapitation.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 16, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> *Sad thing *is that he'll walk straight into some EU gravy train commissionaire-type role on getting booted out, he'll not be down at Executive Job Club or getting sanctioned any time soon.




Completely agree that the last thing Clegg deserves is more gravy train riding 

...  but I can think of worse things if he gets an election drubbing first ... 

A drubbing machine, next May  :


----------



## free spirit (Dec 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Read on, the poll was false. But if it weren't you should campaign for UKIP to achieve a decapitation.


the revised data for sheffield hallam doesn't look any different.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2014)

free spirit said:


> the revised data for sheffield hallam doesn't look any different.


My mistake, i somehow thought you were on about MIliband's Doncaster seat.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 17, 2014)

Can't remember the last time I saw a Guardian headline like this. It's usually all doom and gloom stuff for Labour. I may have missed some though.



> Labour opens up five-point poll lead over Tories



http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/17/labour-five-point-poll-lead-tories


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 17, 2014)

It's easy to write exciting headlines about polls if you ignore things like margins of error or trends.

If the vermin dip far enough and stay there for a bit UKIP will gain as more traditional/old school tory voters will consider the election lost and vote for a party that's closer to their views.  If it's closer-run and the prospect of preventing a Labour government is on the cards they'll stick with ham face.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2014)

14% for lib-dems. Hmm...


----------



## treelover (Dec 17, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Can't remember the last time I saw a Guardian headline like this. It's usually all doom and gloom stuff for Labour. I may have missed some though.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/17/labour-five-point-poll-lead-tories




I think it was Osborne's plans for 50 billion in cuts, people don't want to see that level of slashing, for the first time in years I think Labour may just get in, though how different it will be just don't know yet.

btw, has this been the most passive 5 year term in terms of political opposition, parliamentary and non-parliamentary?, hundreds dying from benefit cuts/sanctions, but little challenge.


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 17, 2014)

treelover said:


> I think it was Osborne's plans for 50 billion in cuts, people don't want to see that level of slashing, for the first time in years I think Labour may just get in, though how different it will be just don't know yet.
> 
> btw, has this been the most passive 5 year term in terms of political opposition, parliamentary and non-parliamentary?, hundreds dying from benefit cuts/sanctions, but little challenge.


You've certainly been pushing that that's the case for years.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 17, 2014)

That guardian poll looks pretty rouge. 

The lib dems have been stuck on 6-8 % for months and no other pollsters are showing some magic recovery. Their has been a slight up swing in the labour vote in the last few weeks - but nowhere near as dramatic as that.


----------



## JHE (Dec 17, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> That guardian poll looks pretty rouge.



Vraiment?


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 17, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> rouge








But nice girls pinch.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> That guardian poll looks pretty rouge.
> 
> The lib dems have been stuck on 6-8 % for months and no other pollsters are showing some magic recovery. Their has been a slight up swing in the labour vote in the last few weeks - but nowhere near as dramatic as that.


ComRes had a lib-dem 12% at start of this week.


----------



## Roadkill (Dec 17, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> Their has been a slight up swing in the labour vote in the last few weeks - but nowhere near as dramatic as that.



There has, and I think - or would like to think! - that may continue, because there does seem to be a fair bit of opposition to spending cuts on the scale that Osborne laid out in the Autumn statement.  This poll is probably a bit of an outlier, though.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Dec 17, 2014)

ICM have never had the LDs in single digits.  Labour's 33 is standard for recent polls, even the 5 point lead is not unusual for them over the last 12 months.

Despite the headlines the only thing this poll shows is a slight con - lib swing, still well within the margin of error.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2/icm


----------



## free spirit (Dec 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> My mistake, i somehow thought you were on about MIliband's Doncaster seat.


ah, I hadn't even clocked that was his seat.

no my portillo moment for this election would be clegg losing his seat.

Well, unless osbourne went or something, but clegg looks vulnerable.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 18, 2014)

Lib Dems on 8% in the latest you gov. 6-8% is what they generally get with them. 

CON 33%, LAB 33%, UKIP 14%, LDEM 8%, GRN 7%.

You gov do 5 polls a week so its much better for spotting actual movements beyond margin of error.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 18, 2014)

YouGov/Sun poll tonight: . LAB 35%, CON 30%, UKIP 16%, GRN 8%, LDEM 6%.

Still no sign of a lib dem revival with you gov. I suspect that bigish lab lead is just margin or error stuff.


----------



## Roadkill (Dec 19, 2014)

Latest MORI poll showing a Tory lead, which has given the Torygraph an embarrassing trouser moment, even though it's well within the margin of error.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Latest MORI poll showing a Tory lead, which has given the Torygraph an embarrassing trouser moment, even though it's well within the margin of error.


Most seem to show labour lead reasserting itself and tories dropping back to 30/sub-30.

New TNS BMRB poll has  
LAB 35% (+4)
CON 28% (-2)
Ukip 19% (N/C)
 GRN 7% (+1)
LD 5% (-1).

Last night's National Opinion Poll (YouGov):
LAB - 35% (+2)
CON - 30% (-3)
UKIP - 16% (+2)
GRN - 8% (+1)
LDEM - 6% (-2)

Populus 
Lab 35 (-1)
Con 34 (=)
LD 9 (-1)
UKIP 13 (+1)

ICM
LAB 33%(+1)
CON 28%(-3)
 LDEM 14%(+3)
UKIP 14%(nc)
GRN 5%(-1).


----------



## Roadkill (Dec 19, 2014)

Indeed - should have said that it's slightly against what appears to be the current trend.  The Torygraph will not acknowledge that, of course, partly out of dogma and partly because most of their journalists have been playing a frenzied game of soggy biscuit in the corner of the office ever since they heard about it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 20, 2014)

Labour races into seven-point lead as ratings for Nigel Farage show sharp fall



> Labour has opened up a seven-point lead over the Conservatives in the latest Opinium/Observer poll, which also shows a sharp fall in the personal approval ratings for the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage.
> 
> The survey will be a boost for Labour and its leader, Ed Miliband, who has endured a torrid time since the autumn conference season as the political parties prepare to enter a general election year.



Time to go.

The farage reportage is pathetic. But there MUST BE A COLLAPSE OF SOMEONE.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 21, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Sad thing is that he'll walk straight into some EU gravy train commissionaire-type role on getting booted out, he'll not be down at Executive Job Club or getting sanctioned any time soon.


Or he'll get kicked upstairs like Sir John Simon.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Labour races into seven-point lead as ratings for Nigel Farage show sharp fall
> 
> Time to go.
> 
> The farage reportage is pathetic. But there MUST BE A COLLAPSE OF SOMEONE.



Clegg would give his eye teeth for Farage's approval ratings 'collapsed' or otherwise.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Dec 21, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Clegg would give his eye teeth for Farage's approval ratings 'collapsed' or otherwise.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Sure thing.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 21, 2014)

SNP up two percent since Jim Murphy became Scottish Labour leader.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 21, 2014)

weepiper said:


> SNP up two percent since Jim Murphy became Scottish Labour leader.



Lol


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 22, 2014)

Just about zero poll change in Scotland then, bar the most miniscule of detail, maybe.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 22, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Just about zero poll change in Scotland then, bar the most miniscule of detail, maybe.


Well, we were told by the media and the Labour Party to expect a "Murphy bounce". Even a dead cat would have bounced more; instead, he made a small dent in what everyone had assumed was rock bottom.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 22, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, we were told by the media and the Labour Party to expect a "Murphy bounce". Even a dead cat would have bounced more; instead, he made a small dent in what everyone had assumed was rock bottom.



Exactly. As Smithson puts it...



> If this were to be repeated at the General Election then *the red team would almost be wiped out north of the border and the SNP would take in excess of 50 of Scotland’s 59 seats.*
> 
> It goes almost without saying that losing 30+ MPs in Scotland makes LAB’s overall General Election challenge even greater and would almost certainly rule out the possibility of an overall majority. *It would also put the SNP in a very strong position at Westminster in discussions over the post election government.*


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 22, 2014)

And Murphy's response ("beer for everyone!") is the political equivalent of blurting out "Monkey tennis!" as security shows you to the door.

I had assumed Labour could go no lower. I was wrong.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 22, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> And Murphy's response (*"beer for everyone!"*) is the political equivalent of blurting out "Monkey tennis!" as security shows you to the door.
> 
> I had assumed Labour could go no lower. I was wrong.



eh?
Have I missed something? Suddenly considering voting for ScotLab


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 22, 2014)

brogdale said:


> eh?
> Have I missed something? Suddenly considering voting for ScotLab


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30568135

Just as he learns the Survation results, this appears...


----------



## brogdale (Dec 22, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30568135
> 
> Just as he learns the Survation results, this appears...



Ah, OK...tft.
Booze at the footie...hmmm


----------



## brogdale (Dec 22, 2014)

Telegraph has caught up with us and is now leading on this Survation poll...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...w-poll-showing-depth-of-Labours-collapse.html



> The prospect of a party set on Scottish independence holding close to one in six seats in Westminster could trigger fresh concerns for the state of the Union less than a year after Scots voted to stay in the UK by 55 per cent to 45 per cent.
> 
> Mr Salmond recently told The Independence there could be a "balanced" Parliament after the May election, adding: "That’s an opportunity to have delivered to Scotland what we have been promised" – a reference to the package of new powers which has been agreed for Holyrood.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 22, 2014)

Not polling, but an interesting 'straw in the wind' nonetheless.

A recent leaflet from Gavlar Barfwell, (MP for Croydon Centrale, Shitgift Foundation and Hammersfield), sports no image of the party logo, its leader, nor any reference of the vermin party whatsoever....and all set in a green(ish) matrix.

The party that dare not speak its name! 

https://insidecroydon.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/barwell-2.jpg


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 22, 2014)

Nice weasel words of _'I use the same hospital, same rail service and same shops as the people I represent'._  Bet he packs his kids off somewhere expensive though.  Plus the gilded elite haven't built their own private railway just yet.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 22, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Nice weasel words of _'I use the same hospital, same rail service and same shops as the people I represent'._  Bet he packs his kids off somewhere expensive though.  Plus the gilded elite haven't built their own private railway just yet.



Yes, indeed. And Barfwell certainly doesn't find blowing his own trumpet difficult...



> _I believe that makes me a better MP_



Better than?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 22, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Ah, OK...tft.
> Booze at the footie...hmmm



if they bring back terracing and let you smoke as well i'll vote for it


----------



## brogdale (Dec 22, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> if they bring back terracing and let you smoke as well i'll vote for it


no mention of the pissing in bloke in front's pocket?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 23, 2014)

Smithson has graphed the *England only *polling of the main outfits for December 2014 and included the 2010 GE %'s as a comparison....







Significant change and variation between the pollsters...but the vermin are presently in all sorts of bother.


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 23, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Smithson has graphed the *England only *polling of the main outfits for December 2014 and included the 2010 GE %'s as a comparison....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What would be nice would be a way to see how they did in the previous election. Who was closest to the actual result?


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 23, 2014)

Still way too many tory votes in England.  Can the provinces where they are popular secede please?  Lets see how surrey/kent etc. go it alone, I guess it'd be a bit like Daily Mail Island.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> What would be nice would be a way to see how they did in the previous election. Who was closest to the actual result?


These is how the large pollsters fared in 2010:



Must be remembered that this is final results (and not strictly predictions) a day/day before the election - to compare them with the results they had for december 2009 - and you must remember that though these figures arenot  intended to not reflect/capture the 2010 result but the decemeber 2009 picture (that's tory/lab/LD/Tory lead below btw):


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> These is how the large pollsters fared in 2010:
> 
> View attachment 65426
> 
> ...


Very interesting, thanks.

Not sure how much you can take from it, though, seeing as almost everyone got the Lib Dems wrong. They had that last minute surge due to Clegg's popularity in the debates, I suppose, which of course wasn't/couldn't be known about here.

If we ignore the Lib Dems, though, then most of them matched the final results pretty closely. Does this mean Labour/Tory support is unlikely to change much between now and the election?


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 23, 2014)

Looking again: although most of them were in the right area, all bar one showed stronger support for the Tories than they got in the results, and more than half showed less support for Labour than at the election.

I don't remember anything happening to make Labour more popular in the run-up, so was this down to Tory fuck-ups or Lib Dem gains or..?


----------



## The Boy (Dec 23, 2014)

Folk saying Lib Dem in surveys then switching to Labour as an anti-Tory vote presumably?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

The interesting one from the last chart is the tory lead one - note it steadily came down from December to may. So if the next election follows the same path we might expect the same, a slow tory claw back - and that was sort of what happened over the last month - but the lib-dem implosion, the rise of UKIP and the increased non big 3/4 parties vote means we really cannot expect a replay with any confidence.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 23, 2014)

I remember lib dems doing a lot worse than people expected, there was an air of expectation but I think people decided at the last minute to back the other parties, perhaps scared of wasting their vote.  I wonder if UKIP might face a similar fate?  I can see some kippers switching back to the vermin, worried about red Ed, especially if the polls suggest the possibility of a tory victory (if it's not going to happen they might as well back Farage).  I can also see a more concerted media campaign (or just increased scrutiny) which does seem to be landing some punches on UKIP, the weekly resignations/sackings are beginning to look a bit chaotic.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

Here's the end of year of year labour lead figure for every major pollster:

Opinium 7
TNS	   7
Survtn   5
ICM	   5
YouGov 4
ComRe  3
Ashcroft 1
Populus 0
IpsosM -3


----------



## brogdale (Dec 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Here's the end of year of year labour lead figure for every major pollster:
> 
> Opinium 7
> TNS	   7
> ...



Smithson continues to zero in on the England only percentages....and strugles to see how the vermin can match their 2010 EO seat haul.





> ...it’s the impact of 2010 CON votes seeping to Farage’s party that will be most important. There are just signs in the marginals at least that faced with the prospect of a Miliband government some will return.
> 
> The reason the Tories have struggled against LAB is not because of blue red switchers. The latter has suffered less seepage to the purples and, of course, has done well from the collapse of the LDs.
> 
> At the moment *I find hard to see how the Tories can get more than 280 seats overall *which is the current sell level on the spread markets.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 27, 2014)

May have been posted already in another Scotland-focussed thread, this (apols if so)

But Guardian today (Sat)  was zeroing in on their/ICM's latest Scotland-only poll ...

SNP are going to walk it North of the border next May, from the above


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> May have been posted already in another Scotland-focussed thread, this (apols if so)
> 
> But Guardian today (Sat)  was zeroing in on their/ICM's latest Scotland-only poll ...
> 
> SNP are going to walk it North of the border next May, from the above


Bet you they don't.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 27, 2014)

Will bet you a (post May!) pint butchersapron , but not with any confidence atm ...


----------



## Quartz (Dec 28, 2014)

A week is a long time in politics, and there's a long way to go before the election.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 28, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Will bet you a (post May!) pint butchersapron , but not with any confidence atm ...


he's always right, the bastard.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> he's always right, the bastard.


Trying to butter me up before our titanic FF h2h clash later today!


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Trying to butter me up before our titanic FF h2h clash later today!


Belated comfort for the pasting Leeds got at Portman Road.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Belated comfort for the pasting Leeds got at Portman Road.


Transitional season.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 28, 2014)

Quartz said:


> A week is a long time in politics, and there's a long way to go before the election.



and don't forget _events dear boy, events. _Got any others?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> and don't forget _events dear boy, events. _Got any others?


"Savaged by a dead sheep".


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

“Making love with Nick was like have a double wardrobe fall on top of you with the keystill in the lock.'


----------



## brogdale (Dec 28, 2014)

"I agree with Nick"*

*clegg, not fatty four dinners


----------



## Quartz (Dec 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> and don't forget _events dear boy, events. _Got any others?



"Crisis? What crisis?"


----------



## Sue (Dec 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> “Making love with Nick was like have a double wardrobe fall on top of you with the keystill in the lock.'



Even though I've heard this quote umpteen times, it still makes me shudder.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2014)

Anthony @ YG has produced an excellent end of year analysis of polling trends.

Graphs include these two...








> The average swing in the LD-v-Con seats is a modest 2.2 points from LD to Con, enough for the Conservatives to take seven seats. However, because the majorities and the swings aren’t evenly distributed there were actually ten seats where Ashcroft found the Conservatives ahead and three more (St Ives, North Cornwall and Torbay) where it’s too close to call). The line on the chart below is the swing needed for each Lib Dem seat to fall, the bars the swings recorded in the Ashcroft polling (when Ashcroft has done more than one poll in the same seat I’ve averaged them)









> In the LD-v-Lab seats it is a different story, the average swing is a towering 12 points from LD to Lab, enough to win all the seats at a trot. Again, there is some variation from seat to seat, but this is only enough to save two of these seats – the once unassailable Old Southwark and Bermondsey, and Birmingham Yardley where John Hemming seems to be bucking the trend.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 31, 2014)

> The public’s lack of confidence in Ed Miliband and Labour isn’t manifesting itself in them running back to the Conservative party for safety… it’s manifesting itself in them going off to find more attractive oppositions to vote for.


 source above


----------



## killer b (Dec 31, 2014)

_John Hemming_ is bucking the trend? Wow.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 3, 2015)

Yay...first political poll of the year!



> The Christmas polling break is over have the first poll of 2015 out tonight, conducted for the Observer. Topline figures are:-
> 
> *CON 32%(+3), LAB 33%(-3), LDEM 8%(+2), UKIP 17%(+1), GRN 4%(-1).*
> 
> The poll has a sharp drop in Labour’s lead, down six points since a fortnight ago, but the previous poll was that rather incongruous seven point Labour lead, so part of the change will just be a correction after an unusual poll.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2015)

Another couple of polls...both giving slight Lab leads..

The first Populus poll of this year this morning – figures there were:-

*CON 34%, LAB 36%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 12%.* (Tabs are here.)

YouGov’s first poll of the year is out tonight, with topline figures of:-

*CON 31%, LAB 34%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 14%, GRN 8%.
*
and Andrew @YG offers an interesting commentary about prompting (or not) of UKIP...essentially YG have started to consistently prompt UKIP, along with the 'big 3', and not detected much difference in the outcome. FTR.... it means three companies (YouGov, ComRes and Survation) now include UKIP in the main prompt, Populus, Opinium, Ipsos MORI, ICM and Lord Ashcroft polls do not.

e2a: as usual Smithson has graphed these polls...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2015)

This is probably going to be a useful site over the coming months. This, for starters is well worth the wade.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> This is probably going to be a useful site over the coming months. This, for starters is well worth the wade.



Here's one graph that's certainly going to see a sharp decline...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Here's one graph that's certainly going to see a sharp decline...




Just thinking about them and the fact that UKIP are going to get hammered in returns far worse than the lib-dems ever did - in terms of effecting the result (locally and nationally) UKIP are going to have more of an impact than lib-dems will. The latter will be clustered in a few seats they hold and be worthless elsewhere, whilst UKIP are going to be making and breaking results all over the shop.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 6, 2015)

I can't embed the image but this is Election Forecast's latest seat prediction

http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/graphics/2015_predicted_winner.svg


----------



## FiFi (Jan 6, 2015)

weepiper said:


> I can't embed the image but this is Election Forecast's latest seat prediction
> 
> http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/graphics/2015_predicted_winner.svg


All that blue and yellow makes my heart sink. 
I don't think our public services will stand up to another 5 years of them.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2015)

FiFi said:


> All that blue and yellow makes my heart sink.
> I don't think our public services will stand up to another 5 years of them.


The yellow is SNP. The lesser spotted tories are in orange...appropriately.


----------



## killer b (Jan 6, 2015)

Does anyone think the SNP are that nailed on in Scotland? I'm a bit sceptical tbh.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2015)

killer b said:


> Does anyone think the SNP are that nailed on in Scotland? I'm a bit sceptical tbh.


It kind of deserves it own thread, really. Danny?


----------



## FiFi (Jan 6, 2015)

brogdale said:


> The yellow is SNP. The lesser spotted tories are in orange...appropriately.


Oops
I must be colour blind!


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2015)

weepiper said:


> I can't embed the image but this is Election Forecast's latest seat prediction
> 
> http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/graphics/2015_predicted_winner.svg


Here yer go, Wee...


----------



## weepiper (Jan 6, 2015)

Cheers! How did you do that?


----------



## weepiper (Jan 6, 2015)

killer b said:


> Does anyone think the SNP are that nailed on in Scotland?


Yes.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Cheers! How did you do that?


Screenshot -> Photobucket.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2015)

FiFi said:


> All that blue and yellow makes my heart sink.
> I don't think our public services will stand up to another 5 years of them.


Those blue seats are bigger size wise - it looks far worse than it is. Labour seats can fit 5 MPs into one of those big blue ones. The map doesn't show that.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Those blue seats are bigger size wise - it looks far worse than it is. Labour seats can fit 5 MPs into one of those big blue ones. The map doesn't show that.


Labour have got most of the big urban population centres.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 6, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Here yer go, Wee...


They reckon UKIP will lose Rochester then?


----------



## killer b (Jan 6, 2015)

this is why you should never move to the countryside. Prettier scenery, but all your neighbours will be tory scum (or liberals if you move to the lakes)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Labour have got most of the big urban population centres.


Yep,if the above was mapped onto one with population density it would look a lot better.


----------



## killer b (Jan 6, 2015)

it would look a lot better for Labour at least.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 6, 2015)

killer b said:


> this is why you should never move to the countryside. Prettier scenery, but all your neighbours will be tory scum (or liberals if you move to the lakes)


Comfort yourself with the fact that there's not one seat in the entire UK where more than half your neighbours will have voted Tory.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Yep,if the above was mapped onto one with population density it would look a lot better.



Hennig & Dorling did quite a bit of this soet of thing with the 2010 GE results; simply by 'equalising' the constituency size helps to give a more representative impression...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2015)

brogdale said:


> It kind of deserves it own thread, really. Danny?


There probably is one; it's certainly been discussed in the Should Socialists Vote SNP thread, and others. 

Will SNP do well? Yes. Will Labour in Scotland be all but wiped out? No, but they will suffer badly.


----------



## JTG (Jan 6, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Here yer go, Wee...


 Can't make out - is that map suggesting Bristol West is going Tory? If it is, it's bollocks


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2015)

JTG said:


> Can't make out - is that map suggesting Bristol West is going Tory? If it is, it's bollocks


No, Lib Dem, I think.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2015)

Actually, wait. Where's Bristol?


----------



## JimW (Jan 6, 2015)

They have a big table of seats on one of the tabs and Bristol West is down as 65% likely Labour IIRC; Stroud was 69%
ETA: Here: http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/tables/predicted_probability_by_seat.html


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2015)

JTG said:


> Can't make out - is that map suggesting Bristol West is going Tory? If it is, it's bollocks


I think it's saying all tory except us or bristol south (either way one goes)and lib-dems keeping thornbury and yate.

Nonsense stuff, if so.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2015)

Seats.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2015)

So they think the lib-dems are going to win bristol west with 23% with labour on 31% and tories on 16%.

Weird.

edit: no read the last winner as predicted winner.


----------



## JTG (Jan 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I think it's saying all tory except us or bristol south (either way one goes)and lib-dems keeping thornbury and yate.
> 
> Nonsense stuff, if so.


That's what it looked like at a glance on the map - looks like Bristol E & S are red, Kingswood, Filton and Bristol W & NW are blue and Thornbury & Yate yellow.

Cobblers, total bilge


----------



## JimW (Jan 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> So they think the lib-dems are going to win bristol west with 23% with labour on 31% and tories on 16%.
> 
> Weird.


There was a bit somewhere explaining why aggregate didn't match their individual seat predictions, maybe they tinkered with the map to reflect the aggregate (if so, why a map?)
ETA: This bit here: http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/#addingup


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 6, 2015)

The trouble is most of the prediction models aren't worth shit now with the lib dem collapse and the rise of UKIP, SNP and the greens. There are too many variables - people will vote differently depending on the nature of their constituencies - so lib dem vote will perform better in tory/lib dem marginals and get fucked everywhere else. 
Tories have been marooned in the low 30s since forever - (well 2012) and with jsut 5 months to go there is no sign of that shifting. SNP may scupper labours chance of an OM - but the tories are stuffed. Yes they will prob get some votes back from UKIP - but labour will get some UKIPers and greens back as well.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> The trouble is most of the prediction models aren't worth shit now with the lib dem collapse and the rise of UKIP, SNP and the greens. There are too many variables - people will vote differently depending on the nature of their constituencies - so lib dem vote will perform better in tory/lib dem marginals and get fucked everywhere else.
> Tories have been marooned in the low 30s since forever - (well 2012) and with jsut 5 months to go there is no sign of that shifting. SNP may scupper labours chance of an OM - but the tories are stuffed. Yes they will prob get some votes back from UKIP - but labour will get some UKIPers and greens back as well.


Yep, that's what makes it interesting, innit?


----------



## killer b (Jan 6, 2015)

fuck, the next few months are going to be ace. Like a five-month test match, but both teams are australia.


----------



## Sue (Jan 6, 2015)

killer b said:


> fuck, the next few months are going to be ace. Like a five-month test match, but both teams are australia.


Hopefully it's going to be much more interesting than that...


----------



## JTG (Jan 6, 2015)

killer b said:


> fuck, the next few months are going to be ace. Like a five-month test match, but both teams are australia.


Just so long as none of them win the Ashes then


----------



## JTG (Jan 6, 2015)

Sue said:


> Hopefully it's going to be much more interesting than that...


There's nothing more interesting than Test cricket. Nothing.


----------



## Sue (Jan 6, 2015)

JTG said:


> There's nothing more interesting than Test cricket. Nothing.


----------



## killer b (Jan 6, 2015)

A close fought & dirty election campaign is. Just.


----------



## JTG (Jan 6, 2015)

killer b said:


> A close fought & dirty election campaign is. Just.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2015)

Back to polling...



> Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of:-
> 
> * CON 33%, LAB 33%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 13%, GRN 8%. *
> 
> That’s _*a couple of YouGov polls in a row showing lower than usual UKIP scores,*_ despite the shift in prompting. Today’s is the lowest UKIP score that YouGov have had since early October. It’s just two polls so may be pure co-incidence, but worth keeping an eye on.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 6, 2015)

UKIP haven't been in the news much over the last couple of weeks, they might have had a bit of a bubble from all the attention over the by-elections. I'm surprised Farage hasn't popped up on the telly blaming the current NHS crisis on immigration, strangely absent.  Maybe he's actually in Brussels doing his job for a change? Although I presume not as the parliament probably has some ridiculously long winter recess.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> UKIP haven't been in the news much over the last couple of weeks, they might have had a bit of a bubble from all the attention over the by-elections. I'm surprised Farage hasn't popped up on the telly blaming the current NHS crisis on immigration, strangely absent.  Maybe he's actually in Brussels doing his job for a change? Although I presume not as the parliament probably has some ridiculously long winter recess.



Maybe they're a bit tied up with formulating that 'red tory' manifesto they've got to produce?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 7, 2015)

JTG said:


> There's nothing more interesting than Test cricket. Nothing.


Yep. Unfortunately Smith has just scored his fourth hundred in as many matches, and has scored a century in each of the first three matches he's been captain.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2015)

National Poll (Populus) 09 - 11 Jan:

LAB - 37% (+3)
CON - 32% (-1)
UKIP - 13% (-1)
LDEM - 10% (+2)
GRN - 4% (-2)


----------



## brogdale (Jan 12, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> National Poll (Populus) 09 - 11 Jan:
> 
> LAB - 37% (+3)
> CON - 32% (-1)
> ...



So..no evidence there of any post-Paris 'up-tick' for UKIP...whereas YG's Anthony spotted a _*possible  *_blip in their national from yesterday...



> This week’s YouGov/Sunday Times poll is out here. Topline figures are:-
> 
> *CON 32%, LAB 32%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 18%, GRN 6%.*
> 
> YouGov’s average for UKIP this week has been running at only been 14%, so the 18% here looks unusually high – it could be an effect of the the events in Paris, or could just be a random blip.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2015)

Crazy crazy goddman world:


Ashcroft National Poll, 9-11 January: 
CON 34%,
 LAB 28%, 
LDEM 8%, 
UKIP 16%, 
GRN 8%.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2015)

I was going to post something before christmas - i think it was from Dale - about how Ashcrofts polls would _now start _be really helpful to tactical voters, sort of flagging up some changes or something...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 12, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Crazy crazy goddman world:
> 
> 
> Ashcroft National Poll, 9-11 January:
> ...


 same fieldwork dates as well!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2015)

brogdale said:


> same fieldwork dates as well!


We have talked about the volatility of ashcroft stuff before - returning so many results outside of the polling average. Getting daft now.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 12, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> We have talked about the volatility of ashcroft stuff before - returning so many results outside of the polling average. Getting daft now.


True...he says as much on his site too...



> It is important to keep results like this in perspective, and to look at the overall trend rather than any individual poll. The ANP is subject to a margin of error of 3% – meaning the Conservative share could be low enough, and the Labour score high enough, for the parties to be tied on 31%. Indeed only the Conservative score, up four points, has moved outside the margin of error since the last ANP in December. Alternatively, we could be seeing the start of a shift in opinion as the choice looms larger at the start of an election year. Let us see what future results tell us.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 12, 2015)

On the other hand...Lab will take massive cheer from this...


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 12, 2015)

brogdale said:


> On the other hand...Lab will take massive cheer from this...




Open goal for Labour. Watch Miliband bounce it out of play off the corner flag.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 12, 2015)

Just checked, and that ComRes fieldwork was post Charlie...



> ComRes interviewed 2,056 British adults online between 9th and 11th January 2015.



...and Immig still -3.

Hmmm


----------



## brogdale (Jan 13, 2015)

Dave has fucked up royally on the TV debates...


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 13, 2015)

But will that translate into people voting against the Tories/for Labour? I have my doubts.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 14, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> But will that translate into people voting against the Tories/for Labour? I have my doubts.




So do I, but it could very well undermine Cameron's personal ratings anyway.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> So do I, but it could very well undermine Cameron's personal ratings anyway.



That's the danger for the vermin; their leader's ratings have, thus far, exceeded those of the party itself, so damage to his 'reputation' could cause real electoral hurt. Downing St. have fucked up so badly that even Miliband can make them look foolish. The empty podium ("pound of lard") moment would be pretty disastrous for the vermin.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/jan/14/labour-lib-dems-and-ukip-tell-cameron-he-cant-veto-debates-politics-live-blog#block-54b628cee4b02b9a6fa27488


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 14, 2015)

Ashcroft's piece on his own poll in today's Graun :

2015 General Election : The Tories are still toxic on the NHS

Includes some polling question details ...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2015)

> Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of :-
> 
> *CON 32%, LAB 34%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 7%.*
> 
> All looks normal by YouGov’s recent standards (the two polls showing UKIP up at 17% and 18% that we saw immediately after the attacks in Paris seem to have gone away again – perhaps it was a Paris effect, perhaps it was just a random blip).


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2015)

Ipsos-MORI still showing dire 'England only' numbers for the vermin...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 15, 2015)




----------



## bemused (Jan 15, 2015)

Not sure why Clegg is smiling in that graphic. Holy shit.

The Greens getting a bump is nice.


----------



## JHE (Jan 15, 2015)

bemused said:


> Not sure why Clegg is smiling in that graphic. Holy shit.



They are all smiling, except Farage who is upset that his pint has been edited out.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


>



Green surge..LOL

SNP holding obviously holding up, though?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2015)

Look like - waiting to see the full data as TNS BMRB have been paying special attention to scotland.


----------



## bemused (Jan 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> SNP holding obviously holding up, though?



I hope the SNP do really well, it would be ironic is the main parties won the referendum then get demolished in the actual election.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Look like - waiting to see the full data as TNS BMRB have been paying special attention to scotland.


TNS Tables show SNP still polling on 4% of UK popular vote.

All pretty rough etc....but a UK poll of 4% places the nationalists on 40 to 50% of the Scottish popular vote; (the Scottish electorate = approx 8.5% of the UK total).


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> TNS Tables show SNP still polling on 4% of UK popular vote.
> 
> All pretty rough etc....but a UK poll of 4% places the nationalists on 40 to 50% of the Scottish popular vote; (the Scottish electorate = approx 8.5% of the UK total).


They have SNP 35% Lab 33% for scotland if i've read that right.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> They have SNP 35% Lab 33% for scotland if i've read that right.


 Yes, but that's such a small base the difference represents one response!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yes, but that's such a small base the difference represents one response!


Ah but from 48% vs 23% or whatever it was in the others! Yes, you're right though, small crossbreaks not what we need to be looking at at all.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 16, 2015)

bemused said:


> *I hope the SNP do really well*, it would be ironic is the main parties won the referendum then get demolished in the actual election.



From a purely selfish South-of-the-border POV, I very much don't.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> From a purely selfish South-of-the-border POV, I very much don't.


Absolutely, everything will be different with a labour majority government.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2015)




----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> Absolutely, everything will be different with a labour majority government.




Never claimed that now did I?

Just don't want a TORY majority government. Labour are bad no disagreements, but feel free to claim that the Tories wouldn't be that noticeable bit worse.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 16, 2015)

TBF, and back on topic, on current polling the chances of there being any prospect of either gaining a full majority are pretty minimal ...


----------



## bemused (Jan 16, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> From a purely selfish South-of-the-border POV, I very much don't.



I don't care who wins, they are equally as awful. The differences between them is a rounding error.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 16, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> TBF, and back on topic, on current polling the chances of there being any prospect of either gaining a full majority are pretty minimal ...



I think the SNP surge may have put paid to a labour majority. This is shaping up to be the most unpredictable and atypical elections ever. However its safe to say that the tories will not get a majority -  labour might scrape a very small one. 
Interesting that since labour started toning down anything vaguely lefty sounding and indicating they will stick to the austerity script, their poll ratings have tanked - with the greens and SNP the main beneficiaries.


----------



## FiFi (Jan 17, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> I think the SNP surge may have put paid to a labour majority. This is shaping up to be the most unpredictable and atypical elections ever. However its safe to say that the tories will not get a majority -  labour might scrape a very small one.
> Interesting that since labour started toning down anything vaguely lefty sounding and indicating they will stick to the austerity script, their poll ratings have tanked - with the greens and SNP the main beneficiaries.


Good.
Maybe Labour will remember who it is supposed to represent.


----------



## miktheword (Jan 17, 2015)

Labour has a five point lead over the Conservatives in the latest Opinium/Observer poll

Ed Miliband’s party has held steady on 33% – the same score as the previous poll two weeks ago – while the Conservatives have fallen by four points to 28%.

Nigel Farage’s Ukip has enjoyed a three point bounce and is up to 20%, while the Liberal Democrats are down one on 7% and the Greens up two on 6%. The SNP is up one point on 5%.





http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/17/labour-takes-lead-conservatives-cameron-opinium-poll


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 17, 2015)

miktheword said:


> Labour has a five point lead over the Conservatives in the latest Opinium/Observer poll
> 
> Ed Miliband’s party has held steady on 33% – the same score as the previous poll two weeks ago – while the Conservatives have fallen by four points to 28%.
> 
> ...


Greens and SNP seem to have done far more damage to Labour than the tories. Given UKIP will have chipped a good few of off them as well, the tories seem to be getting zero credit for the economy.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 17, 2015)

miktheword said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/17/labour-takes-lead-conservatives-cameron-opinium-poll


I'd not realised the milliband's approval ratings were so much worse than the labour support, so presumably even 1/3 of labour voters don't support him as leader.

I knew his ratings were bad, but not that bad. 

Clegg's are worse, but are actually better than the lib dem support, presumably due to some tories liking him or something.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2015)

The latest Scottish Westminster poll (Panelbase):

SNP 41% (-4)
Labour 31% (-3)
Con 14% (-1)
UKIP 7% (=)
LD 3% (=)

Which gives this seat projection:
SNP -  (35)
LAB - (20)
CON - (2)
UKIP - (-)
LDEM -(2)


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 17, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The latest Scottish Westminster poll (Panelbase):
> 
> SNP 41% (-4)
> Labour 31% (-3)
> ...


That's a big gain for others, +8.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 17, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> That's a big gain for others, +8.


Greens, presumably


----------



## The Boy (Jan 17, 2015)

2 seats from 4%?


----------



## free spirit (Jan 17, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> That's a big gain for others, +8.


makes no sense at all.

the percentages add up to 97%, so there can't have been an 8% move to others.

I'd suspect that either the +/- signs have got mixed up, and probably the SNP is actually up 4 not down 4.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 17, 2015)

free spirit said:


> makes no sense at all.
> 
> the percentages add up to 97%, so there can't have been an 8% move to others.
> 
> I'd suspect that either the +/- signs have got mixed up, and probably the SNP is actually up 4 not down 4.


other way round I think


----------



## free spirit (Jan 17, 2015)

weepiper said:


> other way round I think



fair enough, could well be, I did look for the previous panel base polls but gave up.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2015)

Some interesting polling of 17-21 year olds here. Party politics overview is:

 

But general picture is of anger, alienation, fear, distrust etc

There is this as well:


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 18, 2015)

oliver and clegg, neck and neck in approval LOL


----------



## weepiper (Jan 18, 2015)

translates as 52 seats for the SNP, 6 for Labour, one Lib Dem and NO TORIES


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2015)

> *Ashcroft National Poll: Con 29%, Lab 28%, Lib Dem 9%, UKIP 15%, Green 11%*





> After last week’s outlier – an occupational hazard in polling – it is back into the territory of wafer-thin leads in this week’s Ashcroft National Poll. The Conservatives are ahead by a single point with 29%; Labour are unchanged on 28%, UKIP down one at 15%, the Liberal Democrats up one at 9%, the Greens up three at 11% and the SNP up a point at 5%.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 19, 2015)

Some serious polling error in that lot, I'm willing to bet.  No way are the Greens going into double figures in May.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Some serious polling error in that lot, I'm willing to bet.  No way are the Greens going into double figures in May.



Despite impressive sampling, Ashcroft's national polling has looked very erratic of late. That said, the Green trend is upward.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2015)

YG's Anthony offers some commentary on the Green's polling numbers...


> ...the poll has an eye-catching Green score – up to 11%. This is the *highest the Greens have scored in any poll since their initial but short-lived breakthrough back in 1989.*
> 
> As ever, be wary of giving too much attention to the poll that looks interesting and exciting and ignoring the dull ones. *The Greens certainly are increasing their support, but there is much variation between pollsters. *Below are the latest levels of Green support from those companies who have polled so far in 2015:









> Support varies between 11 percent from Populus and just 3 percent from Populus. For the very low scores from Populus and ComRes there are at least clear methodological reasons: Populus downweight voters who identify as Green supporters quite heavily, while in ComRes’s online polls they appear to have added a much stricter turnout filter to Green and UKIP voters since they started prompting for UKIP. At the other end of the scale Lord Ashcroft’s polls have consistently tended to show a higher level of support for parties outside the traditional big three, but the reasons for this are unclear.


----------



## bemused (Jan 19, 2015)

So what's the chances of a Labour/Tory coalition government?


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


>




I misread that for a moment as 'Tories slump to 5.'


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2015)

bemused said:


> So what's the chances of a Labour/Tory coalition government?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Despite impressive sampling, Ashcroft's national polling has looked very erratic of late. That said, the Green trend is upward.




Not to 11% I don't think. Neither do I buy Labour at 28% -- whatever their woes/incompetencies, that looks like an artificially big drop below the current mean to me.

In other words I agree with you more generally about Ashcroft's sampling and figures.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 21, 2015)

Saying that, the most recent Guardian/ICM poll also shows a Green rise ...

Headline figs :

Lab 33% (nc)
Tory 30% (+2%)
LD 11%  (-3%)
UKIP 11% (-3%)
Green 9% (+4%)
Other 7% (+1%)


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 21, 2015)

latest you gov - 
CON 32%, LAB 30%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 15%, GRN 10%.

Their highest ever rating for the greens. 

Labour must be getting pretty nervous about the amount of support they are leaching to the greens. Looks like reaffirming austerity isn't working out too well with the electors.  Who'd have thought eh?

They had this in the bag - all they needed to do was keep hold of all those lib dem deserters - and they've fucked it.


----------



## quiquaquo (Jan 21, 2015)

bemused said:


> So what's the chances of a Labour/Tory coalition government?



Only greater nightmare would be an Armed Forces Ruling Council and no more elections ever.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 21, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> Only greater nightmare would be an Armed Forces Ruling Council and no more elections ever.



I'm much more scared of hyper-localism and having to tweet my council to enable it to decide, by plebiscite, how much funding to provide to the MoD for a Trident replacement, and how long people need to have resided in the borough to qualify for a place in a short-stay seasonal live/work facility.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 21, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Jan 21, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> They had this in the bag - all they needed to do was keep hold of all those lib dem deserters - and they've fucked it.



Meanwhile IPSOS-Mori's latest Scot-poll has Lab back into 'existential threat' territory...


----------



## weepiper (Jan 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Meanwhile IPSOS-Mori's latest Scot-poll has Lab back into 'existential threat' territory...



Thing is though that it's not just annihilation for Labour, it's annihilation for_ everyone_ except the SNP.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 21, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Thing is though that it's not just annihilation for Labour, it's annihilation for_ everyone_ except the SNP.



Is it possible to describe the vermin losing their one seat as 'annihilation'?


----------



## The Boy (Jan 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Is it possible to describe the vermin losing their one seat as 'annihilation'?


No, but the lib dems won't be wanting to throw away that handful of seats they hold atm.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Is it possible to describe the vermin losing their one seat as 'annihilation'?


well, they won that seat with 38% of the vote vs the SNP's 10.8% in 2010, so for them to potentially lose that to the SNP seems like a bit of a thumping.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 21, 2015)

Compare 2001 (left) and 2005 (right) with the map in the STV article


----------



## brogdale (Jan 21, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Compare 2001 (left) and 2005 (right) with the map in the STV article


Yeah, but it's 2010 to 2015 that swings/gains/losses will be based on.

Mind you the variability of Scots polling is a bit disconcerting atm..


----------



## weepiper (Jan 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, but it's 2010 to 2015 that swings/gains/losses will be based on.





weepiper said:


> well, they won that seat with 38% of the vote vs the SNP's 10.8% in 2010, so for them to potentially lose that to the SNP seems like a bit of a thumping.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 21, 2015)

Yeah.

It will be interesting to see what Ashcroft's millions discover when he finishes his Scot's constituency polling. Back in December he said...


> Moreover, we have not yet looked in detail at Scottish constituencies, which could potentially change the equation dramatically. *My fieldwork north of the border will begin in the New Year*.


----------



## marty21 (Jan 21, 2015)

Saw a headline on the Express front page (I was in a newsagent) stating that 80% of brits want to leave Europe ...lol obvs


----------



## brogdale (Jan 21, 2015)

marty21 said:


> Saw a headline on the Express front page (I was in a newsagent) stating that 80% of brits want to leave Europe ...lol obvs


 Just about as accurate as their weather 'forecast' headlines, really.



> The Express headline is “80% want to quit the EU, Biggest poll in 40 years boosts Daily Express crusade”. This doesn’t actually refer to a sampled and weighted opinion poll, but to a campaign run by two Tory MPs (Peter Bone and Philip Hollobone) and a Tory candidate (Thomas Pursglove) consisting of them delivering their own ballot papers to houses in their constituencies. They apparently got about 14,000 responses, which is impressive as a campaigning exercise, but doesn’t suddenly make it a meaningful measure of public opinion.
> 
> Polls are meaningful only to the extent that they are representative of the wider public – if they contain the correct proportions of people of different ages, of men and women, of different social classes and incomes and from different parts of the country as the population as a whole then we hope they should also hold the same views of the population as a whole. Just getting a lot of people to take part does not in any way guarantee that the balance of people who end up taking the poll will be representative.
> 
> ...


http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9148


----------



## weepiper (Jan 21, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Jan 21, 2015)

weepiper said:


>




Minority coalition territory.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 22, 2015)

Today's nationals...


> This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 33%, LAB 34%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 14%, GRN 8% *(tabs) – more typical figures than YouGov’s Tuesday poll.
> 
> ...



Smithson continues to pull apart the nationals by isolating the English only intentions, and a measure of how badly Lab are doing in Scotland and the vermin are doing all over, is that Lab's share in higher in the English only!


Con -> Lab swing = vermin fucked.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 22, 2015)

Class War heading for a landslide

http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/2nd-anniversary-poll.html


----------



## brogdale (Jan 24, 2015)

smokedout said:


> Class War heading for a landslide
> 
> http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/2nd-anniversary-poll.html



LOL 

CW victory!


----------



## brogdale (Jan 24, 2015)

Smithson is very excited about this England only reporting...





Looks like 'Rat-killer' to me.


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2015)

I'm enjoying flip-flopping between Labour, Green and "some other party" in the almost daily polls I'm filling in for YouGov. 

Been "invited" onto the TES "political panel" too. So a bunch more polls I can  have fun with.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 24, 2015)

chilango said:


> I'm enjoying flip-flopping between Labour, Green and "some other party" in the almost daily polls I'm filling in for YouGov.
> 
> Been "invited" onto the TES "political panel" too. So a bunch more polls I can  have fun with.




Yep, I'm always fucking around with my YG responses.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 24, 2015)

brogdale  : That colourful Smithson poll of polls above -- are those Ashcroft figures themselves England only ones, ie were they England-only in the original Lord A polls?

If so, they surely highlights that his results are out of line with the others  ....


----------



## brogdale (Jan 24, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> brogdale  : That colourful Smithson poll of polls above -- are those Ashcroft figures themselves England only ones, ie were they England-only in the original Lord A polls?
> 
> If so, they surely highlights that his results are out of line with the others  ....


 Yes and yes.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ANP-150112-Full-data-tables.pdf


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2015)

Rob Ford's Observer piece about the Green (surge) electoral threat to NuLab...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/24/green-party-labour-threat-2015-election-robert-ford



> *The direct threat from the Greens is limited* – the party is still relatively weak, and has little organisation or electoral track record outside of a handful of established strongholds such as Brighton and Norwich.
> 
> There is little chance of a direct Green challenge in more than a handful of seats, even if the current support level is maintained or increased. *The larger threat to Labour comes from the indirect effects of a Green surge, particularly in key target seats where the party can ill afford to leak support.*


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 25, 2015)

spot on.

ETA: UKIP are a bigger threat in England and the SNP in Scotland.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2015)

Today's YG...



> The weekly YouGov/Sunday Times survey is up here and has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 32%, LAB 32%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 15%, GRN 7%*.



LD - Green parity.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2015)

This week's Ashcroft national..
Looks a bit more in line with the other pollsters...


> Labour and the Conservatives are neck and neck in this week’s Ashcroft National Poll. *Both parties are on 32%, with UKIP third and unchanged on 15%. The Greens are fourth on 9%, down two points from last week’s peak but still ahead of the Liberal Democrats, fifth with 6%.*
> 
> The SNP are down two points at 3%. However, this figure hides the disproportionate influence the party could have in May, and illustrates why the national polls – though clearly showing a tight race in terms of overall vote share – are not the best guide to the result in terms of seats. *My constituency polling in Scotland, which will be released next week, will help to clarify this picture.*


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2015)

YG's Evening Std. London polling...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2015)

...and JFF..here's Ashcroft's last focus group polling...



> Finally, to reveal more of the psychology of voters’ underlying perceptions, the crucial question of the week: i*f each party leader were a car, what car would they be?*
> 
> There was a surprising consensus in both venues about Nick Clegg: he would be a Smart car, unless he was a people carrier to cart round all the baggage. Ed Miliband was more difficult: “A Ford Focus; average. Actually no, a Ford Focus is reliable.” David Cameron would be “something smooth”, possibly a Mercedes or a Range Rover, “depending on the image he wanted that day”. On Nigel Farage the groups were divided: a Ford Capri (“tinted windows, pimped”), with a “shiny exterior but then you look under the bonnet”; or “a four-by-four with illegal bull bars on the front. Or a tank.”



My view is..


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 26, 2015)

Clegg is totally one of those aluminium scooter things used by kids and the occasional briefcase twat.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Clegg is totally one of those aluminium scooter things used by kids and the occasional briefcase twat.



or...


----------



## BigTom (Jan 26, 2015)

Sinclair C5 - for some reason, some people thought it was a good idea at the time. Now consigned to the dustbin of history thank fuck. We still have to wait 4 months for Clegg to be thrown away though.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> My view is..



Or:






A sort of automotive-political version of Celebrity Deathmatch.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 26, 2015)

Actually, warming to my theme:






Cameron's the one in front.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 26, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> Or:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One for the post-revolutionary tv shows thread I reckon - Celebrity Deathcrash


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jan 26, 2015)

Nick Clegg is in a car stalled on a level crossing.  He can see the train coming but it just won't start.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2015)

...and today's Survation...



> Survation/Mirror :– *CON 31%, LAB 30%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 23%, GRN 3%* (tabs)



Anthony's commentary on today's polling..


> All three polls have Labour and the Conservatives within one point of each other – Populus with Labour one ahead, Survation with the Tories one ahead, Ashcroft with them equal. There is more difference between the reported levels of support for the Greens and UKIP – *Survation traditionally give UKIP their highest levels of support and have them up on 23% (*this is clearly not just because of prompting, given ComRes, YouGov and Ashcroft also now include UKIP in their main prompt), in contrast Populus have UKIP on 13%. Green support is up at 9% in Ashcroft’s poll, but only at 3% in Survation’s. Unlike ComRes’s online polls (harsh turnout filtering) and Populus’s polls (disadvantageous weighting) there is nothing particularly unusual about Survation’s methods that would explain the low Green vote.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 26, 2015)

Including the Nats


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 26, 2015)

Greens too low, UKIP too high in that Survation, just my reaction.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ...and JFF..here's Ashcroft's last focus group polling...
> 
> 
> 
> My view is..



DC: Range Rover Autobiography. Looks flash but comes with an absolute guarantee of disasterous unreliability.
Nick Clegg: Nissan Qashqai (leased)
Miliband: Oyster card smeared with human shit
Farage: Rover 75. The one with the decent BMW 4 pot diesel.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 27, 2015)




----------



## bemused (Jan 27, 2015)

I don't know anything about Welsh politics, why are Plaid so far behind UKIP?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 27, 2015)

weepiper said:


>



The Libscum will keep Orkney and Shetland surely. But longer term they aren't going to be an England only party so much as a SW regional party (+O&S)


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 27, 2015)

bemused said:


> I don't know anything about Welsh politics, why are Plaid so far behind UKIP?




I live in Wales and I don't understand that either. UKIP have had bits of presence in some (limited?) locations here eg last year Farage addressed a meeting here in Swansea  (we joined the anti protest outside, the thing being ten minutes walk from out house, and our lot outnumbered the people attending).

But more genererally? I don't see why Plaid are polling smaller than UKIP -- in all local polls, they've been moving beyond their old heartlands for a while now. You have to wonder about the methodology/sample size, etc of that poll.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 27, 2015)

Why? This is hardly some rogue poll, UKIP support in Wales has been of that level for some time.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jan 27, 2015)

bemused said:


> I don't know anything about Welsh politics, why are Plaid so far behind UKIP?



I don't know much about Welsh politics either but I think the English dominated press definitely plays a part. A tabloid reader in Pontypridd is as pliant as one in Clacton unfortunately.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2015)

Threshers_Flail said:


> I don't know much about Welsh politics either but I think the English dominated press definitely plays a part. A tabloid reader in Pontypridd is as pliant as one in Clacton unfortunately.


I knew it was the fault of the english. That's the tabloids desperately running anti-ukip stories btw


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jan 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I knew it was the fault of the english. That's the tabloids desperately running anti-ukip stories btw



Come on the lack of a native press must surely play a part in UKIP polling well in Wales but not in Scotland? Despite the similarities between the two? It has to be a factor. I'm half English btw, and got out of Wales as soon as I could, so not another taffboy. 

And the tabloids may be running anti-UKIP stories now that their polling is around the 20% mark but you can't argue that they have laid the groundwork for its emergence. Without the helping hand of the tabloids there would be no UKIP.


----------



## JTG (Jan 27, 2015)

Welsh borders and Pembrokeshire aren't anything like the socialist paradises of Welsh fantasy you know


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2015)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Come on the lack of a native press must surely play a part in UKIP polling well in Wales but not in Scotland? Despite the similarities between the two? It has to be a factor. I'm half English btw, and got out of Wales as soon as I could, so not another taffboy.
> 
> And the tabloids may be running anti-UKIP stories now that their polling is around the 20% mark but you can't argue that they have laid the groundwork for its emergence. Without the helping hand of the tabloids there would be no UKIP.


There's no english press in scotland? 

It's great the tabloids are anti-UKIP - hence their support. Because of the tabloid support. But the english tabloids are what make UKIP successful in wales.

Oh come on, it's too late for this drivel.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jan 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> There's no english press in scotland?
> 
> It's great the tabloids are anti-UKIP - hence their support. Because of the tabloid support. But the english tabloids are what make UKIP successful in wales.
> 
> Oh come on, it's too late for this drivel.



It must be getting late as that second sentence makes no sense mate. And I'm sure the English rags get sold in Scotland, right alongside one of the several Scottish daily's. Wales ain't got a press of its own, just the Western Mail, which is pure wank.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 27, 2015)

Yeah it must be the fault of the "English" press, those Welsh sheeple must have been tricked, they couldn't possibly be voting for UKIP for their own reasons.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2015)

Threshers_Flail said:


> It must be getting late as that second sentence makes no sense mate. And I'm sure the English rags get sold in Scotland, right alongside one of the several Scottish daily's. Wales ain't got a press of its own, just the Western Mail, which is pure wank.


The second line is your position - i agree that it makes no sense. Either factually or politically.

What are the best selling rags in scotland. Do you really imagine that any papers are on _our side? _


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jan 27, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Yeah it must be the fault of the "English" press, those Welsh sheeple must have been tricked, they couldn't possibly be voting for UKIP for their own reasons.



The influence of the press in creating an anti-immigrant narrative has played a part in the rise of UKIP on both sides of Offa's Dyke. The availability of newspapers that offer differing views in Scotland can negate such views becoming gospel. If Wales (and England) had a more diverse press things would probably be different.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jan 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The second line is your position - i agree that it makes no sense. Either factually or politically.
> 
> What are the best selling rags in scotland. Do you really imagine that any papers are on _our side? _



That ain't my position mate, that drivel is of your own design. And no the papers aren't on our side, just that some may not be as evidently racist as others.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2015)

Threshers_Flail said:


> The influence of the press in creating an anti-immigrant narrative has played a part in the rise of UKIP on both sides of Offa's Dyke. The availability of newspapers that offer differing views in Scotland can negate such views becoming gospel. If Wales (and England) had a more diverse press things would probably be different.


Show us the different pro-immigrant press in scotland. The ones run and owned by the same people as the ones in england.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2015)

Threshers_Flail said:


> That ain't my position mate, that drivel is of your own design. And no the papers aren't on our side, just that some may not be as evidently racist as others.


Demonstrate it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2015)

Threshers_Flail said:


> That ain't my position mate, that drivel is of your own design. And no the papers aren't on our side, just that some may not be as evidently racist as others.


Then show it's in their commercial interests to be less racist in Scotland and them actually doing this.

This is mental - UKIP rise in support in wales - english fault. Evidence- look at scotland where the exact sames shit is pumped out. If you think any of the big papers are 'english' rather than multi-national and not all dancing to the same tune then ...fucking hell

An _english paper_. In 2015. And that's what's doing all the bad things.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 27, 2015)

Threshers_Flail said:


> The influence of the press in creating an anti-immigrant narrative has played a part in the rise of UKIP on both sides of Offa's Dyke. The availability of newspapers that offer differing views in Scotland can negate such views becoming gospel. If Wales (and England) had a more diverse press things would probably be different.


Apart from fact that polling shows that Scotland has much the same views on immigration as the rest of the UK.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 28, 2015)

bemused said:


> I don't know anything about Welsh politics, why are Plaid so far behind UKIP?



Not that it makes much difference within the confines of FPTP Welsh Westminster elections...

http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2015/01/27/one-hundred-days-to-go/


> So what does that mean in terms of who represents us in parliament? Well, if the changes since the last general election implied by these figures were repeated uniformly across Wales, we would get the following outcome in terms of seats:
> 
> 
> *Labour*: 28 seats (+2)
> ...





> here’s an interesting paradox here. Party politics in the UK currently seems more uncertain and turbulent than for a long time –maybe more than it has ever been. We’ve seen big recent movements in the support levels of several parties, including the rise in Wales of UKIP and now a notable increase for the Greens. Yet, at the moment, a direct projection of poll findings produces only very small changes in terms of who wins which seats. We could be on course for an election in which lots of things change, but the basic fundamentals of which parties represent us in parliament are hardly disturbed.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 28, 2015)

Such a tease...



...and trailing the constituency polling on Sky as well...

http://news.sky.com/story/1416764/snp-surge-is-real-says-pollster-lord-ashcroft


----------



## weepiper (Jan 28, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> The Libscum will keep Orkney and Shetland surely.


Currently predicted to lose them.


brogdale said:


> Such a tease...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



that Sky story is such bollocks.



> Lord Ashcroft pointed to last year's Scottish independence referendum, where the SNP picked up 45% of the votes, as evidence of the surge.


We weren't fucking voting for the SNP. Stop telling us we were.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 29, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Currently predicted to lose them.


Just by Mori or by others too? Correct me if I'm wrong but Mori are making that prediction on a Scottish UNS, has there been any constituency polling?

I'd be surprised if the Libscum did lose them, there would need to be a swing of about 25% from the LDs to SNP, and while their majorities were down the Libscum managed to hold onto both seats in 2011. And LDs even managed a plurality of the vote in EU 2014 elections, I know that's from before the referendum but I would still put money on the LDs holding them.



			
				EU 2014 results said:
			
		

> Orkney:
> 
> Britain First 37
> British National Party 35
> ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 29, 2015)

"The graph below shows the latest What Scotland Thinks/ScotCen Poll of Polls of voting intentions in Scotland for the 2015 UK general election and how it has evolved over time."
POSTED ON 29TH JANUARY 2015 BY JOHN CURTICE







http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2015/01/poll-polls-westminster-vote-intentions-19-jan/


----------



## Sue (Jan 29, 2015)

So the Murphy bump...?!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 29, 2015)

In polling, excluding 'don't knows' is highly questionable in technical terms, danny la rouge ... 

I'm not in any way denying that the SNP are storming ahead -- they are. 

And I'd doubt at the moment that including 'don't knows' would change that too much -- if it did, it would probably not be beyond marginally so. 

Just a note of caution is all though.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2015)

Sue said:


> So the Murphy bump...?!



As expected.


----------



## Sue (Jan 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> As expected.


Indeed though someone should've probably told the press that.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> In polling, excluding 'don't knows' is highly questionable in technical terms, danny la rouge ...
> 
> I'm not in any way denying that the SNP are storming ahead -- they are.
> 
> ...


I heard Bob Worcester talk about this very issue at an LSE public lecture on Tuesday, and he told the story of how his, (then innovative) "leaners" analysis helped his client (Labour) in the Feb '74 GE. And, strangely, DK's are one of the methodological differences between the pollsters that YG's Anthony looks at in his excellent post on house polling differences...



> *Don’t knows.* Another cause of the differences between companies is how they treat people who say don’t know. YouGov and Populus just ignore those people completely. MORI and ComRes ask those people “squeeze questions”, probing to see if they’ll say who they are most likely to vote for. ICM, Lord Ashcroft and Survation go further and make some estimates about those people based on their other answers, generally assuming that a proportion of people who say don’t know will actually end up voting for the party they did last time. How this approach impacts on voting intention numbers depends on the political circumstances at the time, it tends to help any party that has lost lots of support. When ICM first pioneered it in the 1990s it helped the Tories (and was known as the “shy Tory adjustment”), these days it helps the Lib Dems, and goes a long way to explain why ICM tend to show the highest level of support for the Lib Dems.
> 
> And these are just the obvious things, there will be lots of other subtle or unusual differences (ICM weight down people who didn’t vote last time, Survation ask people to imagine all parties are standing in the seat, ComRes have a harsher turnout filter for smaller parties in their online polls, etc, etc)



Well worth a read.






e2a : 





> It’s important to note that the pollsters in the middle of the graph are not necessarily more correct, these differences are relative to one another. We can’t tell what the deviations are from the “true” figure, as we don’t know what the “true” figure is.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 29, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> In polling, excluding 'don't knows' is highly questionable in technical terms, danny la rouge ...
> 
> I'm not in any way denying that the SNP are storming ahead -- they are.
> 
> ...


I made no claims; I posted a new poll of polls and related blog post by John Curtice. The spread of companies used, the reasons for Scotland only polls being used, and other caveats, are discussed by Curtice.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 29, 2015)

danny la rouge : Fair dos, but brogdale above (and Bob Worcester) confirms my more general point.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 29, 2015)

You should re-read what Bob Worcester says, Will.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2015)

danny la rouge  : I've read most of the main Bob Worcester article now (from the link) as well as just the part about don't knows that brogdale quoted above. Not too sure what you're getting at?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> danny la rouge  : Not too sure what you're getting at?


A). That is isn't Bob Worcester.
B). That it doesn't say it's "highly questionable in technical terms" to exclude Don't Knows.  Indeed, the author (a YouGov employee) says that they prefer the YouGov way, of doing things, one of which is excluding Don't Knows.  Indeed, the author says that trying to "squeeze questions" out of DKs "to see if they’ll say who they are most likely to vote for" has the effect that it "tends to help any party that has lost lots of support".

The conclusion, however, is "look at a broad average of the polls".  

So, the article doesn't confirm your general point that "In polling, excluding 'don't knows' is highly questionable in technical terms".

(That said, I personally prefer to see the DKs included in the data.  But I see nothing wrong with excluding them in order to see certain things more clearly).


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> danny la rouge  : I've read most of the main Bob Worcester article now (from the link) as well as just the part about don't knows that brogdale quoted above. Not too sure what you're getting at?



William of Walworth the linked article is by Anthony Wells of YouGov, and, amongst other things, describes the varying pollster methodologies for dealing with those polled who declare that they "Don't know" who they would vote for at the next GE. 

The analysis that danny la rouge linked to is based upon a poll of polls, which to some extent, negates any particular issue of individual pollster DK methodology; that's one key advantage of  employing a poll of polls approach.

I suspect that's what he's getting at; your criticism appears mis-placed.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2015)

Exactly so, brogdale.

Also, it appears that yesterday was #SarcasmThursday chez la rouge.  Sorry William of Walworth.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Exactly so, brogdale.
> 
> Also, it appears that yesterday was #SarcasmThursday chez la rouge.  Sorry William of Walworth.


FWIW listening to Worcester's account of his work for Wilson in '74 was (to me) fascinating. He had many of the old, original OHP transparencies and ring-bound folders of data that he personally presented to Wilson, Healy _*and *_the Union leaders involved in the election strategy meetings. Worcester said that Mori's development of pushing DKs into how they 'leaned' helped Labour tailor their messages in the marginals.

A couple of other points he made were also quite revealing; one finding that was fairly high on the list of respondents priorities for the LP was that they were "_*moderate". *_I've long suspected that the retreat to centrism would have been reinforced by poll findings, and Worcester explicitly showed that pressure, even in '74. Another Worcester anecdote that struck me was the one when he had to inform the Dep.Gen.Sec. of the LP of the extent of 'middle-class' support for the party; the response was (apparently)..."_*we don't need middle-class support, we're a party of the working class!". *_Hmmm


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2015)

Should also add that, along with Bogdanor, the psephologist David Butler was on the panel. He did speak for about 10 mins during which he recalled the _*1931 general election; *_at which time he was 7 years old!


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2015)

Who was Dep Gen Secy that time? Bill Simpson?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Who was Dep Gen Secy that time? Bill Simpson?


Can't remember who Worcester said it was. Sorry.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 30, 2015)

Since this thread started the Labour lead has narrowed alarmingly. Ed, I'm sure, will be better in debate than portrayed in the press, but Labour need a strong campaign now.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 30, 2015)

Doesn't help with the Blairites knocking chunks out of the party's campaign on the NHS.  It's almost as if the pricks want to lose so their worldview can be proved right, that Blairite 'centrism' is the only way to victory.  There is no alternative.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 30, 2015)

I'm sure there is truth in that, but the Tories are also rallying.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> I'm sure there is truth in that, but the Tories are also rallying.


Not enough thus far.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2015)

Apologies to danny la rouge  and brogdale  both. I was an idiot this morning -- tried to rush reading and posting in much too short a time.

I still do think there are issues with excluding Don't Knows though. Will reread and then get back to this another time with a better brain on. Ahem, etc. 

(Due at railway station in just over half an hour. A bit like my bus to catch this morning, leaving time of it was 50 minutes off and further to walk. So unlike this morning, I'm not going to even start to attempt anything now  )


----------



## killer b (Jan 30, 2015)

Forgive me if I've got the wrong impression William, but there seems to be a problem in your eyes for any method that doesn't produce a Labour lead. 

Do you think there should be a wishful thinking factor applied?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2015)

No. I'm fully aware they're doing badly atm and haven't denied it. You have my thinking entirely wrong, 

Perhaps the above is your wishful thinking about what you _want _me to be thinking? <-- about as accurate as your speculation probably


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 30, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Not enough thus far.



It's not a good trend on the UK polling site graph.


----------



## killer b (Jan 30, 2015)

Wishful thinking about wishful thinking? Hey, dawg...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2015)

killer b said:


> Wishful thinking about wishful thinking? Hey, dawg...


This is getting too recursive for me!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2015)

No wishful thinking here, except about wanting the Tories  not to win -- and hopefully do more badly than the polls say. That's another matter altogether. Would also like the LibDems to be crushed electorally.

We'd probably agree a lot more in our antipathy/objections to Labour than you think, but let's leave just a bit of space for specific Tory-hatred.

Right, got to dash!


----------



## kabbes (Jan 30, 2015)

The problem is that hoping that the Tories and LibDems do badly necessarily entails hoping somebody else does well.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2015)

kabbes said:


> The problem is that hoping that the Tories and LibDems do badly necessarily entails hoping somebody else does well.


Or accepting it's the inevitable result. 

I will laugh like a drain and feel all warm and fuzzy if Labour do badly in Scotland.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Doesn't help with the Blairites knocking chunks out of the party's campaign on the NHS.  It's almost as if the pricks want to lose so their worldview can be proved right, that Blairite 'centrism' is the only way to victory.  There is no alternative.





> Labour’s failures ‘worse than Kinnock’, says David Hare
> Playwright says Ed Miliband is struggling to take advantage of the open goals provided by a Tory prime minister
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ures-worse-than-kinnock-playwright-david-hare




Now its(the criticism) from the Left with David Hare sticking his oar in

tbh, bit baffled by this, labour are now starting to offer some decent polices, today they said they would set up community transport trusts to run buses, etc and warned the existing bus companies to pull their socks up, of course it could be all talk.

anyway, why now just before an election, does he want the other Milliband back?


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2015)

> “Why can he not, in the words of one veteran Labour MP in the play, ‘get up and take the whole rotten thing on?’ But to ask that question is to misunderstand what rhetoric is. Rhetoric is not an add-on, an extra. It’s not a trick, a facility or a gift. The sober truth is that you can only make a great speech if you have a great analysis.”



I do agree with this, there are awful things that are happening but Milliband is not angry enough.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 30, 2015)

Open goal is the word - this week we've had news of failings in schools, prisons and hospitals, easy to link all this together and say the government has 'lost a grip' on public services.  Stuff like this isn't even contentious with the middle of the road voters in the way that getting angry and taking a stand on things like welfare would be - it's everyday bread-and-butter issues.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Open goal is the word - this week we've had news of failings in schools, prisons and hospitals, easy to link all this together and say the government has 'lost a grip' on public services.  Stuff like this isn't even contentious with the middle of the road voters in the way that getting angry and taking a stand on things like welfare would be - it's everyday bread-and-butter issues.


It's only an open goal if you're playing for the other side.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Open goal is the word - this week we've had news of failings in schools, prisons and hospitals, easy to link all this together and say the government has 'lost a grip' on public services.  Stuff like this isn't even contentious with the middle of the road voters in the way that getting angry and taking a stand on things like welfare would be - it's everyday bread-and-butter issues.



Crises in Prisons/the justice system, are usually political dynamite and have led to ministers resigning in the past, now it just seems to waft over them.


----------



## killer b (Jan 30, 2015)

It is an open goal, and such an obvious one that the only reason it's been missed (or more accurately not fired at) is because they've chosen not to.

Ask yourself why that might be.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2015)

killer b said:


> It is an open goal, and such an obvious one that the only reason it's been missed (or more accurately not fired at) is because they've chosen not to.
> 
> Ask yourself why that might be.



Sheer incompetence also?


----------



## killer b (Jan 30, 2015)

They aren't incompetent, they just aren't the Labour Party you want 'em to be.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 30, 2015)

If they criticise them too much then they will reduce their future use of the patronage/money making machine.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2015)

killer b said:


> They aren't incompetent, they just aren't the Labour Party you want 'em to be.



They're incompetent *too. *Note bold. And I did say 'also' before.

Oh yes, and J Ed has it right as well.


----------



## killer b (Jan 30, 2015)

How would this competence manifest itself?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I will laugh like a drain and feel all warm and fuzzy if Labour do badly in Scotland.



Which they will on current projections. So enjoy your warmth and fuzziness North of the border.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2015)

killer b said:


> How would this competence manifest itself?




Ask articul8, whose views  are clearly 100% identical to mine on every respect 

Stop interrogating me. Am I not allowed to hate the Tories?


----------



## killer b (Jan 30, 2015)

what?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2015)

Have a think about it. My main election wish is that the Tories lose and lose big. They may well win at this polling-trend rate. I call that incompetence (principally, but yes true all the other stuff's there too) on the part of the so-called 'Official Opposition'. Hardly that controversial to say that.


----------



## killer b (Jan 30, 2015)

right. so competence would be for them to robustly challenge the tories on this stuff would it?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2015)

Yes. You're saying (I think?) that its deliberate that they're not doing so. The more I think about how many open goals are being missed, the more I think you have a big point. But there's no way incompetence doesn't play a big part as well. They're failing so abjectly to advance in the polls -- that's a major, and incompetent, fail simply in terms of electoral strategy if no more.


----------



## killer b (Jan 30, 2015)

So you think a robust challenge from the left would result in an advance in the polls?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2015)

I don't really have hopes of that --  and haven't for years. There'll never be anything from Labour (and even less from the fringes further left) that's getting anywhere. Labour never sound even mildly left*ish * at the very best, and that's no surprise. But even if they did go through a few mildly leftish sounding motions,  I'd prefer that (just about) to nothing, the complete absence of any half way competent opposition from them that we have now.

Not really ready to go much further with this conversation tonight -- too depressing.

As are the polls, to sort-of bring it back on topic ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2015)

Going to bed!


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2015)

So where does competence come in? Labour are clearly pursuing an electoral strategy that doesn't include going through some mildly leftish sounding motions. I'd guess the main reason for this is because they hope to woo swing tory/labour voters - the people who essentially decide elections, and who are scared off by mildly leftish motions.

If you're wanting a party with socialist or social democrat policies, then the Labour Party are awful. But they aren't incompetent - they're just not a socialist or social democrat party.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 31, 2015)

Labour are a pro-austerity, militarist, pro Trident, pro corporation, party of the neoliberal elite. When in power - as they were only a few years ago - they were tough on disabled people, single parents, civil liberties, poor people, immigrants, and everything that should be defended. 

Their only virtue is that they aren't formally The Tories. But that is in name only. 

They can go fuck themselves.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 31, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Labour are a pro-austerity, militarist, pro Trident, pro corporation, party of the neoliberal elite. When in power - as they were only a few years ago - they were tough on disabled people, single parents, civil liberties, poor people, immigrants, and everything that should be defended.
> 
> Their only virtue is that they aren't formally The Tories. But that is in name only.
> 
> They can go fuck themselves.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 31, 2015)

Opinium (for the Guardian) have polled just over 500 'first-time voters...

...which they've compared with their "adult" voting intentions...


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 31, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Labour are a pro-austerity, militarist, pro Trident, pro corporation, party of the neoliberal elite. When in power - as they were only a few years ago - they were tough on disabled people, single parents, civil liberties, poor people, immigrants, and everything that should be defended.
> 
> Their only virtue is that they aren't formally The Tories. But that is in name only.
> 
> They can go fuck themselves.



Ok yes, but clearly they weren't as austere as the Tories are now or there wouldn't have been anything to cut. That's a marginal but important difference.

Sadly they were also worse militarist bastards than even Thatcher was.

Another Tory led coalition will go full speed on dismantling welfare and the NHS. Labour won't, but say it's all shit and all the same by all means. You are not wrong, but not wholly right either.


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Another Tory led coalition will go full speed on dismantling welfare and the NHS. *Labour won't.*


whatever makes you think this?


----------



## weepiper (Jan 31, 2015)

killer b said:


> whatever makes you think this?


I mean. They've even openly said they will 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare


----------



## andysays (Jan 31, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Ok yes, but clearly they weren't as austere as the Tories are now or there wouldn't have been anything to cut. That's a marginal but important difference.
> 
> Sadly they were also worse militarist bastards than even Thatcher was.
> 
> Another Tory led coalition will go full speed on dismantling welfare and the NHS. Labour won't, but say it's all shit and all the same by all means. You are not wrong, but not wholly right either.



Not sure that "vote Labour and we promise to dismantle the welfare state at only 95% of the speed the Tories would" is going to win them too many new supporters, I'm afraid...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 31, 2015)

_Choose non Hodgkin lymphoma - it's not quite as bad as leukaemia_


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 31, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> _Choose non Hodgkin lymphoma - it's not quite as bad as leukaemia_



Ho ho. Everything is shit. Boo hoo.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 31, 2015)

If you really don't believe a Labour victory makes any difference what holds your interest in a thread about political polling? A trainspottery interest in statistics?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 31, 2015)

Yup.

And I'd like to see the Lib Dems decimated UK wide, the Labour Party in Scotland humiliated, and UKIP told to fuck the fuck off.


----------



## JTG (Jan 31, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> If you really don't believe a Labour victory makes any difference what holds your interest in a thread about political polling? A trainspottery interest in statistics?


Yes of course

I hope to see the same as Danny. Fuck Labour


----------



## brogdale (Jan 31, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> If you really don't believe a Labour victory makes any difference what holds your interest in a thread about political polling? A trainspottery interest in statistics?


That's a really dumb question Moose.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 31, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> If you really don't believe a Labour victory makes any difference what holds your interest in a thread about political polling? A trainspottery interest in statistics?


You can be interested in the game that is parliamentary politics while considering all the players scum.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 31, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> You can be interested in the game that is parliamentary politics while considering all the players scum.


..or even the 'game'.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 31, 2015)

Yep, fuck Labour. You know where you are with the Tories. They don't even pretend to give a shit about the poor and the sick and the disadvantaged. Less chance of disappointment.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 31, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> You can be interested in the game that is parliamentary politics while considering all the players scum.



It's a very all or nothing position. But I suppose I don't consider the whole Labour Party 'scum' though on account of the war I'm not going to argue the toss with you for doing so.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 31, 2015)

brogdale said:


> That's a really dumb question Moose.



Not really. I don't quite believe you all. I think there are very few of you who don't really want a Labour victory. If nothing else their austerity would probably be weaker, easier to defeat.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 31, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> It's a very all or nothing position. But I suppose I don't consider the whole Labour Party 'scum' though on account of the war I'm not going to argue the toss with you for doing so.


Well I probably shouldn't have _all_ the players, there will be groups and individuals that I do respect who are going to take part in electoral politics. Nor do I think that using electoral politics is always a poor tactic. While the rules of the game are clearly stacked in the favour of capital there have been in the past, and will be in the future, times when labour can force a victory. But a victory for Labour is in no way a victory for labour.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 1, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ..or even the 'game'.



Really? Such blinding obviousness. It would never have occurred.


----------



## miktheword (Feb 1, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/31/lib-dems-sink-labour-take-lead-tories-opinium-poll

LDS at 5%


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 1, 2015)

JTG said:


> Yes of course
> 
> I hope to see the same as Danny. Fuck Labour


You want to see a Tory victory then? How strange


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You want to see a Tory victory then? How strange


The wish list in the post he was agreeing with doesn't necessitate a Tory victory in Westminster; Labour could win without any Scottish seats. Blair had big enough majorities not to need 45 Scottish Labour MPs. And that's without considering where the Lib Dem seats in the rest of the UK would go. 

Furthermore, even if Labour does win, they'll still be Thatcherite fucks. 

This "if you don't support one that means you support another" attitude is very primary school playground.  The political parties are gangsters bickering over who gets to extort protection from us. They're *all* cunts.   

Our best course of action is not to pin our hopes on which of the families puts on the nicest fake smile, but on supporting initiatives in our communities which can make a practical difference, and in the process foster community self empowerment.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 1, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Not really. I don't quite believe you all. I think there are very few of you who don't really want a Labour victory. If nothing else their austerity would probably be weaker, easier to defeat.


You believe who you chose, but assuming that you've rumbled all who post in this thread have a faith in parliamentary democracy and support one particular party of capital within that system of political 'democracy' appears quite absurd.

On that basis should I be grassing up to the 'Chindits' all those that post in the Islamic State thread?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 1, 2015)

miktheword said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/31/lib-dems-sink-labour-take-lead-tories-opinium-poll
> 
> LDS at 5%



Worth showing that graphic (again)..







...to show the flat-lining tory 'core' well below where they could achieve a majority.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 1, 2015)

..though this one shows that better...


----------



## brogdale (Feb 1, 2015)

> YouGov have topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 32%, LAB 35%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 15%, GRN 6%. *
> 
> It’s the first Labour lead YouGov have shown for a week. It’s probably just normal sample variation, but is a reminder that despite a week of polls that had more Conservative leads than Labour ones, the polls are still really neck-and-neck. Tabs here.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 1, 2015)




----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 1, 2015)

brogdale said:


> You believe who you chose, but assuming that you've rumbled all who post in this thread have a faith in parliamentary democracy and support one particular party of capital within that system of political 'democracy' appears quite absurd.
> 
> On that basis should I be grassing up to the 'Chindits' all those that post in the Islamic State thread?



It's ridiculous to conflate wanting a Labour victory with blinkered faith in Parliamentary Democracy.

Heaven knows wtf you are going on about in your last para. I expect you could express it better if you avoided trying to be a clever clogs.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 1, 2015)

killer b said:


> So where does competence come in? Labour are clearly pursuing an electoral strategy that doesn't include going through some mildly leftish sounding motions. I'd guess the main reason for this is because they hope to woo swing tory/labour voters - the people who essentially decide elections, and who are scared off by mildly leftish motions.
> 
> If you're wanting a party with socialist or social democrat policies, then the Labour Party are awful. But they aren't incompetent - they're just not a socialist or social democrat party.



The examples I gave (fuck ups in hospitals, schools and prisons this week) are cases where they'd be able to attack the managerial ability of the government, not about taking a leftish position - it's 'safe' for politicians to attack the competence of the government because it doesn't require ideology or convictions, and for a lot of the population having a competent 'safe pair of hands' is more important than political differences  (which are not that discernible). Shouting 'fiasco' is an effective strategy in today's politics, so it seems weird they aren't ripping into the coalition about it.

Of course the root causes of most of the fuck-ups are all the cuts which are ideological, and which labour are signed up to, but it doesn't require acknowledging that to go on the offensive.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 1, 2015)

brogdale said:


>



I can see that appealing to a wide range of people


----------



## brogdale (Feb 1, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> It's ridiculous to conflate wanting a Labour victory with blinkered faith in Parliamentary Democracy.
> 
> Heaven knows wtf you are going on about in your last para. I expect you could express it better if you avoided trying to be a clever clogs.



I didn't conflate the two but, that said, to desire the victory of a parliamentary political party would suggest some degree of implicit faith in parliamentary, representative democracy.

Now, getting back to what you said..


Mr Moose said:


> I don't quite believe you all. I think there are very few of you who don't really want a Labour victory. If nothing else their austerity would probably be weaker, easier to defeat


You still stand by that, do you? That simply by taking an interest in psephology and posting in this thread somehow equates with a desire for an electoral victory for the parliamentary Labour party in the May GE? 

And this thing about their austerity being "_*weaker" *_and _*"easier to defeat"; *_what's that all about?

The reference to the 'chindits' was as an analogy to your proposition of belief; I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 1, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I can see that appealing to a wide range of people


Good.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2015)

killer b said:
			
		

> So where does competence come in? Labour are clearly pursuing an electoral strategy that doesn't include going through some mildly leftish sounding motions. I'd guess the main reason for this is because they hope to woo swing tory/labour voters - the people who essentially decide elections, and who are scared off by mildly leftish motions.
> 
> If you're wanting a party with socialist or social democrat policies, then the Labour Party are awful. But they aren't incompetent - they're just not a socialist or social democrat party.





Dogsauce said:


> The examples I gave (fuck ups in hospitals, schools and prisons this week) are cases where they'd be able to attack the managerial ability of the government, not about taking a leftish position - it's 'safe' for politicians to attack the competence of the government because it doesn't require ideology or convictions, and for a lot of the population having a competent 'safe pair of hands' is more important than political differences  (which are not that discernible). Shouting 'fiasco' is an effective strategy in today's politics, so it seems weird they aren't ripping into the coalition about it.
> 
> Of course the root causes of most of the fuck-ups are all the cuts which are ideological, and which labour are signed up to, but it doesn't require acknowledging that to go on the offensive.



Lots of agreement with *both* of these posts -- and hoping they can provoke some good discussion.. maybe even possibly a bit from myself. Later.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> It's ridiculous to conflate wanting a Labour victory with blinkered faith in Parliamentary Democracy.
> .



Such a wish is only, and no more than, wanting the Tories and LibDems to do as badly as possible. Just IMO like.


----------



## coley (Feb 1, 2015)

miktheword said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/31/lib-dems-sink-labour-take-lead-tories-opinium-poll
> 
> LDS at 5%


Read that as opium poll, need to go to specksavers.


----------



## coley (Feb 1, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I can see that appealing to a wide range of people


Very true.


----------



## coley (Feb 1, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Lots of agreement with *both* of these posts -- and hoping they can provoke some good discussion.. maybe even possibly a bit from myself. Later.


TBH, what's the point, both main party's are joined at the hip, come May I'm voting for whatever bugger impresses me, and if they are the loony party, UKIP, independent etc, anybody,but Cameron's or millipedes lot.
FFS, we need some kind of PR to even get a sniff of democratic representation in this place.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 2, 2015)

coley said:


> TBH, what's the point, *both main party's are joined at the hip*,



You're right .

I did think Dogsauce made the point I was trying to get at the other day about competence of opposition pretty well though, he made it better than I managed as well. However Torylike Labour are (and yes, they are), they could still be doing a far better job than they are at the moment.

Nothing else to add at the moment. No point.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 2, 2015)

The tories will _always _be worse than labour and at the moment tory or labour is the only choice available for the government. And it does make a difference. Labour would not have introduced vile purely ideological shit like the bedroom tax or the huge increase in benefit sanctions that with have seen since 2010 - both have which have had a devastating impact on the poorest communities. If you are in a seat where the its a tory/lab marginal not voting labour helps the tories into government. 
The one positive effect that the  electoral process has - even within the dismal choice on offer - is to place a limit on how far they can screw us. The tories have within their ranks many rabid hyackians who really do want to sell off the NHS  and privatise the whole public sector bar the cops - you won't find them within the labour party. Look at how enthuisiastically they jumped on their 2010 victory to try and push through their pet projects in health, welfare and education - think what they would do if they got in power again. 
I work in a community centre in one of the poorest parts of leeds. I see desperation and destitution on a daily basis (we also the highest male suicide rate in leeds) i am in no doubt that will get worse under another tory government. I live in a solid labour seat - so i can happily vote green or TUSC - but if lived in a lab/tory marginal I feel i would be betraying the people im working with if i did anything other than trying to stop the tory scum.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 2, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I didn't conflate the two but, that said, to desire the victory of a parliamentary political party would suggest some degree of implicit faith in parliamentary, representative democracy.
> 
> Now, getting back to what you said..
> 
> ...



'Faith' in Parliamentary democracy feels a little strong, but Parliament is another site for struggle. It would be ludicrous to suggest no good policy or law has ever come from it even while admitting that it ensures the continuation of elite power.

I'm not really fussed in sussing anyone out on this. I think you must have mistaken my comment as some kind of slight, a reflection on the way debate takes place here. Most people I know don't want a Tory victory, however brief the relief of a Labour one would be. That doesn't mean they are naive any more than your revelation that Labour are Thatcherite is revelatory.

And when austerity is challenged my guess is that between Labour and Conservative it is Labour who would blink first. After all there is motivation for them to do so, to actually attempt be the thing they claim to be.


----------



## killer b (Feb 2, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> The examples I gave (fuck ups in hospitals, schools and prisons this week) are cases where they'd be able to attack the managerial ability of the government, not about taking a leftish position - it's 'safe' for politicians to attack the competence of the government because it doesn't require ideology or convictions, and for a lot of the population having a competent 'safe pair of hands' is more important than political differences  (which are not that discernible). Shouting 'fiasco' is an effective strategy in today's politics, so it seems weird they aren't ripping into the coalition about it.
> 
> Of course the root causes of most of the fuck-ups are all the cuts which are ideological, and which labour are signed up to, but it doesn't require acknowledging that to go on the offensive.


I think it’s obvious to anyone that these points of attack are open goals, and it therefore must be obvious to the leadership and associated policy wankers of the Labour Party. So if they’re not attacking, it’s because they’ve chosen not to, not because they aren’t aware of the opportunity.

I think to write off this lack of action as incompetence is a mistake – clearly it isn’t incompetence, but a deliberate strategy decision which would benefit from further discussion and interrogation. Rolling your eyes and muttering _useless wankers_ tells us nothing – better to ask _why are they doing this?_


----------



## weepiper (Feb 2, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> The tories will _always _be worse than labour and at the moment tory or labour is the only choice available for the government. And it does make a difference. Labour would not have introduced vile purely ideological shit like the bedroom tax .



Labour introduced the Bedroom Tax in 2008 for those of us on Housing Benefit forced to rent in the private sector. They just didn't call it that, they called it Local Housing Allowance. The bedroom eligibility rules are the same and people already claiming Housing Benefit lost benefits in exactly the same way. The Tories got the idea for the Bedroom Tax in the social sector from a pre existing Labour policy, and used it as justification for it in a classic divide and rule way ('it's only fair that social renters are subject to the same rules')


----------



## brogdale (Feb 2, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> *I'm not really fussed in sussing anyone out on this. I think you must have mistaken my comment as some kind of slight*, a reflection on the way debate takes place here.





Mr Moose said:


> *I don't quite believe you all. I think there are very few of you who don't really want a Labour victory.*



Yeah, right.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 2, 2015)

> *Ashcroft National Poll: Con 31%, Lab 31%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 15%, Green 9%*


Ashcroft's 'England only' numbers put the vermin 4% ahead of Labour. When the vermin failed to secure a majority in 2010 their 'England only' lead was 11.4%.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Labour would not have introduced vile purely ideological shit like the bedroom tax o




they wouldn't have spun it as a strong cut, they wouldn't haveplayed it up for the tory faithful and telegraph columnists. But they'd have done similar and spunn it another way. Labour on  benefits has an atrocious record.

its been just under five years and people seem to have forgotten what 'safe hands' they were with benefits and the NHS: IE not at all. It wasn't the conservatives who paid for the vile 'we're closing in on you' campaign, or outsourced 50% of NHS services to private hands. Granted the tories ARE the bigger cunts and filled with spivs, loons and the super posh, but voting wise I call a plague on both houses


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Labour introduced the Bedroom Tax in 2008 for those of us on Housing Benefit forced to rent in the private sector. They just didn't call it that, they called it Local Housing Allowance. The bedroom eligibility rules are the same and people already claiming Housing Benefit lost benefits in exactly the same way. The Tories got the idea for the Bedroom Tax in the social sector from a pre existing Labour policy, and used it as justification for it in a classic divide and rule way ('it's only fair that social renters are subject to the same rules')


Single person reciving HA in this region for the rent of a room in a shared house will get 57  pounds a week. Even in rougher areas thats 15 quid below market rate for a room. That shit didn't start under the tories either.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 2, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> they wouldn't have spun it as a strong cut, they wouldn't haveplayed it up for the tory faithful and telegraph columnists. But they'd have done similar and spunn it another way. Labour on  benefits has an atrocious record.
> 
> its been just under five years and people seem to have forgotten what 'safe hands' they were with benefits and the NHS: IE not at all. It wasn't the conservatives who paid for the vile 'we're closing in on you' campaign, *or outsourced 50% of NHS services to private hands*. Granted the tories ARE the bigger cunts and filled with spivs, loons and the super posh, but voting wise I call a plague on both houses



Have you got any evidence for your claim that Labour outsourced 50% of the NHS?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Have you got any evidence for your claim that Labour outsourced 50% of the NHS?




not to hand. We are talking services associated with I. E instrument cleaning, portering and so on. I'll dig out the source for the claim tomorrow. Unless you want to dispute that these things were outsourced in general like. But yeah the figure I read had 50%


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 2, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> not to hand. We are talking services associated with I. E instrument cleaning, portering and so on. I'll dig out the source for the claim tomorrow. Unless you want to dispute that these things were outsourced in general like. But yeah the figure I read had 50%


so not all NHS services then?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> so not all NHS services then?


you'll of course be able to point to where I said 'all' on this thread

anyway, point is they should have been kept in house. It's better for infrastructure as a whole to have a unified structure, they 'dynamism' of the markets doesn't deliver in health or rail or energy, its just pretend choice for more money and crapper service. 

I am beginning to realise the NHS only becomes a political football every time there is a GE. I've only seen 4, but its becoming a recurring theme.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 2, 2015)

you said 50% of NHS services, that suggests all services as you well know.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> you said 50% of NHS services, that suggests all services as you well know.


It doesn't if we consider what was under the umbrella before mass privitasing, because the service whe it was NHS was NHS so any percentage outourced counts.

But there is little point pursuing this sophist argument till I back up the figure I claimed is there.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 2, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> It doesn't if we consider what was under the umbrella before mass privitasing, because the service whe it was NHS was NHS so any percentage outourced counts.
> 
> But there is little point pursuing this sophist argument till I back up the figure I claimed is there.



I've no idea what the first part of the post says, I think you've already conceded the point about your claim for 50% outsourcing of the NHS though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I've no idea what the first part of the post says, I think you've already conceded the point about your claim for 50% outsourcing of the NHS though.


services under the NHS- outsourced- this is privtasation of the NHS. Capice

as for the rest I concede nothing.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 2, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> services under the NHS- outsourced- this is privtasation of the NHS. Capice
> 
> as for the rest I concede nothing.


nutter


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 2, 2015)

The bedroom tax has been far more damaging than the rule changes on private lets - because its hit people in long term housing who are usually the most vulnerable - the disabled, people with kids etc. Plus it fatally undermines the whole principle of social housing - wrecking the whole security of tenure that it offered.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> nutter



Says the ex swappie


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> The bedroom tax has been far more damaging than the rule changes on private lets - because its hit people in long term housing who are usually the most vulnerable - the disabled, people with kids etc. Plus it fatally undermines the whole principle of social housing - wrecking the whole security of tenure that it offered.


and what really helped them lose there was everyone including the media deciding to call it the bedroom tax as well. It has a much nicer sounding name, but bedroom tax is the reality and the accurate descriptor


----------



## weepiper (Feb 2, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> The bedroom tax has been far more damaging than the rule changes on private lets - because its hit people in long term housing who are usually the most vulnerable - the disabled, people with kids etc. Plus it fatally undermines the whole principle of social housing - wrecking the whole security of tenure that it offered.


*waves hand as person with kids in private let, living dependent on housing benefit for last 5 years* apparently I don't exist


----------



## killer b (Feb 2, 2015)

quite. what an odd comment.


----------



## treelover (Feb 2, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> they wouldn't have spun it as a strong cut, they wouldn't haveplayed it up for the tory faithful and telegraph columnists. But they'd have done similar and spunn it another way. Labour on  benefits has an atrocious record.
> 
> its been just under five years and people seem to have forgotten what 'safe hands' they were with benefits and the NHS: IE not at all. It wasn't the conservatives who paid for the vile 'we're closing in on you' campaign, or outsourced 50% of NHS services to private hands. Granted the tories ARE the bigger cunts and filled with spivs, loons and the super posh, but voting wise I call a plague on both houses



Who was W/P Secretary when that odious campaign started?  Blunkett, Hutton, Purnell, it was a long running campaign,

oh, and Jim Murphy was Employment Secretary for some of that time.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 2, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, right.



What is the matter with you? Seriously. Why such scorn? 

There is no heat in the second quote. No attempt to show anyone up. Labour is a hard hope to shake however often they let you down.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 3, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Ashcroft's 'England only' numbers put the vermin 4% ahead of Labour. When the vermin failed to secure a majority in 2010 their 'England only' lead was 11.4%.


One thing that's probably going to play a big role in the result is the "stickiness" of the smaller parties vote. Have you seen any analysis on this point?

Over the last couple of years the UKIP vote has proved to hold up reasonably well, and in 2010 there were a number of people who voted Labour after voting SNP at Holyrood but things could be very different this time around. My guess would be that the UKIP vote mostly holds up, the SNP takes votes off Labour in Scotland but not to quite the extent that the current polling is showning and that a lot of the Green vote goes to Labour.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 3, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> One thing that's probably going to play a big role in the result is the "stickiness" of the smaller parties vote. Have you seen any analysis on this point?
> 
> Over the last couple of years the UKIP vote has proved to hold up reasonably well, and in 2010 there were a number of people who voted Labour after voting SNP at Holyrood but things could be very different this time around. My guess would be that the UKIP vote mostly holds up, the SNP takes votes off Labour in Scotland but not to quite the extent that the current polling is showning and that a lot of the Green vote goes to Labour.


I think that's right. No, I've not seen any reports of voter 'stickiness' across the parties, but then I suppose it's only really possible to study that after the actual election numbers are known?

The 'golden rule' of psephology has traditionally been that as we get nearer to the election the numbers for the 'big two' rise at the expense of the smaller parties, but I'm not at all certain that conventional wisdom will suffice any more.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 3, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> What is the matter with you? Seriously. Why such scorn?
> 
> There is no heat in the second quote. No attempt to show anyone up. Labour is a hard hope to shake however often they let you down.



Scorn is too strong a term, but when you've told "_all_" who post in this thread that you don't believe them and that you know better what they "_all" _think, what do you expect?

Generally, this thread has been characterised by thoughtful comment and insight about the objective polling evidence of voter intent. and doesn't (IMO) gain from posting that questions the integrity of those contributing to the discussion. If anyone's been "_shown up_" by your post it's you.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 3, 2015)

Looking at the rise of UKIP, (as evidenced from the NS's 'Poll of polls' graph), the period of the European Election campaign in April 2014 does genuinely appear to be something of a turning point for the nature of their support.

Until the spring of 2014 the form of the UKIP polling line appears very much as a 'mirror-image' of the vermin's, but after that campaign fluctuations in UKIP support appear to have little, if any, linkage with the blue line. The relationship over the last 10 months appears to be between the purple and red lines.







(also posted in UKIP thread)


----------



## killer b (Feb 3, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Not really. I don't quite believe you all. I think there are very few of you who don't really want a Labour victory. If nothing else their austerity would probably be weaker, easier to defeat.


I would prefer a Labour win, if I’m honest – I retain a certain amount of tribal loyalty from a childhood spent shoving election leaflets through people’s letterboxes, and if we’ve a choice between two sets of arseholes managing our shafting, I prefer it not to be the Tories who’re doing the shafting. But so what? What relevance does that have to what we’re discussing here?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

I find it ironic that the LibDems were so keen on eliminating FPTP and yet that voting system is now the only thing propping them up, thanks to core support in a handful of constituencies.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2015)

This is quite simple isn't it? I would prefer a labour victory whilst recognising that there is no way past this current society by then joining supporting and working for that labour victory. That way leads to shutting down criticisms of labour and then onto arguing against people organising and standing against labour - leaving us right back where we started - in the labour parties pockets. If there's a competition at work between two bosses you might prefer one to the other but you're not going to get actively involved in promoting and working for one to become big boss are you? You're not going to stop criticising in case it makes that boss look bad and mess their plans up are you?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2015)

TNS poll just out:


LAB 33% (+2)
CON 27% (-4)
UKIP 18% (+2)
GREEN 8% (+1)
LD  6% (-2)
OTHER 8% (+1)

Is 27% the lowest tory this parliament? Been a run of sub-30s for them last week.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 3, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Scorn is too strong a term, but when you've told "_all_" who post in this thread that you don't believe them and that you know better what they "_all" _think, what do you expect?
> 
> Generally, this thread has been characterised by thoughtful comment and insight about the objective polling evidence of voter intent. and doesn't (IMO) gain from posting that questions the integrity of those contributing to the discussion. If anyone's been "_shown up_" by your post it's you.



But I didn't attempt to do so. Stop being a big headed prat.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 3, 2015)

killer b said:


> I would prefer a Labour win, if I’m honest – I retain a certain amount of tribal loyalty from a childhood spent shoving election leaflets through people’s letterboxes, and if we’ve a choice between two sets of arseholes managing our shafting, I prefer it not to be the Tories who’re doing the shafting. But so what? What relevance does that have to what we’re discussing here?



That's all that was said, your first line. William put in the mild hope that the Labour Party might try harder to achieve it, which was followed by a load of obviousness about how it's all the same.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 3, 2015)

Brogdale, you liked butchers post. How different was that from the last couple of pages?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> But I didn't attempt to do so. Stop being a big headed prat. You liked butchers post which was really expressing the same views - mild hope of Labour victory with much scepticism about the eventual outcome of that victory. As something to build upon.



My post was suggesting that a labour victory is a defeat for those of use who want to get past this society, not as something to build upon.


----------



## killer b (Feb 3, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> That's all that was said, your first line. William put in the mild hope that the Labour Party might try harder to achieve it, which was followed by a load of obviousness about how it's all the same.


No it wasn't. I was questioning his (and others - yours for example) suggestion that the issue is Labour 'not trying harder', and putting forward some suggestions of my own about why they might choose not to try harder.


----------



## killer b (Feb 3, 2015)

Actually, I think what started this particular exchange was me wondering whether william's questioning of the poll findings was due to his wish for a Labour victory rather than any concrete doubts he had over the veracity of the results.

I think that's a reasonable thing to question, and I think that his posts since have confirmed it was basically the case.


----------



## killer b (Feb 3, 2015)

I think a lot of posts on here are similarly coloured by residual (and not so residual) tribal loyalty to the LP - there's still a sense that they're 'our team'. I think that's misguided, even though I feel the pull of it myself - so I think it's worthwhile discussing why it's misguided when I see it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2015)

killer b said:


> I think a lot of posts on here are similarly coloured by residual (and not so residual) tribal loyalty to the LP - there's still a sense that they're 'our team'. I think that's misguided, even though I feel the pull of it myself - so I think it's worthwhile discussing why it's misguided when I see it.


I'm an ex Labour member. I cast my first vote for Labour. But I'm now quite clear that Labour are the Enemy.  Not "needing to try harder", but a faction of the Enemy Class. 

They want Greece to honour the debt. They want to rob the poor here and use it to pay for the elite's problems. They are the enemy.  That they might (- might) ride us slightly less hard than the Tories is not a good reason to actively support them. 

Like I said, they can go fuck themselves.


----------



## killer b (Feb 3, 2015)

for the record, I believe you've been entirely clear about your view of the LP danny.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 3, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> But I didn't attempt to do so. Stop being a big headed prat.


I really don't think we're going to agree on this, especially if you're going to resort to that sort of response. Try reading what people post.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 3, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Brogdale, you liked butchers post. How different was that from the last couple of pages?


I don't think I could improve to Butchers' succinct response that followed your question.

FWIW, like danny la rouge and killer b I too am an ex-Labour activist...so I do appreciate the cultural, gravitational pull of the party, but I now find it almost impossible to distinguish between the options offered by our representative democracy.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 3, 2015)

Hair splitting the lot of you, the desktop left. 'My desire for a Labour victory is purer than yours'. Puerile.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 3, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Hair splitting the lot of you, the desktop left. 'My desire for a Labour victory is purer than yours'. Puerile.


It's customary to post comments regarding a thread discussion in that same thread.

Give me a clue, which discussion do you think you're engaging with?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 3, 2015)




----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Hair splitting the lot of you, the desktop left. 'My desire for a Labour victory is purer than yours'. Puerile.


I perhaps didn't make myself clear - I don't desire any such thing. 

Hth


----------



## killer b (Feb 3, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> the desktop left.


What does this mean, out of interest? Is it a new twist on _armchair anarchist_?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 3, 2015)

surely laptop left


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2015)

I'm a smartphone smart arse, me.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 3, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I perhaps didn't make myself clear - I don't desire any such thing.
> 
> Hth


It won't; 'Meldrew' Moose just won't believe it! 

You really want Blair to win, don't you? Go on...admit it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2015)

brogdale said:


> It won't; 'Meldrew' Moose just won't believe it!
> 
> You really want Blair to win, don't you? Go on...admit it.


I want his babies.


----------



## andysays (Feb 3, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm a smartphone smart arse, me.



iPad intellectuals


----------



## brogdale (Feb 3, 2015)

MacBook Makhnovists (Pro)


----------



## brogdale (Feb 3, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I want his babies.


----------



## killer b (Feb 3, 2015)

look at those lips.


----------



## killer b (Feb 3, 2015)

it seems bizarre and sickening now, but blair was blatantly marketed as a sex symbol. boak.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 3, 2015)

killer b said:


> it seems bizarre and sickening now, but blair was blatantly marketed as a sex symbol. boak.


Please find a new poll or something...anything, but...


----------



## killer b (Feb 3, 2015)

you're fortunate my rudimentary photoshop skill don't stretch far enough to put tony's face on alan's body. Still, I suppose your imagination can do the work for you?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 3, 2015)

brogdale said:


> MacBook Makhnovists (Pro)


surely macbook proletarians?


----------



## weepiper (Feb 3, 2015)

Oh my


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 3, 2015)

Here's the directory with the "leaked" data

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/


----------



## killer b (Feb 3, 2015)

some interesting things in there...


----------



## killer b (Feb 3, 2015)

oh, actually not that interesting. as you were.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 3, 2015)

killer b said:


> some interesting things in there...



He's been tweeting leader/cartoon character things all week.


----------



## killer b (Feb 3, 2015)

they aren't very good. he should stick to polling.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 3, 2015)

killer b said:


> they aren't very good. he should stick to polling.



His polling isn't always that great either.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 4, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


>



Like the Motherwell & Wishaw SVI for LDs!


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 4, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Like the Motherwell & Wishaw SVI for LDs!


Jonathan Shafi of RIC gave this as his analysis of the Lib Dem stats in Ashcroft:

"Lol".


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2015)

Alexander 29% behind in Inverness; bank directorship calling.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 4, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Alexander 29% behind in Inverness; bank directorship calling.


Ha Ha


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2015)

I don't know about Edinburgh being '_the Athens of the North_', but Labour are doing a pretty good job of being _the ΠΑΣΟΚ of the North_.

Lol


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2015)

However...Anthony @YG offers some useful advice about what to look for when Ashcroft fully publishes at 11am...


> We don’t know what seats will be included in Lord Ashcroft’s poll yet and we can but *hope he goes up into some of the “safer” Labour and Lib Dem seats*, and with a broad enough spread to give us some area where the SNP surge is happening. We should expect to see the SNP well ahead in polls in any of the constituencies polled that are near the start of the target list (if not, then something is either wrong with the Scottish national polls or with Lord Ashcroft’s Scottish constituency polls – those SNP votes need to be coming from somewhere!), *but it will be interesting to see how the SNP are doing in those seats with the largest Labour and Lib Dem majorities – will they actually be falling short of their implied national swing in those safest Lab and Lib seats, or will they be outperforming the implied national swing?* Also look at the two-stage question, and *whether Liberal Democrat incumbents are being insulated against the swing to the SNP at all*. *A third thing to watch is whether there is any obvious regional differences – in the referendum YES did better in Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire and North Lanarkshire. Will that be reflected in the shift to the SNP at all *(certainly it includes some of Labour’s most solid seats, so it would be bad for them if it did).


----------



## Sue (Feb 4, 2015)

Any figures for E Renfrewshire?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2015)

Sue said:


> Any figures for E Renfrewshire?



Not yet.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/02/scottish-battleground/

I assume because it was deemed to be not 'marginal' enough for his 'marginals' polling.


----------



## Sue (Feb 4, 2015)

Well fingers crossed...


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2015)

Important to remember that _*if *_swings like this were actually realised in May, it would be disastrous for ScotLab, but also for ScotVermin (aka LDs). Each seat the nationalists take from the vermin collaborators reduces the chances of Con-Lib 2.0.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2015)

...and that Inverness figure despite some concerted efforts to save his fucking skin...


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 4, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Important to remember that _*if *_swings like this were actually realised in May, it would be disastrous for ScotLab, but also for ScotVermin (aka LDs). Each seat the nationalists take from the vermin collaborators reduces the chances of Con-Lib 2.0.


Yup. And on these figures, it looks like the most likely outcome in May would be a minority Labour government, perhaps with confidence and supply from SNP.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 5, 2015)

Lol


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 5, 2015)

I hope that's the way it goes it would be just fucking brilliant.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 5, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> I hope that's the way it goes it would be just fucking brilliant.


Would be a dead cert if the 12% of soppy studes saying Green piled in to 'decapitate' him.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 5, 2015)

> Clegg says this poll is “*such utter, utter bilge*”. It is not surprising that a trade union poll shows Labour ahead. He says he spends a lot of time in the constituency.
> 
> Some people hate the Tories so much they say they will never forgive him.
> 
> Of course he is not a Tory. *The longer he has governed with them, the more he realises he isn’t,* he says.


From here.

Funnily enough, that's not how the voters see things...obs.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 5, 2015)

Reasonable look at Ashcoft's latest Scotland polls here

Article doesn't pull its punches.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2015)

Earlier this week it came to light that a poll I published last November in Sheffield Hallam included a mistake in the data. Concerned that this may not have been an isolated incident, I reviewed two other polls I commissioned from the same company at the same time. As I feared, the mistakes had been repeated.

The data has now been corrected, and the upshot is that in Sheffield Hallam, rather than having a three-point lead Nick Clegg should have been three points behind Labour:

LAB 30%, LDEM 27%, CON 19%, UKIP 13%, GRN 10%.

In Thanet South, rather than a five-point Conservative lead, the poll should have shown a very tight race with UKIP’s Nigel Farage:

CON 33%, UKIP 32%, LAB 26%, LIB DEM 4%, GRN 3%

And in Doncaster North Ed Miliband is a full thirty points clear of his nearest challenger:



LAB 55%, UKIP 25%, CON 13%, LIB DEM 4%, GRN 2%.

The results have been updated on the Constituency Polls section of my website, and the corrected data tables for Hallam, Thanet and Doncaster are also on my site.

...

So I must disclose that these three surveys last November are the first and only I have commissioned from a well-known but relatively new polling firm. And no, I won’t be using them again.


----------



## treelover (Feb 7, 2015)

> “Like David Cameron’s new Facebook page for the latest updates from the prime minister.” That is what Facebook urged many of its British users to do in a so-called suggested post, paid for by the Conservative party. *And perhaps surprisingly, a lot of people did – 470,718 and counting.*
> 
> This promotion, dropped in to the middle of news feeds otherwise full of drunken selfies and baby pics, did not come cheap for the Tories.
> 
> ...



Tories spending a lot on F/B, is it productive?


----------



## treelover (Feb 7, 2015)

> Invoices show the vast bulk of Tory Facebook advertising was actually spent on “email collection” like this: enticing users to sign up to a mailing list by asking them if they want more information on what the prime minister is up to or on policies such as Help to Buy.



Looks like the Tories have learnt from the SWP!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 7, 2015)

treelover said:


> Tories spending a lot on F/B, is it productive?



I doubt anyone who isn't already guaranteed to vote tory is gonna like David Cameron on facebook tbh. But lots of PR and advertising people are making a lot of money these days by dressing this kind of thing up as some clever 'new media' strategy specifically tailored to the client's needs and blah blah blah.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2015)

Wasted money -  as is the youtube front they've opened up.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Earlier this week it came to light that a poll I published last November in Sheffield Hallam included a mistake in the data. Concerned that this may not have been an isolated incident, I reviewed two other polls I commissioned from the same company at the same time. As I feared, the mistakes had been repeated.
> 
> The data has now been corrected, and the upshot is that in Sheffield Hallam, rather than having a three-point lead Nick Clegg should have been three points behind Labour:
> 
> ...


 This has got to be a worry for Ashcroft, and a blow to his credibility. Not naming the firm will also stoke-up chatter about other polling he has commissioned. After all, AFAICT the only reason that the tories are fave to re-take Rochester off Reckless is an Ashcroft poll.


----------



## laptop (Feb 7, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Not naming the firm



Welll... almost not naming:



> a well-known but relatively new polling firm



Gimme a "Y", an "o", a "u", a "G"...


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2015)

laptop said:


> Welll... almost not naming:
> 
> 
> 
> Gimme a "Y", an "o", a "u", a "G"...


Oh, is that right? YouGov, then?


----------



## The Boy (Feb 7, 2015)

Survation are the newest of the big names, aren't they?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2015)

I think it's Survation - it's def not ICM or YouGov.


----------



## laptop (Feb 7, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I think it's Survation - it's def not ICM or YouGov.



OK then... but still nearly named.


----------



## treelover (Feb 7, 2015)

> http://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1423334276572/web_OpObs_Poll_State_of_Par.svg
> 
> Labour extends lead over Conservatives despite attacks from business
> 
> ...


----------



## bemused (Feb 9, 2015)

It's interesting that Cameron is more respected than his party and Miliband less so.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 9, 2015)

I thought Farage normally did well on these things. Are there previous polls or graphs for comparison?


----------



## JTG (Feb 9, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> I thought Farage normally did well on these things. Are there previous polls or graphs for comparison?


He is doing well on that, he's the second most popular leader


----------



## killer b (Feb 9, 2015)

bemused said:


> It's interesting that Cameron is more respected than his party and Miliband less so.


Is it? Considering the constant character assassinations from his own side as well as the opposition, it's not particularly surprising. Cameron gets a relatively easy ride - his ministers cop the flak for the bad shit much more. For Miliband it's been a case of his competence / integrity / sexual magnetism being constantly questioned and mocked since he became leader. Not so for Cameron.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 9, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> I thought Farage normally did well on these things. Are there previous polls or graphs for comparison?


Farage is very popular amongst a small section of the population and hated by a much bigger one.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 9, 2015)

He's consistently been polling behind his party too, no?


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 9, 2015)

The Boy said:


> He's consistently been polling behind his party too, no?


Correct


----------



## weepiper (Feb 9, 2015)

Have you seen Nicola Sturgeon's most recent approval rating? It's pretty sky-high



> The Panelbase survey of 1,018 people, commissioned by the SNP, found that 59% trusted the First Minister while 27% did not.



http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...p-the-trust-ratings-finds-snp-poll.1419867427


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 10, 2015)

*"SNP set to double its vote in general election, poll finds*
New TNS poll suggests the party’s lead over Scottish Labour has dropped to 10 points, still putting half of Labour’s 41 Westminster seats at risk"

Guardian

So, different methodology, different pollster, and hugely different to Survation, YouGov, ICM and Ipsos-Mori, who all have the SNP lead at double that (Ipsos-Mori nearly trebling the TNS lead!).  But although this may look to some on the face of it  like an outlier, I think we're into more realistic territory now.  This would still be a huge blow to Labour were the result to look anything like this in May, but they'll be able to say they've pulled back from the abyss and claim it as a victory of sorts.

Also, we're now at a level where, given FPTP and the size of some of the majorities we're talking about, the dominoes might not tumble as evenly as the 20%-28% SNP leads might have suggested.


----------



## bemused (Feb 10, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Have you seen Nicola Sturgeon's most recent approval rating? It's pretty sky-high



I'd vote for her, she comes across as an actual human being.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 10, 2015)

bemused said:


> I'd vote for her, she comes across as an actual human being.


It's a smart trick for a politician. How has she disguised the psychopathy?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 10, 2015)

Smithson has put this out there as genuine...

No 93? 
Cya Kells


----------



## killer b (Feb 10, 2015)

what is that?


----------



## The Boy (Feb 10, 2015)

Any chance of a translation?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 10, 2015)

..and No.96...that was a seat where the vermin got 50% in 2010!


----------



## brogdale (Feb 10, 2015)

killer b said:


> what is that?


----------



## The Boy (Feb 10, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ..and No.96...that was a seat where the vermin got 50% in 2010!



Hmmm.  Doesn't the list include seats they don't need to target due to the high likelyhood of winning anyway?


----------



## killer b (Feb 10, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ..and No.96...that was a seat where the vermin got 50% in 2010!


_"Non target" appears to include those where Conservatives can expect a win without campaign effort as well as those they don't think they can win._


----------



## brogdale (Feb 10, 2015)

The Boy said:


> Hmmm.  Doesn't the list include seats they don't need to target due to the high likelyhood of winning anyway?


That's certainly true, but Boston? Haven't the kippers long had their eyes on that? Can the vermin really relax there?


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 10, 2015)

The Boy said:


> Hmmm.  Doesn't the list include seats they don't need to target due to the high likelyhood of winning anyway?



Must do.  There are some very safe Tory seats on that list, but also those where they haven't a cat in hell's chance.  I'm not in the least surprised to see my constituency - Hull north - on there: it's been obvious for ages they're mounting a half-arsed effort at most, not least from the cheaply printed, badly proof-read A4 sheets that the local candidate has been dropping through letterboxes recently.

It's basically just a reflection of how under FPTP a few swing seats exert a disproportionate influence, and the main parties therefore throw resources at them whilst neglecting the safe seats and no-hopers.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 10, 2015)

brogdale said:


> That's certainly true, but Boston? Haven't the kippers long had their eyes on that? Can the vermin really relax there?



e2a : http://www.bostonstandard.co.uk/new...rse-to-win-boston-and-skegness-seat-1-6325219


----------



## brogdale (Feb 10, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> Must do.  There are some very safe Tory seats on that list, but also those where they haven't a cat in hell's chance.  I'm not in the least surprised to see my constituency - Hull north - on there: it's been obvious for ages they're mounting a half-arsed effort at most, not least from the cheaply printed, badly proof-read A4 sheets that the local candidate has been dropping through letterboxes recently.


 Quite, but the 'news-worthy' elements are the constituencies that are far from obvious. _*If genuine, *_this is telling us something important about what the vermin really think about the kipper threat.


----------



## killer b (Feb 10, 2015)

I think all it is, is a list of candidates whose image had the words 'non target' in the URL on the tory party website, so it's surely genuine as far as that goes (although the links no longer work - some swift work there). What 'non-target' means is a question...


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Feb 10, 2015)

Boston & Skegness, Rochester & Strood and Cannock Chase are listed as non-target, yet all are on UKIPs list of top target seats.

Would the Tories actually concede a couple or 3 seats in exchange for a half-arsed UKIP effort in a couple of dozen Con-Lab marginals?


----------



## killer b (Feb 10, 2015)

no.


----------



## killer b (Feb 10, 2015)

Even a sniff of that kind of horse trading would be electoral poison to ukip. Cant see it happening.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 10, 2015)

I think the list is actually most likely to be the corollary of the vermin's "40/40" strategy in which they aim to pile their resources into the 80 marginals...

http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2013/05/by-mark-wallacefollowmarkon-twitter-in-october-cchq-announced-that-it-was-launching-a-4040-strategy-aimed-at-winning-the.html


----------



## laptop (Feb 10, 2015)

From my clipboard:



> Almost one million voters have gone missing since last June, when a new system of individual voter registration was introduced. This raises fears about the turnout at the General Election on 7 May.
> 
> Previously, one “head of household” form was sent to each address, and new voters were automatically added to the registered list when, for example, they moved home or reached the age of 18. The new system requires each individual to confirm their details, either on a paper form, or using an on-line government portal.
> 
> ...


----------



## JTG (Feb 10, 2015)

Bristol South, East & West are all on that list. South & East fair enough (they only held East at the height of Thatcher's power and never managed to get South even then) but West used to be a flagship prize seat of theirs. Can't see them winning it again anyway but it shows how times change I guess


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 10, 2015)

A lot of obvious safe seats (mainly big names) are missing, so it's not a comprehensive list of who's safe.

Enjoying some of the posho names on the list though.  They'll often stick some of the chinless wonders in no-hoper seats just to keep things sweet with their tory-donor parents whilst not actually having to risk ending up with them on the team.


----------



## bemused (Feb 10, 2015)

The Boy said:


> Hmmm.  Doesn't the list include seats they don't need to target due to the high likelyhood of winning anyway?



Aye, Croydon South is on that list it's one of the safest seats in London for the Tories.


----------



## treelover (Feb 10, 2015)

laptop said:


> From my clipboard:




Its the hanging chads all over again


----------



## elbows (Feb 10, 2015)

I see they've given up on North Warwickshire based on that document. Not entirely surprising given the incumbent Tory isn't standing again, and they only took the seat from Labours Mike O'Brien by 58 votes in 2010.

The same part of the country, Nuneaton, where I live, is very much one of the key battlegrounds, having gone Tory at the last election after being Labour since 1992. Top Tories keep coming here, especially in the last year, and Miliband made an appearance at the hospital recently too. Its not on the list, and I obviously wouldn't expect it to be.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 10, 2015)

bemused said:


> Aye, Croydon South is on that list it's one of the safest seats in London for the Tories.


Let's hope that Jon Bigger causes them to regret such arrogance. Anyway, the real reason for CroSouth's inclusion on the list, along with Brake's Car&Wall, is to focus the depleted party 'machine' of the neighbouring constituencies into Barfwell's desperate bid to hold "Centrale".


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 10, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Let's hope that Jon Bigger causes them to regret such arrogance.



It's unlikely isn't it.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 10, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's unlikely isn't it.


Yes.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 10, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> *"SNP set to double its vote in general election, poll finds*
> New TNS poll suggests the party’s lead over Scottish Labour has dropped to 10 points, still putting half of Labour’s 41 Westminster seats at risk"
> 
> Guardian
> ...



Useful comment on the Scots TNS poll from YG's Anthony...


> The fieldwork for this poll was conducted between the 14th January and the 2nd February. This means the Survation and MORI polls from last month which showed 20 point and 28 point SNP leads for the SNP had fieldwork done at the same time as the start of this poll. The YouGov poll last week which had a 21 point SNP lead had fieldwork done at the same time the fieldwork for this poll was finishing (so is mostly significantly newer than this one!). What this means is that *much of the reportingandheadlines on this poll are just rubbish – the poll does NOT show the SNP lead falling. It shows a smaller SNP lead – this may well be for methodological reasons, or perhaps a bit of random sample variation, but given the respective timing of the fieldwork it cannot be that public opinion has changed since the previous poll showing a 21 point lead, as this poll was mostly conducted before that one.* It’s a thoroughly bad idea to try and draw trends between polls conducted using very different methods anyway, but certainly check when the fieldwork was done and get them in the right chronological order.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 12, 2015)

> he regular YouGov/Sun poll (last night) has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 32%, LAB 33%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 15%, GRN 7%* –
> 
> YouGov continue to show the two main parties extremely close, normally within a point of each other.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 12, 2015)

An interesting NS piece looking at housing tenure cross-breaks in the key marginals...



> ...*in sixteen of the BBC’s 49 marginal constituencies those who rent their accommodation comprise 40 per cent or more of the population and they are the majority in four seats.* By contrast, owner-occupiers vastly outnumber renters in marginals such as Wirral South, East Dunbartonshire and Mid Dorset and North Poole.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 12, 2015)

SNP and Plaid combined have now overtaken the Lib Dems for share of the UK-wide vote for the first time 

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/snp-and-plaid-cymru-overtake-liberal.html


----------



## brogdale (Feb 13, 2015)




----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2015)

brogdale said:


>



there seems to be an error in the lib dem poll


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2015)

*Stephen Tall*
@stephentall
New ComRes poll of 40 most marg Lab/Con seats: Con 31% (NC), Lab 40% (+1), LD 8% (+1), UKIP 15% (-3), Green 5% (+1). In 2010, Con/Lab on 37%


----------



## brogdale (Feb 13, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> *Stephen Tall*
> @stephentall
> New ComRes poll of 40 most marg Lab/Con seats: Con 31% (NC), Lab 40% (+1), LD 8% (+1), UKIP 15% (-3), Green 5% (+1). In 2010, Con/Lab on 37%





> "...*poll "represents CON to LAB swing of 4.5%"*



Very stable polling for the last few months.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 14, 2015)

Poll of polls this week...


> The big picture remains stable, with Labour and Conservatives very close. There were a couple of Conservative leads at the start of the week, but a couple of three point Labour leads at the end of the week mean the UKPR polling average continues to show a two point Labour lead :–
> 
> *CON 32%(+1), LAB 34%(+1), LDEM 7%(-1), UKIP 14%(-1), GRN 7%(+1).*



Different circumstances and all that, but just thought I'd through in this little thought...


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Feb 14, 2015)

brogdale said:


> An interesting NS piece looking at housing tenure cross-breaks in the key marginals...



This graph is a horrorshow.
What do the lines mean?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 14, 2015)

King Biscuit Time said:


> This graph is a horrorshow.
> What do the lines mean?


 The lines show party support, expressed by polling, cross-broken by housing tenure type. So, on the left hand side it shows that, amongst the out-right home owners polled, the tories (unsurprisingly?) gained the highest level of support of 37%, with Labour second most popular on 28%, and so on. The numbers indicate the changes since the last election.

If you take one thing away from the graph its the significant changes expressed by the expanding private renter demographic. In part, this might explain Labour's persistent lead in many marginals.


----------



## laptop (Feb 14, 2015)

King Biscuit Time said:


> This graph is a horrorshow.
> What do the lines mean?



The lines mean nothing whatsoever.

Unless you posit the trajectory of someone who falls from the grace of outright ownership through having a mortgage to private renting and on down to the seventh circle of social housing...

It should have been a histogram.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 14, 2015)

> We have three GB polls due in the Sunday papers, Opinium in the Observer, ComRes in the Sunday Indy/Sunday Mirror and YouGov in the Sunday Times. We have the first two already, YouGov will follow later on tonight or tomorow morning.





> *Opinium* have topline figures of :-
> 
> _*CON 33%(+1), LAB 35%(+1), LDEM 8%(+1), UKIP 14%(-1), GRN 6%(-2). *_Both the main parties up one point and last week’s two point Labour lead remaining unchanged. Tabs are here.
> 
> ...



The two point Lab lead is showing up in a good deal of recent polling.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 14, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Feb 14, 2015)

So much for Lynton Crosby's poll cross-over month. Well, I suppose it has been cross-over month, but not in the way that Crosby hoped it would.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 14, 2015)

laptop said:


> The lines mean nothing whatsoever.
> 
> Unless you posit the trajectory of someone who falls from the grace of outright ownership through having a mortgage to private renting and on down to the seventh circle of social housing...
> 
> It should have been a histogram.



maybe whoever did it had been taking anti-histogram medication...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> The two point Lab lead is showing up in a good deal of recent polling.





> *Opinium* have topline figures of :-
> 
> _*CON 33%(+1), LAB 35%(+1), LDEM 8%(+1), UKIP 14%(-1), GRN 6%(-2). *_Both the main parties up one point and last week’s two point Labour lead remaining unchanged. Tabs are here.
> 
> ...



Latest you gov - 

LAB – 35% (+1)
CON – 32% (+1)
UKIP – 15% (-)
LDEM – 7% (-)
GRN – 6% (-1)

So all three polls showing a small but steady labour lead after near parity in the polls a few weeks ago. A bucket of shit has been emptied over milliand's head but to no avail. At what point do the Tories start sniping at each other? Seeing as osbourne and cameron are doing even worse pollwise than the hapless milliband.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 15, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Latest you gov -
> 
> LAB – 35% (+1)
> CON – 32% (+1)
> ...


Yep. All suggests that the vermin would require something like a 10%+ swing from where they are today. Tall order in under 3 months; especially as their negative campaign strategy (Plan A) has, thus far, failed.


----------



## Santino (Feb 15, 2015)

Maybe someone could be persuaded to invade the Falklands.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 15, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> At what point do the Tories start sniping at each other? Seeing as osbourne and cameron are doing even worse pollwise than the hapless milliband.


Well I don't suppose any of the frontbench are going to put there heads up now, May, Osbourne etc can wait until after the election. What has surprised me a bit is that there hasn't been more complaints from the backbenchers, particularly those in marginal seats.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 15, 2015)

Latest Ipsos Mori

Con 34 (+1)
Lab 36 (+2)
Lib Dem 6 (-2)
SNP / PC 7 (+ 3)
Green 7 (-1)
UKIP 9 (-2)
Other 1 (nc)


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 16, 2015)

Latest Guardian/ICM poll.

Con 36 (+6)
Lab 32 (-1)
LD 10 (-1)
UKIP 9 (-2)
GRN 7 (-2)
Others 7 (NC)

An outlier, although predictably you wouldn't know it from the Graun's story...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> Latest Guardian/ICM poll.
> 
> Con 36 (+6)
> Lab 32 (-1)
> ...


It would be interesting to match headline to poll over the last few years from them.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> It would be interesting to match headline to poll over the last few years from them.



It would - and for every other newspaper with a tame pollster.  Not an exercise I've the time or energy for though!


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 16, 2015)

Not sure I'd like to see a seat breakdown on that one.  It had better bloody be an outlier.

There is a sickening feeling in my gut that the vermin might pull this one off, not outright but with the support of others as before.  I know whatever emerges from the election (based on current likely outcomes) isn't going to be great, but I don't think I could swallow the smugness of the tories remaining in control.


----------



## treelover (Feb 16, 2015)

> Used to work for these orifices...used to just speak to the first 1000 people regardless of quota limits!
> 
> Why the Guarniad still employs them is beyond me;could recommend a dozen more reliable companies, in an industry oft populated by complete cock-ends



Comment on CIF, still alarming though, 'it's the economy stupid'?


----------



## treelover (Feb 16, 2015)

> "While it tends to be the polls that show unusual results or big changes that get all the attention, they are actually the ones we should be most dubious about. If there has been a genuine surge in Conservative support, then we’ll see it across all the pollsters, and other polls so far this month have shown things pretty stable."



Anthony Wells of YouGov


----------



## treelover (Feb 16, 2015)

But has UKIP masked the real support of the Tories, if they go down in the polls, does the Tory vote increase?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> But has UKIP masked the real support of the Tories, if they go down in the polls, does the Tory vote increase?


Any thoughts?


----------



## treelover (Feb 16, 2015)

I don't know, when it comes to polls, maths, calculations, etc I have difficulties, that's why I am asking the experts.,


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2015)

Is every UKIP voter a Tory voter in disguise, to your beliefs? Is it a one-to-one match?


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 16, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Is every UKIP voter a Tory voter in disguise, to your beliefs? Is it a one-to-one match?



I think the stats not that long ago showed something like 70% ex-tory, but that more recent support was split more evenly.  A drop in UKIP vote is more likely to favour the tories, although it wouldn't necessarily be the case that they'd shed support in proportion to where their voters previously came from.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2015)

Exactly.


----------



## treelover (Feb 16, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Is every UKIP voter a Tory voter in disguise, to your beliefs? Is it a one-to-one match?




no, that's why I asked the question.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> no, that's why I asked the question.


In that case, a reduction in UKIP will not directly correspond to an increase in Tory.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 16, 2015)

kabbes said:


> In that case, a reduction in UKIP will not directly correspond to an increase in Tory.


It would, unless you're claiming the opposite: that zero UKIP voters are Tory-voters in disguise.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 16, 2015)

The ICM poll is almost certainly an outlier - dont panic.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> It would, unless you're claiming the opposite: that zero UKIP voters are Tory-voters in disguise.


_Directly_ correspond.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 16, 2015)

kabbes said:


> _Directly_ correspond.


But there is a direct relationship between the number of people who vote for UKIP and the number of people who vote Tory - it's just not 1:1


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2015)

you know damn well what was being asked and answered and what that context was.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 16, 2015)

True. Sorry


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2015)

Neg tory surge-ashcroft:

Lab 31% (-)
Con 30% (-4)
UKIP 16% (+2)
Lib Dem 9% (-)
Green 8% (+2)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2015)

Are the polls volatile? No, one set of polls are suspiciously volatile - ashcrofts. The rest are follewing the trend of a labour 2-3% lead with increasing total votes for lab/tory combined.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 16, 2015)

Ashcroft said:
			
		

> The narrow margin for Labour echoes most recent published polls, but with a lower combined share for the two main parties. *Could it be that voters have found the exchange of insults over donors and their tax arrangements an unappetising spectacle?*


He hopes.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 16, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> There is a sickening feeling in my gut that the vermin might pull this one off, not outright but with the support of others as before.


How? To do that they'd almost certainly have to increase there own support as the LDs are going to lose seats. No other party has the willingness to enter a coalition combined with the numbers needed. And while it's theoretically possible under FPTP that the Tories could get an increased number of seats on a lower share of the vote it's not very likely and not backed up the polling of Lab-Tory marginals that I've seen.

What 2010 showed, and IMO 2015 will confirm, is that the Tories crown of being the "natural party of government" is gone.

EDIT: Also from where I'm standing the current predictions, minority government with no realistic coalition on the cards, are among the best results possible. A really split HoC with lots of problems for whatever government is in power, plus the parties stuck in such a situation for 5 years because of the LDs stupidity. Lot's of opportunities for pro-wc politics if they can be grasped.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 17, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> How? To do that they'd almost certainly have to increase there own support as the LDs are going to lose seats. No other party has the willingness to enter a coalition combined with the numbers needed. And while it's theoretically possible under FPTP that the Tories could get an increased number of seats on a lower share of the vote it's not very likely and not backed up the polling of Lab-Tory marginals that I've seen.
> 
> What 2010 showed, and IMO 2015 will confirm, is that the Tories crown of being the "natural party of government" is gone.
> 
> EDIT: Also from where I'm standing the current predictions, minority government with no realistic coalition on the cards, are among the best results possible. A really split HoC with lots of problems for whatever government is in power, plus the parties stuck in such a situation for 5 years because of the LDs stupidity. Lot's of opportunities for pro-wc politics if they can be grasped.



I would suspect that whoever becomes the party of government, the abolition of fixed term parliaments will go. 

A Labour (OK, they are not.) victory would be welcomed, over an ad hoc half-decade of behind the scenes horse trading.

My nightmare is the SNP holding the balance. Believe me, the people of England wouldn't like it either.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> My nightmare is the SNP holding the balance. Believe me, the people of England wouldn't like it either.



"_The people of England"? _What, all of them? Surely a good number of the, (say 34%), of the electorate voting for a Labour government would welcome SNP support (confidence and supply) if it was necessary to effect such an outcome?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 17, 2015)

a lab-snp combo would be def preferable than one involving the lib dems the eyes of most lab and snp voters


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 17, 2015)

Tonight's you gov poll - 

CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 7%

As butchers posted earlier - both tory and lab are gradually increasing their overall vote share, but - looking at all the polls and ignoring the daft ICM one - labour have a slight lead.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 18, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> I would suspect that whoever becomes the party of government, the abolition of fixed term parliaments will go.


Well for it to go you'd have to get a majority to pass a bill removing it which could be problematic if the government doesn't have workable majority.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 18, 2015)

Today's TNS BMRB poll...



> *London – 18 February *– A new poll by TNS UK reveals that Labour is now the most trusted party in three key policy areas: investing more in healthcare, reducing unemployment and improving education. The Conservatives are the most trusted party on generating economic growth.
> 
> Labour most trusted on healthcare, education and reducing unemployment
> All three main party leaders have negative approval scores
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Feb 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> Anthony Wells of YouGov


Sound advice; and now Smithson has offered this interesting inside take on the ICM polling at the time of this "outlier"...


> With much of the current GE15 narrative being linked to ICM’s 4% lead poll from Monday it is interesting to note that this was not the only survey being carried out by the firm at the weekend.
> 
> On Sunday, as I have reported, I was polled by ICM. The call was initiated from the firm’s big political calling centre in the Bromham Road in Bedford which is, incidentally, only about a mile from where I live. I know that because I asked the interviewer. Recalling the detail of the interview it does not match the Guardian poll published on Monday night. Having gone through the dataset from that survey it is clear that this wasn’t the series of questions that I answered.
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Feb 18, 2015)

Shall I be the first to invoke Twyman's?*

*the polling thread equivalent of Godwin's!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Today's TNS BMRB poll...


To be read the same way as the guardian one i suggest.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 18, 2015)

Having questions on political issues before questioning who someone would vote for won't give a fair result, it'll prompt a response based partly on what issues are raised.  Best methodology would be to ask about voting choice first, unless of course you wanted to work out the effectiveness of certain prompt/issues on voter's decisions - then refine a campaign to make use of this.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 18, 2015)

If you want highly unscientific crap, there's always plenty of articles like this.

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....rs-want-to-see-farage-at-downing-st-1-7112475

It's a step up from self-selecting polls of the type the Express uses to generate headlines ('90% say get out of the EU'), but not much.


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Sound advice; and now Smithson has offered this interesting inside take on the ICM polling at the time of this "outlier"...



Isn't the internet great, much more difficult for the elites to hide, etc.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> "_The people of England"? _What, all of them? Surely a good number of the, (say 34%), of the electorate voting for a Labour government would welcome SNP support (confidence and supply) if it was necessary to effect such an outcome?



They would not like the price.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2015)

I don't like the price of milk. I need milk.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 18, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> They would not like the price.


Of...?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2015)

Milk.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Milk.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2015)

I'm all about the milk.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> To be read the same way as the guardian one i suggest.


Pretty much, but not entirely, according to Anthony.
He has the former as a sample blip, and the latter due to methodological bias....



> Most have sensibly enough seen it as the just the other side of the coin to the ICM poll earlier this week showing a solid Tory lead – two outliers in opposite directions. However, *it is worth looking at the different reasons why these two polls went against the trend*.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 18, 2015)

Latest Scots Westminster Survation/Record voting intention:-

* SNP 45-1 LAB 28+2 CON 15+1 LD 5-2

*


----------



## weepiper (Feb 18, 2015)

Only a 17 point lead to overcome in less than 80 days then.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 19, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Only a 17 point lead to overcome in less than 80 days then.


do they need to overcome it or just get it down?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 19, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I'm all about the milk.



'Bout that milk, no yogurt.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 19, 2015)

Interesting Holyrood voting intention poll too which shows a 31 point Nat lead over Labour and Greens in a quite respectable third place.

http://www.betternation.org/2015/02/latest-holyrood-poll/


----------



## brogdale (Feb 19, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Interesting Holyrood voting intention poll too which shows a 31 point Nat lead over Labour and Greens in a quite respectable third place.
> 
> http://www.betternation.org/2015/02/latest-holyrood-poll/



That Green number is remarkable and interesting. Please put me straight if I'm reading this wrong, but that (unprecedented?) leakage to the Greens looks like disaffection with ScotLab is more deep-seated than even the Lab->SNP, Westminster numbers might suggest?


----------



## weepiper (Feb 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> That Green number is remarkable and interesting. Please put me straight if I'm reading this wrong, but that (unprecedented?) leakage to the Greens looks like disaffection with ScotLab is more deep-seated than even the Lab->SNP, Westminster numbers might suggest?


No, I don't think you're wrong.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 19, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> do they need to overcome it or just get it down?


Just get it down: the tipping point that gives Labour more seats than SNP happens when SNP still has a 5-8 point lead over Labour.

That said, it's taken them several months to knock even 5 points off the SNP's lead.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> That Green number is remarkable and interesting. Please put me straight if I'm reading this wrong, but that (unprecedented?) leakage to the Greens looks like disaffection with ScotLab is more deep-seated than even the Lab->SNP, Westminster numbers might suggest?


I think that's right.  I think voters know that the Greens stand a better chance in Holyrood than Westminster, and I think also (what you seem to be suggesting) that the SNP ratings are more anti Labour than pro SNP.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Just get it down: the tipping point that gives Labour more seats than SNP happens when SNP still has a 5-8 point lead over Labour.
> 
> That said, it's taken them several months to knock even 5 points off the SNP's lead.


 Yep, Smithson's posting Curtice's handy visual again this morning...



The potential seat change effected by >1% of the UK electorate is remarkable.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 19, 2015)

There's some decent analysis of the survation figures in the Daily Racist Homophobe: 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-daily-record-poll-shows-5187551


----------



## brogdale (Feb 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> There's some decent analysis of the survation figures in the Daily Racist Homophobe:
> 
> http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-daily-record-poll-shows-5187551


Anthony's take on the Survation poll...


> Compared to Survation’s other post-referendum polls it suggests a slight narrowing in the SNP lead (their previous three polls had SNP leads of 22, 24 and 20 points) Looking across Scottish polls from other companies though there’s no obvious consensus on whether the lead is narrowing or not… and even if it is narrowing a bit, a seventeen point lead is still firmly in landslide territory.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 20, 2015)

brogdale said:


> That Green number is remarkable and interesting. Please put me straight if I'm reading this wrong, but that (unprecedented?) leakage to the Greens looks like disaffection with ScotLab is more deep-seated than even the Lab->SNP, Westminster numbers might suggest?


Further to your query, the Guardian has this to say:  http://www.theguardian.com/politics...hanging?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 20, 2015)

I tried to find this last night and failed, then found it now : Alberto Nardelli (Guardian) analyses the Greens possible impact on the larger parties' support levels, especially if they strengthen any further.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 20, 2015)

Trouble with articles like that is that they don't consider that greens might be more likely to vote labour if it was a close fight to remove a tory, so it won't be 5 or 7% across the board.  It might help the tories take some libdem seats, since that's where most of the green support has come from.


----------



## Sue (Feb 20, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...e-political-landscape-in-scotland-is-changing

Not a proper poll or anything but thought I'd stick this here. Can't say I'm surprised by the sentiments expressed... (Oh, and nothing to do with Tommy S, you'll be relieved to hear.)


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 22, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Trouble with articles like that is that they don't consider that greens might be more likely to vote labour if it was a close fight to remove a tory, so it won't be 5 or 7% across the board.  It might help the tories take some libdem seats, since that's where most of the green support has come from.




Very fair point.

 Monbiot, also in the Guardian,  has not long ago urged people to vote Green irrespective of polls, and IMO he's pretty ignorant of the relevant psephology as well.

Tactical voting in particular seats is so often dismissed. In my view unforgivably, if you risk ending up with a Tory out and out majority


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2015)

Ashcroft volatility:

Latest Ashcroft poll (20 - 22 Feb):
LAB - 36% (+5)
CON - 32% (+2)
UKIP - 11% (-5)
GRN - 8% (-)
LDEM - 7% (-2)

For england only:
LAB 38
CON 32
UKIP 13
GRN 8
LD 6

That guaranteed lab maj territory.

The share of the others starting to drop - still historically high though.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Ashcroft volatility:
> 
> Latest Ashcroft poll (20 - 22 Feb):
> LAB - 36% (+5)
> ...


Albeit Lord Volatile's polling, those Eng only numbers will terrify the vermin.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2015)

I'm thinking they must be wrong - the other way round. (the eng figs)


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 23, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Very fair point.
> 
> Monbiot, also in the Guardian,  has not long ago urged people to vote Green irrespective of polls, and IMO he's pretty ignorant of the relevant psephology as well.
> 
> Tactical voting in particular seats is so often dismissed. In my view unforgivably, if you risk ending up with a Tory out and out majority



I wonder how much the rise of constituency polling is going to change tactical voting. Before it was a pretty solid way of perpetuating the status quo, because it would usually make most sense to vote for whoever finished first and second in the last election. Now you've got constituencies like Great Grimsby where Labour and UKIP can argue on the basis of Ashcroft's polling that the choice is really between them... (rather than being a Con-Lab marginal with UKIP nowhere)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> I wonder how much the rise of constituency polling is going to change tactical voting. Before it was a pretty solid way of perpetuating the status quo, because it would usually make most sense to vote for whoever finished first and second in the last election. Now you've got constituencies like Great Grimsby where Labour and UKIP can argue on the basis of Ashcroft's polling that the choice is really between them...


Btw Constituency polling counts towards the allotted amount each candidate can spend on their campaign - so they're going to dry up.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Btw Constituency polling counts towards the allotted amount each candidate can spend on their campaign - so they're going to dry up.



How does that work? Like if Ashcroft does a poll in Great Grimsby does the cost go on the Tory candidate's allotted amount?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> How does that work? Like if Ashcroft does a poll in Great Grimsby does the cost go on the Tory candidate's allotted amount?


Not sure, the stuff the lib-dems paid for and have been paying for does count - on what basis i'm not sure. A divided amount (national vs seats) is the the only way i can think of. But all panicky candidates paying for individual ones from now on - it counts and comes off your leaflet budget


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure, the stuff the lib-dems paid for and have been paying for does count - on what basis i'm not sure. A divided amount (national vs seats) is the the only way i can think of.


ah I get you. Either way, in the 130-150 seats Ashcroft has already done the figures will go on leaflets, work their way into local canvassing etc and might have an impact...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> ah I get you. Either way, in the 130-150 seats Ashcroft has already done the figures will go on leaflets, work their way into local canvassing etc and might have an impact...


Yep, he's doing political work here. Backseat driving. Attempted anyway.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, he's doing political work here. Backseat driving. Attempted anyway.


Yeah, the Scotland ones presumably being about convincing potential SNP voters that it was worth voting in safe Labour seats...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Yeah, the Scotland ones presumably being about convincing potential SNP voters that it was worth voting in safe Labour seats...


What a white knight he's being for poll-followers though.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I'm thinking they must be wrong - the other way round. (the eng figs)


No, I don't think so. The vermin number remains unchanged because they are virtually English only, and the Eng Lab % is enhanced by the lack of nationalist leakage.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 23, 2015)

brogdale said:


> No, I don't think so. The vermin number remains unchanged because they are virtually English only, and the Eng Lab % is enhanced by the lack of nationalist leakage.


Eng Lab have been polling above Scot Lab since August last year...


----------



## brogdale (Feb 23, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Eng Lab have been polling above Scot Lab since August last year...


Yep, and as such those English only numbers are, like I said, pretty fucking disastrous for the vermin. Ususal polling caveats.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Btw Constituency polling counts towards the allotted amount each candidate can spend on their campaign - so they're going to dry up.


I'm pretty sure constituency polling only counts towards your spending if you're the one doing it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2015)

That's what i said.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 23, 2015)

Will to have to look at the Ashcroft tabs in detail, but I'm beginning to wonder if the shedding of UKIP support might end up acting as a second 'crutch' for Lab. Their former Lab support has certainly been a more recent phenomena so, possibly less sticky...particularly at a time when the tory media are engaged in such a dirty war against the 'kippers. Maybe Crosby's effort will drive a Lab surge?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> That's what i said.


so will Ashcroft affect that?


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 23, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Will to have to look at the Ashcroft tabs in detail, but I'm beginning to wonder if the shedding of UKIP support might end up acting as a second 'crutch' for Lab. Their former Lab support has certainly been a more recent phenomena so, possibly less sticky...particularly at a time when the tory media are engaged in such a dirty war against the 'kippers. Maybe Crosby's effort will drive a Lab surge?



Unfortunately I suspect those right-wing tories who thought Cameron was fucked anyway so they might as well vote moonbat are now viewing a situation whereby the vermin might pull it off (via coalition rather than overall) and one where Miliband isn't a certainty, and so they're less likely to throw their vote away in protest at Cameron's socially liberal nonsense and instead stick with the team.  On the other hand, Labour supporters who migrated to the kippers aren't really being given any reason to go back.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> so will Ashcroft affect that?


Nope - the individual lib-dems ones talked about this week might well be. I think that's going to have to go to judgment. I think they should count.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 23, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Tactical voting in particular seats is so often dismissed. In my view unforgivably, if you risk ending up with a Tory out and out majority


What do you make of the Scottish Labour folks recommending people vote tactically for the Tories in seats Labour can't win to keep the SNP out? Does that not risk ending up with a Tory majority?

_Real socialists vote Tory_


----------



## Sue (Feb 23, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> What do you make of the Scottish Labour folks recommending people vote tactically for the Tories in seats Labour can't win to keep the SNP out? Does that not risk ending up with a Tory majority?
> 
> _Real socialists vote Tory_



I can see that going down well...


----------



## free spirit (Feb 23, 2015)

I see he's wiped his twitter account fairly swiftly.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2015)

Why does bragg need to be in there?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Why does bragg need to be in there?


He had the screen shot. The account disappeared after the shit hit the fan. So I used Bragg's tweet about it, as I didn't grab it before the account went. 

McNeill's on the Scottish Labour Policy Forum.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 23, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> He had the screen shot. The account disappeared after the shit hit the fan. So I used Bragg's tweet about it, as I didn't grab it before the account went.
> 
> McNeill's on the Scottish Labour Policy Forum.


Surely it's got to be another nail in their coffin up there to be seen to advocate voting tory (and even lib dem now).


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 23, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I see he's wiped his twitter account fairly swiftly.


According to Duncan Hothersall, he was "hounded".


----------



## Sue (Feb 23, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> He had the screen shot. The account disappeared after the shit hit the fan. So I used Bragg's tweet about it, as I didn't grab it before the account went.
> 
> McNeill's on the Scottish Labour Policy Forum.


 
I know quite a few Old Labour types who hate the SNP (or are at least very suspicious of the 'Tartan Tories') but the idea that they'd even think about voting for the Tories is so far out that I can't believe Labour are even considering this.

ETA Well actually, I can. Just another sign of their complete lack of understanding of 'their ' voters.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2015)

Sue said:


> I know quite a few Old Labour types who hate the SNP (or are at least very suspicious of the 'Tartan Tories') but the idea that they'd even think about voting for the Tories is so far out that I can't believe Labour are even considering this.


Maybe split between slp tops and the hard labour vote they need to be working their arses off to keep - the people who won't ever vote SNP but might stay home.

(this lot i think will save labour in may)


----------



## weepiper (Feb 23, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> According to Duncan Hothersall, he was "hounded".



 Labour should have fucking hounded him themselves.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 24, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> What do you make of the Scottish Labour folks recommending people vote tactically for the Tories in seats Labour can't win to keep the SNP out? Does that not risk ending up with a Tory majority?
> 
> _Real socialists vote Tory_



Christ, the SLP are fucking idiots aren't they. I mean how can they not see that on their own terms this is a terrible strategy. So inept that it almost defies belief.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2015)

*Survation  *

LAB 34% (+4) 
CON - 28% (-3) 
UKIP - 19% (-4) 
LDEM - 10% (+3) 
GRN - 4% (+1)


----------



## bemused (Feb 24, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Christ, the SLP are fucking idiots aren't they. I mean how can they not see that on their own terms this is a terrible strategy. So inept that it almost defies belief.



Nicola Sturgeon strikes me as the most credible leader out of all the other parties. I enjoying listening to her.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 26, 2015)

I've just put this on the Murphy/S Lab thread: 

"The Scottish Tories see matters more clearly. In Edinburgh and Glasgow and Aberdeen, cities where the SNP is challenging Labour, there is considerable anecdotal evidence supporting the suspicion that many Tories are prepared to vote Labour, the better to thwart the nationalist advance. They would rather risk a Labour government than an SNP landslide that might put Cameron back in Downing Street."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features...at-westminster-could-mean-the-end-of-britain/


----------



## brogdale (Feb 26, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I've just put this on the Murphy/S Lab thread:
> 
> "The Scottish Tories see matters more clearly. In Edinburgh and Glasgow and Aberdeen, cities where the SNP is challenging Labour, there is considerable anecdotal evidence supporting the suspicion that many Tories are prepared to vote Labour, the better to thwart the nationalist advance. They would rather risk a Labour government than an SNP landslide that might put Cameron back in Downing Street."
> 
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/features...at-westminster-could-mean-the-end-of-britain/


They're easily confused, then?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> They're easily confused, then?


Well, they're Unionists. So they might think it's the lesser of two evils. Also, Labour...they're not very different. 

I don't know how true it is, but I thought it worth reporting for your edification. But if enough of them do it, it could be significant. We're talking about around 16% of the vote in 2010.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 26, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I've just put this on the Murphy/S Lab thread:
> 
> "The Scottish Tories see matters more clearly. In Edinburgh and Glasgow and Aberdeen, cities where the SNP is challenging Labour, there is considerable anecdotal evidence supporting the suspicion that many Tories are prepared to vote Labour, the better to thwart the nationalist advance. They would rather risk a Labour government than an SNP landslide that might put Cameron back in Downing Street."
> 
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/features...at-westminster-could-mean-the-end-of-britain/


That is mental, and I'm not sure I fully understand his reasoning.

He says that a Tory win would mean Nationalist claims of being unrepresented by Westminster are stronger, whereas at least Labour will have some support up North. But what does he think happens in 5 years time if Labour win this election...that the Tories will have a resurgence? That SNP will just go away? If the next Prime Minister is Labour or Tory, SNP will still get a majority in Holyrood.

I don't get it.


----------



## killer b (Feb 26, 2015)

'cause it's fucking nonsense. pay-per-word election year placemark bullshit.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 26, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> That is mental, and I'm not sure I fully understand his reasoning.
> 
> He says that a Tory win would mean Nationalist claims of being unrepresented by Westminster are stronger, whereas at least Labour will have some support up North. But what does he think happens in 5 years time if Labour win this election...that the Tories will have a resurgence? That SNP will just go away? If the next Prime Minister is Labour or Tory, SNP will still get a majority in Holyrood.
> 
> I don't get it.


He's a Tory. I read him because he writes from a Scottish Tory perspective. They do exist. 

What he means is this: the Tories are a toxic brand in Scotland. Another 5 years of Tory government with a large SNP presence at Westminster will be (he thinks) a good way for the SNP of demonstrating the "democratic deficit".

The SNP exists, remember, to promote independence. The referendum was lost, but that doesn't mean they don't still believe in it. (People are like that). 

- I'll finish this thought later. Something's come up.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 26, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> He's a Tory. I read him because he writes from a Scottish Tory perspective. They do exist.
> 
> What he means is this: the Tories are a toxic brand in Scotland. Another 5 years of Tory government with a large SNP presence at Westminster will be (he thinks) a good way for the SNP of demonstrating the "democratic deficit".
> 
> ...


I get all that, but what happens in 5yrs time in his view? Does he think the SNP are going to run out of steam? That Labour for 5 years will end Independence movements and therefore it's safe again to have a Tory govt?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 26, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> I get all that, but what happens in 5yrs time in his view? Does he think the SNP are going to run out of steam? That Labour for 5 years will end Independence movements and therefore it's safe again to have a Tory govt?


Not sure what you mean. Do you mean why he claims Tories are intending to vote Labour? That's to try and stop SNP getting so many MPs.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 26, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Not sure what you mean. Do you mean why he claims Tories are intending to vote Labour? That's to try and stop SNP getting so many MPs.


Well, if there aren't a load of SNP MPs there will be more Labour, and so the Tories lose. But that will also be true in 2020 and beyond.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 26, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Well, if there aren't a load of SNP MPs there will be more Labour, and so the Tories lose. But that will also be true in 2020 and beyond.


You have to take each election as it comes, I suppose. 

I don't think Massie is advocating this; he says it's what people are planning.  Indeed he points out that several measures others thought would kill the SNP in fact didn't.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 26, 2015)

You get that they're tactical voters in seats the Tories can't win? 

I suppose what you have to remember is that although it's a Westminster election, we're looking at polls which suggest the SNP would be the largest party in Scotland. The theory is that Scottish Tory voters find that more terrible a thought than a Labour government. Which could be a by product of lending Labour their vote.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 26, 2015)

Meanwhile...

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/in...sees-the-snp-extend-their-lead-from-10-to-16/


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 26, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> He's a Tory. I read him because he writes from a Scottish Tory perspective. They do exist.



He's a libertarian of the "guns and hash plants" variety I think, which isn't the strict Scottish Tory party line.   He's usually worth reading in any case. I agree with what I think you are implying - the Scottish Tory vote is often overlooked, and the number of them tends to be underestimated.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 26, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> You get that they're tactical voters in seats the Tories can't win?
> 
> I suppose what you have to remember is that although it's a Westminster election, we're looking at polls which suggest the SNP would be the largest party in Scotland. The theory is that Scottish Tory voters find that more terrible a thought than a Labour government. Which could be a by product of lending Labour their vote.


I get that, but the bit I don't get is wanting the Tories to lose the next election. I understand the reasoning behind it; I just don't see what it gains them - unless they are putting the union over party politics - which I don't believe is the case here.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 26, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> I get that, but the bit I don't get is wanting the Tories to lose the next election. I understand the reasoning behind it; I just don't see what it gains them - unless they are putting the union over party politics - which I don't believe is the case here.



The Scottish Tories have a strong unionist element, it was the Unionist Party until the mid 1960s when it merged with the Conservative party. It's not exactly the same as the English Tories though - I can't imagine Ruth Davidson being the leader of the wider party.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 27, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> I get that, but the bit I don't get is wanting the Tories to lose the next election. I understand the reasoning behind it; I just don't see what it gains them - unless they are putting the union over party politics - which I don't believe is the case here.


The story is that they're putting the union over party politics. It's not that they want the Tories to lose the election; it's that they hate the SNP. Remember there's only one Tory MP in Scotland, and the 16% who vote Tory are spread out across constituencies rather than in high enough concentrations in any one area to win others.

Now, we only have Massie's word for this being a trend. And though I'm not saying he's lying, it remains to be seen how many people will actually vote that way come May.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 27, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> He's a libertarian of the "guns and hash plants" variety I think, which isn't the strict Scottish Tory party line.   He's usually worth reading in any case. I agree with what I think you are implying - the Scottish Tory vote is often overlooked, and the number of them tends to be underestimated.


Yes, I more accurately should have called him a right winger.

And yes, it's too easy to say " there's only one Tory in Scotland"; there isn't - there's 16% of the electorate.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 27, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, I more accurately should have called him a right winger.
> 
> And yes, it's too easy to say " there's only one Tory in Scotland"; there isn't - there's 16% of the electorate.



Can they stick them all on an island somewhere, come independence?  There's quite a few to choose from.  We don't want them fleeing south of the border for asylum and boosting the numbers here.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 27, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Can they stick them all on an island somewhere, come independence?  There's quite a few to choose from.  We don't want them fleeing south of the border for asylum and boosting the numbers here.


those islands arelib dem strongholds, they'd have to agree with nick


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 27, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> those islands arelib dem strongholds, they'd have to agree with nick


Not all of them.  Orkney and Shetland are.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 27, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Not all of them.  Orkney and Shetland are.


Western Isles have been firmly Nat since 2005 and they were Labour before that.


----------



## andysays (Feb 27, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Not all of them.  Orkney and Shetland are.



Maybe a suitable place for Clegg to retire to, a nice little cottage on Unst called Dunleadin'...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2015)

Dunliven might be better.


----------



## treelover (Feb 27, 2015)

At UKIP's Spring Conference they have decided to support deficit reduction and a spokesperson on the news said they would work with the Conservatives to achieve it.

opportunity for Labour to get back some of their defectors?

btw, Farage has also just attended a conference in the U.S with hard right politicians, etc.


----------



## treelover (Feb 27, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, I more accurately should have called him a right winger.
> 
> And yes, it's too easy to say " there's only one Tory in Scotland"; there isn't - there's 16% of the electorate.



Its still amazing that there are only that many, England and Scotland, two countries that might as well be on different galaxies.


----------



## treelover (Feb 27, 2015)

> Bours says, under Ukip, hospital managers would need a licence to manage.
> 
> There have been some shocking management failings, she says. Under this plan, failed managers would not be able to get a new job somewhere else in the NHS.
> 
> ...



The, again some of this will appeal to labour voters.


----------



## andysays (Feb 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Dunliven might be better.



I was originally thinking about 





> Dunbein'thedeputyprimeministerandcondemningtheLibDemstoobscurityforanothergeneration


 which would at least have the merit of creating more employment in the field of sign-writing, but I'd be happy to go with your suggestion


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 27, 2015)

danny la rouge 

You qoted my post about tactical voting back on page 59.

Just to clarify, my opinion wasn't intended to be about Scotland specifically. I find it near-impossible to imagine wanting people to vote Tory in any circumstance, but Scottish circumstances are very different from those south of the border anyway.

That list of seats in your post -- that Scottish Labour person seems (?) keener to see Lib Dems kicked out than anything else.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 27, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> danny la rouge
> 
> You qoted my post about tactical voting back on page 59.
> 
> ...


No, he's saying in these seats vote Tory to beat the SNP and in these ones vote Lib Dem to beat the SNP. So he'd prefer coalition MPs to non coalition MPs.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 27, 2015)

andysays said:


> I was originally thinking about  which would at least have the merit of creating more employment in the field of sign-writing, but I'd be happy to go with your suggestion


I've been there; it's in Wales.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 27, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> No, he's saying in these seats vote Tory to beat the SNP and in these ones vote Lib Dem to beat the SNP. So he'd prefer coalition MPs to non coalition MPs.



Oh blimey. Will need to look again then. Far worse than I'd (on a far too quick glance  ) assumed.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 27, 2015)

It's just a tactical move to tie up the SNP's resources, keep them fighting on more fronts, so Labour slip through in other seats, right?  Either that or a not very subtle double-agent.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 27, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> It's just a tactical move to tie up the SNP's resources, keep them fighting on more fronts, so Labour slip through in other seats, right?  Either that or a not very subtle double-agent.


Keep an eye on the number of Tory seats in Scotland to find out which.


----------



## laptop (Feb 27, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Keep an eye on the number of Tory seats in Scotland to find out which.



More strictly, the number in which the Tories are, say, fewer than 2000 votes behind the 2010 winner.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 27, 2015)

laptop said:


> More strictly, the number in which the Tories are, say, fewer than 2000 votes behind the 2010 winner.


There are seats where Labour and Tory votes combined can beat an SNP incumbent.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 27, 2015)

Guardian projection:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/feb/27/guardian-poll-projection


----------



## brogdale (Feb 27, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Guardian projection:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/feb/27/guardian-poll-projection



Interesting correlations/lack of correlations emerging in that graphic...





Lab still seems more clearly negatively correlated with UKIP than the tories, and the 'Green surge' appears negatively correlated with the LDs, rather than Lab.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 27, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Oh blimey. Will need to look again then. Far worse than I'd (on a far too quick glance  ) assumed.





Dogsauce said:


> It's just a tactical move to tie up the SNP's resources, keep them fighting on more fronts, so Labour slip through in other seats, right?  Either that or a not very subtle double-agent.


It's not going down too well


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 27, 2015)

It was just so obviously going to backfire in that way. Even if the SLP leadership is this fucking dumb you'd think there'd be someone in the national office that could tell them that this was fuckwitted.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 28, 2015)

It's really bizarely stupid if true


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 28, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's really bizarely stupid if true


The tactical voting advice? It was real enough. They reversed the fuck away from it when social media took the piss, though. The guy that took the blame fell on his sword. Too late, though. The attitude was exposed.


----------



## treelover (Mar 1, 2015)

> *Ed Miliband on course for absolute majority, according to poll*
> 
> Labour has regained a slim lead over David Cameron’s party, according to the latest Opinium/_Observer _poll.
> 
> ...



Observer poll, but they still make time to have a go at Ed.


----------



## miktheword (Mar 1, 2015)

over, post: 13752488, member: 334"]Observer poll, but they still make time to have a go at Ed.[/QUOTE]




They probably think they're being pro Ed compared to their 15th February headline...
'Cameron maintains high approval rating despite Labour poll lead'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/14/opinium-poll-david-cameron-maintains-approval-rating


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 1, 2015)

http://electionunspun.net/

Very good site with loads of data on MSM coverage ^


----------



## weepiper (Mar 2, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Mar 2, 2015)

weepiper said:


>



Fair enough; it's not too far from full Scots polling, but that cross-break was only 189 people.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 2, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Fair enough; it's not too far from full Scots polling, but that cross-break was only 189 people.


it's like Irish polls all over again


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 3, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Fair enough; it's not too far from full Scots polling, but that cross-break was only 189 people.



You've got to have bigger samples than that! Tiny samples lead to anything between mild-ish exaggeration of the true trends, to downright distortion of them.

Not saying there's no truth in that small poll, far from, but the sampling has to be broader, surely, than just 189 people. I have to admit I've not always paid enough attention to that factor myself, in the recent past.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 3, 2015)

Anthony's comments on yesterday's slew of polling...


> Two three point Tory leads on the same day. All the usual caveats apply – it is only _two_ polls and Populus showed a two point Labour lead. It wouldn’t be the first time that two polls have popped out on the same day showing something unusual, only for it to turn out to be pure co-incidence when polls in the following days showing everything back to normal. *Keep an eye on it though*…


----------



## weepiper (Mar 4, 2015)

Ashcroft's Scottish constituency polls are coming out. Grim reading for Scottish Labour

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...e-in-Scotland-Lord-Ashcroft-poll-reveals.html


----------



## rioted (Mar 4, 2015)

Thats a month old.


----------



## weepiper (Mar 4, 2015)

oh yeah. So it is. There's new polls from 8 Scottish marginals out tonight though and the_ best _result for Labour is a 1% lead for Jim Murphy. Gis a mo


----------



## weepiper (Mar 4, 2015)

Here you go

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-con...cottish-constituencies-March-2015-LAM124A.pdf


----------



## brogdale (Mar 4, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Here you go
> 
> http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-con...cottish-constituencies-March-2015-LAM124A.pdf
> 
> View attachment 68392


which would play out as...


----------



## brogdale (Mar 4, 2015)

..and Anthony's comment demonstrates the significance of this batch of Scot polls...


> The first batch of Ashcroft’s Scottish polling last month concentrated upon Labour seats in those areas where there was a high YES vote in the referendum, leaving open the question of whether the SNP would be doing quite so well in those areas that had voted NO. *Today’s polls are from areas that voted NO and show the SNP surge almost as strong here. *In the NO areas polled in January Ashcroft found a swing from Lab to the SNP of 25%, here he finds a swing of 22%.


----------



## weepiper (Mar 4, 2015)

a 22% swing to the SNP in Edinburgh South West is pretty mind blowing. Alasdair Darling's been in that seat with a huge majority since 2005. Last time round SNP were in 4th place with 12% of the vote.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 4, 2015)

weepiper said:


> a 22% swing to the SNP in Edinburgh South West is pretty mind blowing. Alasdair Darling's been in that seat with a huge majority since 2005. Last time round SNP were in 4th place with 12% of the vote.


Yep, you've even got (cautious) Anthony believing summat's up...


> In discussions of Scotland at the general election I keep seeing assumptions that the SNP will actually win 20 to 30 seats, that their support will naturally fall back to some extent as the election approaches, that this degree of landslide won’t _really_ happen. That might end up being true – I am normally the first to sound a note of caution to people getting excited over polls showing some unbelievable shift in public opinion – but i*n this case, the polling is very steady and consistent in showing a surge in SNP support, the constituency polling backs up the national polls and the reality of First Past the Post is that a big lead in the vote can be exaggerated into an overwhelming dominance in seat numbers.*


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 4, 2015)

Deleted drunken rant.

About the third one deleted tonight as it goes.


----------



## weepiper (Mar 4, 2015)

Well, seeing as you tagged me in it, I'm kind of curious tbh


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 4, 2015)

When I'm sober then weepiper ! Such may happen before the General Ejection ....

Put it this way for now ... down here, those of us who hate the Tories/LibDems can in many places have fewer clear ways than in Scotland (*pragmatically* thinking -- given the polls and electoral system) of 'kicking them out'.

Those of us down here too, who'd agree that the Labour Party is pretty rubbish/scarcely or no different themselves, I mean ..... deleted rant was frustration.

Back later 

ETA : But in one of the more specifically Scottish threads I reckon, not the polling one. Or OTOH I might decide to steer well clear altogether  --because however much I try to understand Scottish conditions, they seem pretty radically different to what I understand (better) down here.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 5, 2015)

OK, it really does look like I have to reconsider my forecast.  I had always thought the real SNP advance was going to be some way behind the polling.  But looking at those results from No voting areas, I'm forced to rethink that.  You can't ignore the evidence.  It's poll after poll after poll.

Anecdotally, I'm putting that together with people I've spoken to here (a No area) who voted No and who tell me they're voting SNP in May.  Many of these voted Labour in the past (it's a Labour seat), and say things like they're "disgusted with Labour", and that "we always vote Labour, but it makes no difference" and so on.

Like the people Anthony from YouGov refers to, I had assumed the SNP would achieve 20 - 30 seats (and perhaps fewer, given the way FPTP falls) rather than 40 -50, but if the specific No area polling is giving such big SNP returns, I have to concede that it looks like I was wrong.

It's a long time until May, but unless something changes, it looks like the SNP is indeed going to sweep the boards in Scotland.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 5, 2015)

John Curtice is worth reading on this: 

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2015/03/ashcroft-shows-snp-advancing-voting-areas/


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 5, 2015)

So was the independence referendum a masterstroke of political manoeuvring or just a happy accident for the tories?  It's almost certainly killed off the chance of a labour overall majority.  I remember when it looked like a strategic fuck-up in the panic a week before.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 5, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> So was the independence referendum a masterstroke of political manoeuvring or just a happy accident for the tories?  It's almost certainly killed off the chance of a labour overall majority.  I remember when it looked like a strategic fuck-up in the panic a week before.


I don't think you're right about some of those assumptions. 

First, the SNP revival began before the end of the Indy ref campaign. 

Secondly, this must be more complex than about independence, as the SNP is doing extremely well in No majority areas. 

Thirdly, there aren't enough Scottish seats to make too much difference. Labour got huge majorities that dwarfed the total number of Scottish seats in the Blair years. They'd still have been huge majorities even if every single Scottish seat had been SNP in 97. And furthermore, Labour were already on course to be a minority government.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2015)

Yesterday's YG...


> Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of:-
> 
> * CON 31%, LAB 35%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 8%.*
> 
> ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 6, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Thirdly, there aren't enough Scottish seats to make too much difference. Labour got huge majorities that dwarfed the total number of Scottish seats in the Blair years. They'd still have been huge majorities even if every single Scottish seat had been SNP in 97. And furthermore, Labour were already on course to be a minority government.



UK-wide, it seems pretty likely though this time, to be a lot closer than GE's prior to 2010? I mean according to almost all general (not Scotland-specific) polls. Just saying ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 6, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> UK-wide, it seems pretty likely to be a lot closer though this time? I mean according to almost all general (not Scotland-specific) polls. Just saying ...


Yes, it does. It looks like a minority Labour administration.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 6, 2015)

.... which might be depending on the party that has just crushed them in Scotland for help ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 6, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> .... which might be depending on the party that has just crushed them in Scotland for help ...


Indeed.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 6, 2015)

Will, I'm planning on voting the same way I did in 97, if that's a comfort at all. 

Hth


----------



## kabbes (Mar 6, 2015)

Ah, 1997.  A fresh-faced student kabbes votes in his first general election.  He is young and idealistic and thinks that Blair is actually going to sweep in and undo all the Tory policies that are the only government that kabbes has ever known. 

That didn't go so well.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 6, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Ah, 1997.  A fresh-faced student kabbes votes in his first general election.  He is young and idealistic and thinks that Blair is actually going to sweep in and undo all the Tory policies that are the only government that kabbes has ever known.
> 
> That didn't go so well.


My first vote at a general election was 83.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 6, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> My first vote at a general election was 83.


Did they have pencils back then?  Or did you have to vote by declaring an oath in iambic pentemeter?


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 6, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Did they have pencils back then?  Or did you have to vote by declaring an oath in iambic pentemeter?


We weren't allowed to draw selfies in our polling booths.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 6, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> My first vote at a general election was 83.



Snap! I managed to vote in two different London constituencies back then, as well 

Frank Dobson and Peter Shore both got elected, but the Tories swept in generally, with a massive landslide.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 6, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Ah, 1997.  A fresh-faced student kabbes votes in his first general election.  He is young and idealistic and thinks that Blair is actually going to sweep in and undo all the Tory policies that are the only government that kabbes has ever known.
> 
> That didn't go so well.


great Tory election poster that year, blairs face with the eye section ripped out and replaced withred demon eyes 'new labour, new danger'

halcyon days. You couldd still buy mountain dew


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> great Tory election poster that year, blairs face with the eye section ripped out and replaced withred demon eyes 'new labour, new danger'
> 
> halcyon days. You couldd still buy mountain dew



You can still get Mountain Dew and Blair is still a danger, it's like nothing has changed.  Anyone fancy a game of sensible soccer on the Amiga whilst listening to Shed Seven?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Mar 6, 2015)

97 was my first general election.  as is typical for young people my politics were all over the place.  i think at the time i called myself a green anarchist... but i was going to vote lib dem! then decided at the last minute to vote labour because vivian bendall, the local tory mp, was such a massive shit and had a huge majority.

what a ridiculous thing youth is.


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 7, 2015)

My first was a euro election in 89 I think, probably voted green, they would score in the high teens locally in a true blue seat. Some proper posh old guy in a blue rosette outside of the church hall tried to engage me by asking 'if I'd come far on that contraption' referring to my bike. I think it always felt like Tories round there came from another planet (the local MP was proper old school landed gentry that lived in a mansion). We were always stealing or destroying the 'vote conservative' signs in the garden of the massive house on the corner of the posh road as though that would somehow turn the tide.


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 7, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> great Tory election poster that year, blairs face with the eye section ripped out and replaced withred demon eyes 'new labour, new danger'



He actually looks like that poster now.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 7, 2015)

My first election was the North Lincolnshire council elections in 1996 where I had 3 votes so cast one for Labour, one Libdem, and one independent to maximise the anti-Tory vote. The independent got in and joined the Tories a year later lol.

Learned my lesson and voted and leafleted for Labour in 97 and we won a previously safe Tory seat though partly due to boundary changes and partly due to cash for questions


----------



## kabbes (Mar 7, 2015)

Growing up, my dad was a shop steward and my mum worked for a homeless charity.  Politics wasn't complicated -- we liked Tony Benn and Arthur Scargill and we hated Thatcher and Tebbitt.  I met John Smith in 1993 as a 16 year-old at a Labour rally that we attended because my mum was standing as a Labour councillor (I canvassed for her, she lost by about 50 votes).  I was aware that my parents didn't trust Tony Blair but come 1997, when I was 20, who else was I going to vote for but Labour?

Things have changed since.  My dad became management and then retired.  My mum got disillusioned by the charity sector.  My parents still profess to have socialist views but they then say and do a lot of things that their younger selves would have been horrified by.  I drifted more liberal for a while before reading a lot of things and heading back far more leftward than we had ever been growing up.  And I wouldn't touch the current Labour lot with a barge pole.


----------



## chilango (Mar 7, 2015)

My one and only GE vote was for Plaid Cymru in '92.

Spoilt or not been on roll ever since.

(I've voted in locals, Europeans etc. in the meantime - Communist and Green iirc).

This time? In a semi-marginal Tory seat there's a strong pull to vote Labour. The Greens locally are on a roll and saying the right things. Deep down I know there's no real point - except for doing something different from not voting.

What can I say? I love the maps, graphs and charts though.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 7, 2015)

chilango said:


> What can I say? I love the maps, graphs and charts though.


Me too.


----------



## bemused (Mar 7, 2015)

Miliband is really talking some shite at the moment:



> He argued: "The differences at this election are the widest they've been for a generation, but at the same time this election is set to be the closest for a generation.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-31764576

Looks like the SNP has him shitting his pants.


----------



## laptop (Mar 7, 2015)

Maybe this should go in the "ruthlessly incompetent" thread, but:

How does this whole "David Cameron calls on Labour's Ed Miliband to rule out a post-election deal between his party and the SNP" schtick work?

Are we supposed to be afraid that if we vote Labour we'll have to eat haggis and get out our passport on the way to Edinburgh?



(I know there's a self-consistent argument that the SNP holding the balance of power Endangers The Union, but surely all those in England who care about The Union with Scotland are already swivel-eyed Tory diehards?)


----------



## BigTom (Mar 7, 2015)

laptop said:


> Maybe this should go in the "ruthlessly incompetent" thread, but:
> 
> How does this whole "David Cameron calls on Labour's Ed Miliband to rule out a post-election deal between his party and the SNP" schtick work?
> 
> ...



Could be a play for some who have gone to UKIP - suggesting that if they vote UKIP it'll hand Labour a majority, and they'll go into coalition with SNP and there won't be a UK to be independent anymore. With the polls so tight, I think there'll be a lot of this going on - Tories playing to UKIP voters, Labour to Green, with the message that the election is tight and if you put in a protest vote you'll end up with something you really don't want.


----------



## treelover (Mar 7, 2015)

> Ukip on track for 100-plus second places across England
> Analysis predicts huge breakthrough as Nigel Farage provides main threat to three parties
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/07/ukip-100-second-places-may-election-nigel-farage




maybe it is to be expected , such parties and their successes are common in the EU, countries like Sweden even.


----------



## treelover (Mar 7, 2015)

> The analysis, conducted by Robert Ford at the University of Manchester for the _Observer_, suggests that the biggest threat to the established parties from Ukip will come in future local and national elections after May, once it has put down local roots and established itself in the minds of voters as a real alternative to the incumbent party.



Ford, is he a good analyst?

I know for such a young political analyst he produces some very contentious reports


----------



## treelover (Mar 7, 2015)

Thinking about it, why is the Guardian highlighting this one researchers views as if they are facts?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 7, 2015)

treelover said:


> Thinking about it, why is the Guardian highlighting this one researchers views as if they are facts?


 They're not. His analysis is presented for what it is; psephological prediction.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 7, 2015)

Tories still well adrift from their 2010 position in England...


----------



## weepiper (Mar 9, 2015)

Populus poll puts SNP up and Labour down almost 10% in Glasgow in the last 3 months

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/city-poll-puts-snp-further-ahead-199675n.120260231



> The UK wide Populus poll was carried out in February, across the major cities of around 14,000 people with more than 600 in Glasgow.
> 
> It showed the rise in SNP support in the city at 9.8% while Labour dropped 9.5% since November last year.
> 
> The change since the 2010 election is even greater with the SNP up 28.5% dan Labour down 27.7%.



edit: or to put it another way


----------



## Sue (Mar 9, 2015)

That must be the much talked about Murphy Effect...


----------



## JTG (Mar 9, 2015)

Sue said:


> That must be the much talked about Murphy Effect...


Murphy's Law would be more apposite


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 10, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Tories still well adrift from their 2010 position in England...





The headline figs in that Smithson tweet don't seem to fit with the online version (from The Obsever itself) of that poll ... or a different one? Please clarify, brogdale ??


----------



## weepiper (Mar 12, 2015)

More from the Populus polls

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/snp-even-further-ahead-in-edinburgh-poll-shows-1-3716856



> *THE SNP is continuing to gain support in Edinburgh as the general election approaches, new polling figures reveal.*
> 
> Statistics from a series of Populus surveys during February, broken down by city, show the party on 41.6 per cent across the Capital compared with 23.3 per cent for Labour, 18.2 per cent for the Tories and 7.4 per cent for the Liberal Democrats.



I think this is an amalgam of several polls, looks like the highest number of Edinburgh respondents I can find after a quick scan of the Populus website is 466 so small pinch of salt, but still.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 13, 2015)

My first GE was 1997 and I voted Labour just because I'd only ever known Tory governments and naively believed against all evidence that Blair would turn out to be Atlee mkII. I was a fucking idiot. Fortuately the MP I cast my vote for was none other than Tony Benn so I don't really regret it.

Since then it's been spunking cock apart from once (can't remember which election or what seat I was in) when the Communist Party stood and I couldn't resist it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 13, 2015)




----------



## weepiper (Mar 13, 2015)

Kellner's commentary on that YouGov poll

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/13/snp-remains-course-landslide/


----------



## miktheword (Mar 14, 2015)

Labour 2 ahead in opinium, spoiling the guardian's earlier this week, 'il surpasso' analysis and then after remarking that comres last night also had same two point lead, they unashamedly state that talk of Tory surge may have been premature


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 15, 2015)

Yes, I did think Alberto Nardelli (in the Guardian in the week) was overdoing that surpasso thing -- I was far from sure he had enough data to go on, to be drawing such a bold conclusion.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 15, 2015)

Its still pretty much even stevens in the polls. What does seem to be happening is that both labour and tory vote shares are creeping up - maybe at the expense of UKIP and the greens - but this is an uneven process so you get a little boost for the tories, then a little boost for labour. 
Many experts have been using models based on previous elections and have been predicting that the torys will steadily climb into the lead - but they have been saying this for about a year and it doesn't seem to be happening - certainly not on a big enough scale for them to win. 
What it does mean is that everytime you get the odd poll showing a tory lead, they all start shouting - "The Tory Swingback is here!" - but are then the next batch of polls show a slight labour lead and they all go quiet again.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2015)

Ashcroft's latest marginals seem to indicate a sizable-ish increae in swing to labour in the ones polled this time - and UKIP and greens taking huge lumps out of tories and lib-dems


----------



## weepiper (Mar 19, 2015)




----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 20, 2015)

Ashcrofts marginal  polls suggest the lib dems will be stacking up the lost deposits come may 7th.

Maybe we should have a prediction poll for that - over 100? 150?  £500 a pop too.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 20, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Ashcrofts marginal  polls suggest the lib dems will be stacking up the lost deposits come may 7th.
> 
> Maybe we should have a prediction poll for that - over 100? 150?  £500 a pop too.


I reckon over 150 as they will be so thinly stretched. Especially if they're focusing activists/Councillors in winnable seats.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 20, 2015)

"Less than seven weeks to go and the Labour Scottish nightmare continues"

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/in...d-the-labour-nightmare-in-scotland-continues/


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 23, 2015)

*ICM poll: Labour faces wipeout in Scotland after new leader fails to dent SNP support*
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/23/labour-faces-electoral-rout-scotland-snp

"Prof John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, Scotland’s pre-eminent psephologist, calculated the post-2010 swing in each class of constituency, and concluded that Scottish Labour could be wiped out in all but two seats.

On Curtice’s alternative projection, which takes into account the SNP’s disproportionate surge in Labour’s heartlands, the SNP would snatch 53 of Scotland’s 59 seats.

The three other parties would split the remaining six equally – with two seats apiece. The extraordinary implication is that Scottish Labour would be left with no more representation than the Scottish Tories, who have been semi-extinct at Westminster since 1997".







He said: “There is nothing in these patterns to suggest that the rise of the SNP is not extending to supposedly safe Labour heartlands – if anything, the opposite is the case”.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 23, 2015)

No evidence of the budget having a meaningful effect upon polling....


> Putting all the five post-budget polls together, *I can see no sign of any significant budget boost*. If other polls had echoed Opinium’s finding then it would be fair to conclude that the budget had moved votes to the Tories, but so far they haven’t – Survation have shown only a twitch in the Conservative direction, YouGov looks stable, Populus’s Friday poll showed movement to Labour. *This all looks to me like normal random variation. I may be wrong, perhaps when we’ve a week of post-budget polls we’ll be able to detect some more subtle movement, but it certainly doesn’t look like it’s been some great game changer.*


----------



## brogdale (Mar 23, 2015)

Ashcroft has level pegging on the national, but the kippers continue to sink...


----------



## bemused (Mar 23, 2015)

I must admit I chuckled when Ed had his photo taken in the second kitchen in his house because the first was deemed too posh. At least Davy doesn't pretend he's not rich. I'm not voting for either of them but I do see Ed Miliband as a walking train wreck and the sooner the Labour party ditch him for someone even half way authentic the better.  Shame Alan Johnson was never elected Leader.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 24, 2015)

Smithson's take on Ashcroft's _Eng Only _numbers...



Con -> Lab swing still near to 5%. And as Anthony pointed out last week, any English seat that Lab take from the vermin is effectively _*worth double *_that of any Scottish seat they lose to the nationalists....ie. (in terms of the majoritarian contest) 20 English seats would cover the loss of 40 North of the border.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 24, 2015)

Useful guide for polling anoraks from Anthony..


----------



## brogdale (Mar 26, 2015)

YG Anthony considers the 'squeeze' on the smaller parties...


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 27, 2015)

brogdale : I fail to achieve the correct level of geek with your post #1891

Why, and how,  do 20 Labour gains in England compensate for the loss of 40 in Scotland? 

Tried to check Mike Smithson's feed just now  -- but I still failed to grasp that at all


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 27, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> brogdale : I fail to achieve the correct level of geek with your post #1891
> 
> Why, and how,  do 20 Labour gains in England compensate for the loss of 40 in Scotland?
> 
> Tried to check Mike Smithson's feed just now  -- but I still failed to grasp that at all


Presumably because the 20 gains probably come from the Tories and consequently have the simultaneous effect of lowering the number of seats they require to be the largest party as well as augmenting the number they win themselves.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2015)

Come on william. This is basic stuff!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2015)

Guardian reckon 8 labour gains in london as well - but offers a really offensive analysis about how thick w/c people used to vote tory in london until the immigrants came and _swamped _them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 27, 2015)

> the population is younger, better-educated and most particularly ethnically diverse.



classic guardian analysis there


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Come on william. This is basic stuff!



Sure, but I'd still like a take on it from the real experts on Urban re polling .... taking that point from Lo Siento.  though. Ta.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 27, 2015)

All forners are left-wing (but actually neoliberal and not at all left-wing) _fact_


----------



## brogdale (Mar 27, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> brogdale : I fail to achieve the correct level of geek with your post #1891
> 
> Why, and how,  do 20 Labour gains in England compensate for the loss of 40 in Scotland?
> 
> Tried to check Mike Smithson's feed just now  -- but I still failed to grasp that at all


Assuming that Lab & Con are you and a mate in the pub, both with £100...if you 'give' £40 to someone else in the pub, you're £40 down on your mate, right? So, (him being a communist sort), he offers to give you some dosh to start the evening level, like. How much does he need to give you to get back to parity?


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 27, 2015)

brogdale : Cheers!  

Liking that analogy


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2015)

All of the forecasts for 2015 election from leading academics #LSEforecasting -->


----------



## kabbes (Mar 27, 2015)

How are they reassigning "others" for those who don't split out SNP and co?  And what is going on with the one that predicts 9 seats for the SNP?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 27, 2015)

kabbes said:


> How are they reassigning "others" for those who don't split out SNP and co?  And what is going on with the one that predicts 9 seats for the SNP?


 Certainly looks like there's some jokers in the pack there!

That said, the means look reasonably credible...even if the nationalists number looks a tad under-cooked.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2015)

kabbes said:


> How are they reassigning "others" for those who don't split out SNP and co?  And what is going on with the one that predicts 9 seats for the SNP?


Don't know/each will have their own method. Remember, this is academics using others polling, not pollsters.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Don't know/each will have their own method. Remember, this is academics using others polling, not pollsters.


Burp, Sloane and wanktank must be funded by Nulab!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2015)

Now we get the first proper poll after the program from YG:

LAB - 36% (+2) 
CON - 32% (-4) 
UKIP - 13% (-) 
LDEM - 8% (+1) 
GRN - 6% (+1)


----------



## brogdale (Mar 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Now we get the first proper poll after the program from YG:
> 
> LAB - 36% (+2)
> CON - 32% (-4)
> ...


It was Burley what won it!


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 29, 2015)

I think we may start to see the torys panicking soon. I think they were convinced by various models predicting that their would vote would go up in the run up in the election. It has - but only marginally, and labour's has gone up too. The latest poll is probably margin of error stuff and the 'true' picture is still very much neck and neck - but its created a narrative of plucky ed doing well in the non-debate and labour gaining momentum as a result.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 29, 2015)

I suspect, barring mishaps (not things like the immigration mug which will have zero impact I mean big corruption or omnishambles stuff) both main parties will continue to squeeze the smaller ones as we get closer, while remaining neck and neck, with Scotland however bucking that trend with the SNP vote holding up.

Am I right in assuming the Liberal slime are not improving anywhere?


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 29, 2015)

As this is the closest thing we have to a stats thread, here's a useful site:

Introductory blurb:

http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=12024

The search function gives you all the stats on your (or any given) constituency.  Population demographics, who won in last 5 general elections, who is forecast to win this time, comparisons with locals and Europeans, and so on.

Groovy.

The search function.  Enter your chosen constituency here:

http://democraticdashboard.com


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

Love this polling...


> In my weekly round up I mentioned some YouGov polling about which taxes would rise under a Labour or Conservative government, conducted before Prime Minister’s Question time, Cameron ruling out a VAT rise and Ed Balls ruling out an NI rise. YouGov repeated those questions in this poll to see if they had changed. *At the start of the week, 31% of people thought VAT would rise if the Conservatives won. Following David Cameron ruling out a rise in VAT, this is now…32%. At the start of the week 39% of people expected national insurance to rise if Labour won, but since Ed Balls ruled it out, that has changed to… 40%.* A lovely illustration of how much of the politicians’ arguments, exchanges and pledges make not the slightest difference to public opinion.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> I think we may start to see the torys panicking soon. I think they were convinced by various models predicting that their would vote would go up in the run up in the election. It has - but only marginally, and labour's has gone up too. The latest poll is probably margin of error stuff and the 'true' picture is still very much neck and neck - but its created a narrative of plucky ed doing well in the non-debate and labour gaining momentum as a result.



They will certainly be concerned about the early evidence that their negative campaigning strategy may not work to their advantage. Crosby has clearly staked a great deal on the 'scary Miliband in No.10' idea, and it's not surprising when so much else of their record/'vision' does not stand up to examination.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> They will certainly be concerned about the early evidence that their negative campaigning strategy may not work to their advantage. Crosby has clearly staked a great deal on the 'scary Miliband in No.10' idea, and it's not surprising when so much else of their record/'vision' does not stand up to examination.



Crosby's strategy has just reminded me of this, tbh:


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 29, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> Crosby's strategy has just reminded me of this, tbh:


That's all they've got, though.

Tory policies are shit, and Labour's are similar, so they can't argue on policy. It's just the 'danger'. Oh, and unions...again.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> That's all they've got, though.
> 
> Tory policies are shit, and Labour's are similar, so they can't argue on policy. It's just the 'danger'. Oh, and unions...again.


The vermin's policies are not shit; not if you appreciate that they used the bank crash as the pretext for achieving their goal of a much smaller (consolidator) state. The challenge they face is concealing their motivation and aspiration in an less fraught economic climate. Hence the reliance on negative campaigning.


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> The vermin's policies are not shit; not if you appreciate that they used the bank crash as the pretext for achieving their goal of a much smaller (consolidator) state. The challenge they face is concealing their motivation and aspiration in an less fraught economic climate. Hence the reliance on negative campaigning.


Their goal and their policies are shit for the vast majority of society.

Just because they bring about their own aims, doesn't make them good. That's why they have to conceal everything. No one would vote for them if they were honest.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Their goal and their policies are shit for the vast majority of society.
> 
> Just because they bring about their own aims, doesn't make them good. That's why they have to conceal everything. No one would vote for them if they were honest.


Of course. But I think it's important not, (just), to say their policies are shit. In their own terms, or rather the terms determined by financial capital, they have been remarkably successful, particularly given that they were compelled to work in coalition. 

As ever, their challenge is to conceal that and persuade many millions of people to vote against their own interests, but even greater difficulty arises when their trope is predicated on a financial crisis that they are claiming to have averted. Hence the negative route.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> The vermin's policies are not shit; not if you appreciate that they used the bank crash as the pretext for achieving their goal of a much smaller (consolidator) state.



I think the Tories have been pursuing three main agendas in that respect.  The first is a genuine attempt to put the public finances back on an even keel after the crash.  They've gone about it the wrong way and it's not worked, but I think they're so sunk in liberal ideology that they genuinely believe there's no alternative.  The second is that they've used the crisis as a cover for pursuing the ideological goal of a much smaller state, and as you say they've done so worryingly successfully.  The third is simply to protect their own electoral base by making damn sure that the spending cuts have fallen disproportionately hard on the cities, the poor and on young people, since none tend to vote Tory.  That's profoundly stupid and short-sighted - in the end, Birmingham, Liverpool or Hull all contribute far more to the economy than some no-mark Tory commuter town - quite apart from being cynical to the last degree.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

...and here's an indicator of that challenge...criticism from their own about concealment on welfare...they're not confident they can carry their core...


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 29, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Their goal and their policies are shit for the vast majority of society.
> 
> Just because they bring about their own aims, doesn't make them good. That's why they have to conceal everything. No one would vote for them if they were honest.


This is why I don't trust approval ratings in polls. 

"Do you think Cameron is doing a good job of leading the Tory party?"

Em, are you asking if I approve of what he's doing, or whether he's doing it well?  He's doing a terrific job of being vermin.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> I think the Tories have been pursuing three main agendas in that respect.  The first is a genuine attempt to put the public finances back on an even keel after the crash.  They've gone about it the wrong way and it's not worked, but I think they're so sunk in liberal ideology that they genuinely believe there's no alternative.  The second is that they've used the crisis as a cover for pursuing the ideological goal of a much smaller state, and as you say they've done so worryingly successfully.  The third is simply to protect their own electoral base by making damn sure that the spending cuts have fallen disproportionately hard on the cities, the poor and on young people, since none tend to vote Tory.  That's profoundly stupid and short-sighted - in the end, Birmingham, Liverpool or Hull all contribute far more to the economy than some no-mark Tory commuter town - quite apart from being cynical to the last degree.


Yeah, but I'm not at all convinced that they ever were _actually _interested in balancing the public finances. If that had been a genuine goal, rather than merely a pretext for the neo-liberal ideological agenda, they could have achieved greater progress with higher tax receipts, as well as their public sector cuts. The fact that they didn't, and that Osborne has determinedly stuck with 'Plan A' austerity betrays the real driver IMO. 

This graph.._UK current budget deficit: June 2010 plans and outturns (per cent GDP)._


...pretty much proves how little the 'balanced books' concept has actually mattered to them. Faced with rubbish tax receipts, caused by their own small-state austerity, they've  allowed the planned deficit figures to drift wildly away from the 2010 estimates. The need to perpetuate financial capital's neo-liberal project taking precedence over any thatcherite/swabian housewife notions of fiscal probity.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ...and here's an indicator of that challenge...criticism from their own about concealment on welfare...they're not confident they can carry their core...




I think that IDS may have caused the tories some damage with this - it smacks of extreme arrogance and will set multiple hares running about which benefits they may or may not target.

Tory campaign not having the greatest of starts is it?


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> They will certainly be concerned about the early evidence that their negative campaigning strategy may not work to their advantage. Crosby has clearly staked a great deal on the 'scary Miliband in No.10' idea, and it's not surprising when so much else of their record/'vision' does not stand up to examination.


I agree with Alex Salmond on this: posters with your opponent standing in front of Number 10 aren't a good idea. Even if you're trying to say it's a scary idea, you've no control over how the public will take it. If you want the public to be thinking "Cameron for number 10" don't keep saying "Miliband in number 10" over and over; especially not to the exclusion of your guy.


----------



## Mitre10 (Mar 29, 2015)

Has anyone here ever been contacted by one of the pollsters?
I haven't and I can't recall anyone I know mentioning they have either.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2015)

3) How come I’ve never been invited to take part?

There are about 40 million adults in the UK. Each opinion poll involves about 1,000 people. If you are talking about _political voting intention polls_, then probably under 100 are conducted by phone each year. You can do the sums – if there are 40,000,000 adults in the UK and 100,000 are interviewed for a political opinion poll then on average you will be interviewed once every 400 years. It may be a long wait.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 29, 2015)

Mitre10 said:


> Has anyone here ever been contacted by one of the pollsters?
> I haven't and I can't recall anyone I know mentioning they have either.


There you go:

https://yougov.co.uk/refer/dAbtBa-v05nvvd0PIHQl9A/?sourceid=229470


----------



## BigTom (Mar 29, 2015)

Mitre10 said:


> Has anyone here ever been contacted by one of the pollsters?
> I haven't and I can't recall anyone I know mentioning they have either.



I fairly regularly get political poll surverys from yougov. I've been claiming to vote green recently.


----------



## weepiper (Mar 29, 2015)

Yeah YouGov's been asking me about my voting intentions quite a lot recently, I think it's a postcode thing though.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 29, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Yeah YouGov's been asking me about my voting intentions quite a lot recently, I think it's a postcode thing though.


Me too. The political polls used to be few and far between, but I've been getting them thick and fast of late.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2015)

YG's ITV _*Wales only *_poll gives Lab 40% for the first time in over a year...







Will be interesting to see to what extent PC rises and dents that figure after Leanne Wood's chance to shine in Thursday's TV debate. if she performs like she can (see last QT where she dared to advocate more trades union influence) I can imagine that she has a chance of some 'bounce'.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2015)

...and YG/ITV's _*London only *_polling showing potentially damaging losses for the vermin/coalition...








> Here are the figures, and the shift since 2010.
> 
> Labour: 46% (up 9)
> 
> ...



LD - 14%!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2015)

Monday populus has 34% each -+1 lab/+3 con

ComRes has a london poll only for ITV:

LAB 46% +9.4
CON 32% -2.5
LIB 8* -14.1
UKIP 9% +7.3
GRN 4%

A CON-LAB swing of just under 6%


----------



## Up the junction (Mar 30, 2015)

It's obv not a universal swing in London, varies (literally) seat to seat.

Hence the value of the Ashcroft polls and private polling - often better to look at target and non-target seats for the inside story.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> It's obv not a universal swing in London, varies (literally) seat to seat.
> 
> Hence the value of the Ashcroft polls and private polling - often better to look at target and non-target seats for the inside story.


Yes, because the stuff in the media about the LDs losing all but Cable in London is gibberish. Brake will certainly hold C&W.


----------



## Up the junction (Mar 30, 2015)

Simon Hughes  might go though - huge efforts going in for a 10% LD > Lab swing and they are really very close. May be over the line.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> It's obv not a universal swing in London, varies (literally) seat to seat.
> 
> Hence the value of the Ashcroft polls and private polling - often better to look at target and non-target seats for the inside story.


They can certainly tell us more about the seat they're polling - nonetheless an average like the above tells us _something _as it's going to contain all the local swings, if not in quite such depth. But it seems pretty clear that labour are going to taking chunks out of the lib-dems across the city and that this is reflected in the city-wide poll. Matching that to individual seats involves a bit more and utilising local knowledge.


----------



## Up the junction (Mar 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> They can certainly tell us more about the seat they're polling - nonetheless an average like the above tells us _something _as it's going to contain all the local swings, if not in quite such depth. But it seems pretty clear that labour are going to taking chunks out of the lib-dems across the city and that this is reflected in the city-wide poll. Matching that to individual seats involves a bit more and utilising local knowledge.


Yep, I think Ashcroft told us 12-15 months ago the Labour-side of the LD's had broadly already come across. What we're looking at now is the rump of Con-leaning LDs.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2015)

Like my neighbour who has an inbuilt and tribal dislike of Labour (largely for anti-socialist reasons that no longer actually exist in the modern Labour party) and quite likes the Tories but votes Lib Dem because she perceives them as "nicer", i.e. less UKIPpy.  In many ways she's not wrong too in this understanding of the Lib Dems.  That's a core vote they're not going to lose.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2015)

Close.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2015)

**nah-wrong**


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> **nah-wrong**


Did you clock UKIP>LD in the ITV London polling. That's pretty fucking damning for the collaborators.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Did you clock UKIP>LD in the ITV London polling. That's pretty fucking damning for the collaborators.


There's nothing left for them beyond individual rep - the incumbency factor is going to be inverted. I need to do a chart of who that might apply to. But yeah - it's look after yourself time for them. But do they have any activists left - and where will they direct them? I think clegg is gone.


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 30, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, but I'm not at all convinced that they ever were _actually _interested in balancing the public finances. If that had been a genuine goal, rather than merely a pretext for the neo-liberal ideological agenda, they could have achieved greater progress with higher tax receipts, as well as their public sector cuts. The fact that they didn't, and that Osborne has determinedly stuck with 'Plan A' austerity betrays the real driver IMO.
> 
> This graph.._UK current budget deficit: June 2010 plans and outturns (per cent GDP)._
> View attachment 69409
> ...


Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

Either he stuck with Plan A austerity (and balanced the books), or he didn't, and allowed the deficit to rise. I'm all for sticking it to the Tories, but it has to be based in reality.

The graph shows that after 2012-2013, the austerity spending plans actually went out of the window, so he can't have stuck to 'Plan A'. Simon Wren-Lewis explains here: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n04/simon-wren-lewis/the-austerity-con

I'm guessing you've already ready that article as it looks to be where you sourced your graph, but how do you come away with such a different reading?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
> 
> Either he stuck with Plan A austerity (and balanced the books), or he didn't, and allowed the deficit to rise. I'm all for sticking it to the Tories, but it has to be based in reality.
> 
> ...


I think what I'm trying to say is that 'Plan A' was not the Plan A they said it was. First and foremost the vermin saw their chance to accelerate the neo-liberal, consolidator state project under the pretext of concern that 'the markets' require "balanced books". They don't of course and the vermin always knew that. So the reason that they've not met their debt reduction targets is the depressed tax take resulting from the recessionary impact of the austerity. Their actual game-plan is progressing nicely, and they can even spin the slipped debt target as the need for more and more cuts. Financial capital's priority is for the state to continue to facilitate the displacement of the state in areas that they can monetise, and keep on collecting their debts for them. They're not really worried about tax; they don't pay it....the little people do.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 31, 2015)

...and their shills like Finkelstein will sit on Newsnight and tell Davis that dave is a pragmatic managerialist with no real ideology...and then in the next breath describe miliband as "much more ideological".


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 1, 2015)

Surprise ComRes poll for the Metro overnight has just come out and shows a dramatic LibDem resurgence...must be an outlier?:

Con: 31 (-3)
Lab: 31 (-4)
Lib: 16 (+8)
UKIP: 11 (-1)
Green: 5 (-1)


http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/04/01/lib-makes-dramatic-gains-in-overnight-ComRes-poll/


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 1, 2015)

doh..


----------



## kabbes (Apr 1, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Surprise ComRes poll for the Metro overnight has just come out and shows a dramatic LibDem resurgence...must be an outlier?:
> 
> Con: 31 (-3)
> Lab: 31 (-4)
> ...


Fascinating.  Well worth a read.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 1, 2015)

Lol


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 1, 2015)

Are we going to see shy Libdems in this election? We've seen shy Tories, we've seen shy 'Nos' in #indyref and I suspect there were some shy Labour in 2010 - could the same be repeated for the Libdems now? Particularly among middle class Greeny/Liberal types? Would it be enough to make a difference?

ETA: not a response to that Metro poll.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 1, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Are we going to see shy Libdems in this election? We've seen shy Tories, we've seen shy 'Nos' in #indyref and I suspect there were some shy Labour in 2010 - could the same be repeated for the Libdems now? Particularly among middle class Greeny/Liberal types? Would it be enough to make a difference?
> 
> ETA: not a response to that Metro poll.


I think so, though we won't _see _them till the results roll out. I think most people that post here regularly have tempered the line from some that the LDs will be wiped out in terms of seats; they won't, they'll probably hang on to about 3/5 of their present representation.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 1, 2015)

i rekon there could be shy labour voters in scotland.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 1, 2015)

I'm not so convinced about the shy LibDem concept.  A large proportion of the Lib vote was expediency, voting against rather than for somebody.  It's that vote that has been annhilated by the coalition.  Those people aren't ashamed of their allegiance because they don't really have an allegiance to be ashamed of.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 1, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I'm not so convinced about the shy LibDem concept.  A large proportion of the Lib vote was expediency, voting against rather than for somebody.  It's that vote that has been annhilated by the coalition.  Those people aren't ashamed of their allegiance because they don't really have an allegiance to be ashamed of.



That analysis does not work so well in seats with a LD incumbent.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 1, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I'm not so convinced about the shy LibDem concept.  A large proportion of the Lib vote was expediency, voting against rather than for somebody.  It's that vote that has been annhilated by the coalition.  Those people aren't ashamed of their allegiance because they don't really have an allegiance to be ashamed of.



Yep - much of their vote was made up of tactical left of centre voters  and people going for a safe 'protest vote'. These people are not going to vote for them now.


----------



## killer b (Apr 1, 2015)

some will. When faced with a tory, if voting lib dem will keep them out, some will still do it. less than before, but enough for it to not be a total wipeout.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 1, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I'm not so convinced about the shy LibDem concept.  A large proportion of the Lib vote was expediency, voting against rather than for somebody.  It's that vote that has been annhilated by the coalition.  Those people aren't ashamed of their allegiance because they don't really have an allegiance to be ashamed of.


You'll probably find shy Lib Dems in seats where Labour have no chance. People who hate the Lib Dems and will tell a pollster as much, but when it comes to it will vote Lib Dem because it's still preferable to a Tory.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 1, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> i rekon there could be shy labour voters in scotland.


There may well be.  It's something I've considered.  But you have to ask yourself this: who are they, and why are they shy?

Shy means they don't want to tell pollsters what they're really voting.  So, why are Scottish voters holding back from telling pollsters that they intend to vote Labour?  (eg They don't want YouGov to have them down as Unionists?  - Why would that bother Unionists?)

I can't come up with a plausible reason.  I'm not saying there isn't one.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 1, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> There may well be.  It's something I've considered.  But you have to ask yourself this: who are they, and why are they shy?
> 
> Shy means they don't want to tell pollsters what they're really voting.  So, why are Scottish voters holding back from telling pollsters that they intend to vote Labour?  (eg They don't want YouGov to have them down as Unionists?  - Why would that bother Unionists?)
> 
> I can't come up with a plausible reason.  I'm not saying there isn't one.



shame?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 1, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> shame?




Well, that would be a rational response.  But if you're a lifelong Labour voter in a Labour voting community that has had Labour representation since Keir Hardie (and who maybe voted No and wants to stop the SNP), what are you ashamed of?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 1, 2015)

In Scotland It's not so much shame as seeing that there is something exciting happening and wanting to be seen as part of it, maybe even genuinely wanting to be part of it - but then being swayed back as the election gets closer. Also non Labour unionists who decide to vote Labour as an anti-nat vote not because they support Labour.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 1, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> In Scotland It's not so much shame as seeing that there is something exciting happening and wanting to be seen as part of it, maybe even genuinely wanting to be part of it - but then being swayed back as the election gets closer. Also non Labour unionists who decide to vote Labour as an anti-nat vote not because they support Labour.


The first point is certainly plausible, and not a shy voter as such (as you rightly imply). I think that's a reasonable effect to look out for. 

The second I'm not so sure of. I think those people are already accounted for in the continuing Labour numbers.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 1, 2015)

Shy Lib Dems ahoy!


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 1, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Shy Lib Dems ahoy!


That *would* be a shame.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2015)

That's Clegg behind labour.

And i do hope those 7% UKIPers in that seat look closely at what opps there are...and greens...


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 1, 2015)

That shift in Cambridge is strange, isn't it? Julian Huppert getting a pass for voting against coalition policy?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 1, 2015)

ineffectual Labour candidate in Cambridge as well


----------



## belboid (Apr 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> That's Clegg behind labour.
> 
> And i do hope those 7% UKIPers in that seat look closely at what opps there are...and greens...


greens are interesting there.  A chum of mine is out on the knocker for Labour, and is furious at the Greens for standing and possibly helping Clegg stay in.  But as that poll shows, once they realise what their vote means - the fuckers are moving to _back _the LibScum.


----------



## BigTom (Apr 1, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> That shift in Cambridge is strange, isn't it? Julian Huppert getting a pass for voting against coalition policy?



From what I understand Huppert is a very involved constituency MP, was a uni professor or something and is big on cycling in a town with a huge proportion of people cycling, so he really fits to that seat, regardless of party.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 1, 2015)

BigTom said:


> From what I understand Huppert is a very involved constituency MP, was a uni professor or something and is big on cycling in a town with a huge proportion of people cycling, so he really fits to that seat, regardless of party.


Which would explain a solid base sure... but the direction of travel since last Autumn?


----------



## BigTom (Apr 1, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Which would explain a solid base sure... but the direction of travel since last Autumn?



oh, ok I haven't seen/paid attention to his personal numbers, I couldn't explain why they'd be rising, that is very odd.


----------



## Up the junction (Apr 1, 2015)

London:
2010 Cons: 13% now UKIP, 10% now Labour.
35% of LD voters in 2010 now voting Labour.

Assuming tactical voting in key seats that looks powerful medicine.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...ard_London_Results_150330_VotingIntention.pdf


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2015)

Look at the conservative efforts in clegg's seat.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 1, 2015)

BigTom said:


> oh, ok I haven't seen/paid attention to his personal numbers, I couldn't explain why they'd be rising, that is very odd.


it's OK I've explained it


----------



## Steel Icarus (Apr 3, 2015)

I have, out of curiosity, done a couple of those "Who should I vote for?" online quizzes. I live in a constituency which is pretty much a straight-up Lab/Con fight (2010 Con majority of just over 4,000) so I don't know whether to just spoil my paper as I have since 1997 or...something else. Don't want to vote Labour, unsure about Green cos is there any point?

I've discovered through these quizzes I should vote for variously SNP, Plaid Cymru or Sinn Fein (that's handy considering I'm in Lincolnshire), or Green or Labour. None of this means much particularly in terms of who I might vote for, there's a TUSC candidate and if anyone's getting my vote it'll be them. But I was struck by how leading the questions are, there's simply no room for certain opinions. 

Take "Should the tax rate for earnings over £150,000 be raised to 50%? Yes/No". Er, no. They should be whacked up to at least 75% or something. But 50% is your option, so you either agree with 50% or 45%. And another - "Should Britain leave the EU?" - Yeah, I think so - from a wholly different perspective than UKIP are coming at the question - but vote "Yes" and your view is bracketed with that bunch.

Not so much the Overton Window moving rightwards, it's just too small to see through properly. 

"Vote [insert name selected with pin] and get a liberal" - yay. And still the huge piousness from all over hoves into view around this time - "If you don't vote you have no reason to complain". 

Viva democracy!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 4, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I'm not so convinced about the shy LibDem concept.  A large proportion of the Lib vote was expediency, voting against rather than for somebody.  It's that vote that has been annhilated by the coalition.  Those people aren't ashamed of their allegiance because they don't really have an allegiance to be ashamed of.



I dunno, there are parts of the country where there's actually a lot of active lib dem support. In North Devon, home of Jeremy Thorpe, Labour basically doesn't exist and anyone who isn't a fox-eviscerating barbour-jacketed toff votes lib dem.

e2a: I just saw the graphic above suggesting that the tories are gonna walk off with the North Devon seat


----------



## chilango (Apr 4, 2015)

I know someone who is transferring their vote to their 2nd/holiday home in order to vote LibDem in a seat where they might win.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Apr 4, 2015)

chilango said:


> I know someone who is transferring their vote to their 2nd/holiday home in order to vote LibDem in a seat where they might win.



Wow, so many awful things in a single sentence.  Impressive.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 4, 2015)

Survation's first _*post-debate*_ poll suggests that the event has had little impact upon the party positions, yet in the 'after-glow' of the TV coverage all the leaders have seen their personal ratings improve...except Clegg, of course.



> The Survation poll for the Mirror has topline figures of:-
> 
> * CON 31%(-1), LAB 33%(nc), LDEM 9%(+1), UKIP 18%(nc), GRN 3%(-1).*
> 
> Tabs are here. Changes are from the most recent Survation poll a week ago, and clearly show no significant change from the debate.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 4, 2015)

chilango said:


> I know someone who is transferring their vote to their 2nd/holiday home in order to vote LibDem in a seat where they might win.


Good lord.


----------



## chilango (Apr 4, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Good lord.



The full story is even worse. I'm not sharing that though


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 4, 2015)

chilango said:


> The full story is even worse. I'm not sharing that though


 you can't say that and then leave it!

PMs now!


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 4, 2015)

thought of a good electoral scam- find non voters and buy their vote. Payment comes when you see a ballot booth selfie with the person holding up their* freshly x'd choice.


*your


only flaw is nobody who isn't voting will be motivated by less than a tenner so could prove expensive


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 4, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> thought of a good electoral scam- find non voters and buy their vote. Payment comes when you see a ballot booth selfie with the person holding up their* freshly x'd choice.
> 
> 
> *your
> ...


No selfies in polling booths.


----------



## chilango (Apr 4, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> you can't say that and then leave it!
> 
> PMs now!



Let's just say it involves a long standing family feud manifesting itself economically and politically.

I do get occasional use of said holiday home though so it's not all bad!


----------



## chilango (Apr 4, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> you can't say that and then leave it!
> 
> PMs now!


...the full story of which I only know fragments may well span generations and involve refugees from the Spanish Civil War, Irish and Belgian nuns, the French Resistance, a secret membership of The Communist Party, the Free Wales Army, Manchester United, Manchester city, liberal party activism, and unexplained financial windfalls!

.or it may not.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 4, 2015)

chilango said:


> ...the full story of which I only know fragments may well span generations and involve refugees from the Spanish Civil War, Irish and Belgian nuns, the French Resistance, a secret membership of The Communist Party, the Free Wales Army, Manchester United, Manchester city, liberal party activism, and unexplained financial windfalls!
> 
> .or it may not.


Sounds like there's a novel there!


----------



## JimW (Apr 4, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Sounds like there's a novel there!


We shall call it Poll Dark, for the dark polling it contains.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 4, 2015)

Opinium's 'Observer' _*post-debate *_polling:-

*Lab 33% (nc), Con 33% (-1), UKIP 14% (+1), Greens 7% (nc), Lib Dem 7% (-1), SNP 4% (+1)*.



> Ed Miliband has enjoyed a particularly significant boost to his personal polling, however. The Labour leader has seen a six-point rise on last week, up from -21% to -15% (29% approve, 44% disapprove) with his net rating among Labour voters rising from +53% to +59%.
> 
> David Cameron’s approval rating is largely unchanged at +1% overall; both approval an disapproval have seen a one point rise.


----------



## chilango (Apr 4, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Sounds like there's a novel there!



If only I knew the plot!


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 4, 2015)

People have been given such low expectations of Miliband (in part due to the usual right-wing media attacks and 'whispering campaign' rumours in The Guardian etc.) that all he had to do is not fuck up and his personal ratings would rise. This is why ham-face didn't want the debates, Miliband has nothing to lose.

The 'challengers debate' is more dangerous for Labour as the focus could be SNP and others trying to knock chunks out of Ed as that's where they need to gain votes from, and he'll be the focus of attacks.  If they're more strategic they'll see that (other than for UKIP and possibly LD) the route to power is probably through some kind of pact with Labour, so they shouldn't knock him down too much.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 5, 2015)




----------



## xslavearcx (Apr 5, 2015)

If the reality comes close to the predictions of Scottish labour losing a lot of seats, what do people reckon those MPs will do next? Maybe stand as msp's come 2016?


----------



## Mojofilter (Apr 6, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> The 'challengers debate' is more dangerous for Labour as the focus could be SNP and others trying to knock chunks out of Ed as that's where they need to gain votes from, and he'll be the focus of attacks.  If they're more strategic they'll see that (other than for UKIP and possibly LD) the route to power is probably through some kind of pact with Labour, so they shouldn't knock him down too much.



I can't help thinking that it might suit Ed quite well, in England at least, to be attacked from the left for being pro austerity.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 6, 2015)

chilango said:


> Let's just say it involves a long standing family feud manifesting itself economically and politically.
> 
> I do get occasional use of said holiday home though so it's not all bad!



It is your duty to top-deck the toilet next time you're there.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 6, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> The 'challengers debate' is more dangerous for Labour as the focus could be SNP and others trying to knock chunks out of Ed as that's where they need to gain votes from, and he'll be the focus of attacks.  If they're more strategic they'll see that (other than for UKIP and possibly LD) the route to power is probably through some kind of pact with Labour, so they shouldn't knock him down too much.



For most of the other participants it's one of the last occasions for five years when the British public will give the slightest fuck about them. So they won't be thinking about strategic Ed harm minimisation they will be trying to chop off his, doubtless mis-matched in size, bollocks.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> only flaw is nobody who isn't voting will be motivated by less than a tenner so could prove expensive



A couple of grand might buy you a key marginal though. The tories can swing that easy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 6, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> A couple of grand might buy you a key marginal though. The tories can swing that easy.


if only they could swing literally


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 6, 2015)

xslavearcx said:


> If the reality comes close to the predictions of Scottish labour losing a lot of seats, what do people reckon those MPs will do next? Maybe stand as msp's come 2016?


They'd have a fight on their hands to replace incumbent MSPs.  Not least since there's every reason to think that Holyrood would be a worse bet for Labour than Westminster.


----------



## treelover (Apr 6, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> People have been given such low expectations of Miliband (in part due to the usual right-wing media attacks and 'whispering campaign' rumours in The Guardian etc.) that all he had to do is not fuck up and his personal ratings would rise. This is why ham-face didn't want the debates, Miliband has nothing to lose.
> 
> The 'challengers debate' is more dangerous for Labour as the focus could be SNP and others trying to knock chunks out of Ed as that's where they need to gain votes from, and he'll be the focus of attacks.  If they're more strategic they'll see that (other than for UKIP and possibly LD) the route to power is probably through some kind of pact with Labour, so they shouldn't knock him down too much.




He should have raised his game a lot earlier, he is capable of it, may be too late now.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 7, 2015)

....and...


> Populus’s poll has topline figures of:-
> 
> *CON 31%, LAB 33%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 15%, GRN 4%* (tabs). Again, there is no obvious sign of any impact from the debate – the two point Labour lead is the same as Populus’s previous poll and not out of the ordinary, though the ten point score for the Lib Dems is their highest from Populus since mid-February.


----------



## belboid (Apr 7, 2015)

another forecast site - http://www.ukelect.co.uk/HTML/forecasts.html

'kippers on 2, Clegg to lose


----------



## brogdale (Apr 9, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Apr 9, 2015)

Not looked at the YG tabs for a while....but significant that the cross-breaks on Voting intention by (recalled) 2010 vote still appear to demonstrate the fundamentals seen in the mid-term.


Lab & Con hanging on to nearly 80% of their last GE vote
LD just 31%
LD fallout going to Lab:Con >2:1
UKIP taking >2x Con than Lab






Showing that the vermin remain in big trouble.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 9, 2015)

...and for the anoraks...Anthony explains the slight methodological tweaks by YG...



> Nothing particularly unusual, but note that *YouGov are now on their election footing, meaning they weight by likelihood to vote in a similar way to ICM and Ashcroft polls* (so people who say they are 10/10 certain to vote get a weight of 1.0, people who say they are 9/10 likely to vote get a weight of 0.9 and so on). *In past elections this has tended to slightly favour the Conservatives, but this time round it isn’t actually making any substantial difference at all. *YouGov have also changed their sampling slightly – taking samples from people who polled in January and February (a period when Labour had a very slight lead in the polls) and weighting them using Jan/Feb vote, rather than party ID from back in 2010.
> 
> It also means they are now seven days a week, so we’ll be getting a fresh YouGov poll every night up until the election.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 9, 2015)

Tories down badly in three polls today.


----------



## miktheword (Apr 9, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> View attachment 69915
> 
> Tories down badly in three polls today.





and for first time, Miliband's personal ratings above those of Cameron's. Not that I thought personal ratings mattered much, but I wonder how this may affect the media narrative of weak Miliband...


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 9, 2015)

miktheword said:


> and for first time, Miliband's personal ratings above those of Cameron's. Not that I thought personal ratings mattered much, but I wonder how this may affect the media narrative of weak Miliband...



Plus Fallon gave him an open goal today.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 9, 2015)

The more they expose their 'strategy' and actually remind people what king cunts they are.....


----------



## treelover (Apr 9, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> Plus Fallon gave him an open goal today.




Crosby will be fully unleashed now, but interestingly Ed is giving as good as he is gets, he is becoming quite impressive.

I wonder if the students will vote for him now that he is lowering fees and improving maintenance grants.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2015)

treelover said:


> Crosby will be fully unleashed now, but interestingly Ed is giving as good as he is gets, he is becoming quite impressive.
> 
> I wonder if the students will vote for him now that he is lowering fees and improving maintenance grants.


What do you think the deal is with Crosby? That he wasn't doing whatever magic you think he can do already? That they are holding a killer plan back? You've been doing this scare-stuff about him for months and months now. At the end of the period the tories are in the same trouble as at the start.

Ashcroft is accusing the tories of comfort-polling again. Or, maybe better put, he's attacked them for not telling the candidates the real results of their internal polling. Same thing.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 9, 2015)

treelover said:


> Crosby will be fully unleashed now



This is Crosby unleashed, and has been for months. It seems to not be working, and I doubt there's anything much of a plan B. The Tories and their media sidekicks are one trick ponies.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 9, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Apr 9, 2015)

weepiper said:


>



How much of the fieldwork was after the first Scot's debate? Presumably none after yesterday's?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 9, 2015)

brogdale said:


> How much of the fieldwork was after the first Scot's debate? Presumably none after yesterday's?


Dunno yet, article's not released


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2015)

brogdale said:


> How much of the fieldwork was after the first Scot's debate? Presumably none after yesterday's?


Most/all of it as there were questions on the debate.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 9, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Most/all of it as there were questions on the debate.


Oh right. Good work Jim!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2015)

i.e 

YouGov / Times: Of those who watched / followed Tuesday's debate, who won: 
56% Sturgeon 
14% Davidson 
13% Murphy


----------



## weepiper (Apr 9, 2015)

This is also post-Sturgeon-ambassador smear.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 9, 2015)

and..


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2015)

Clear national line movement there - not huge, huge isn't going to be in it though come may.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 9, 2015)




----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 9, 2015)

weepiper said:


> This is also post-Sturgeon-ambassador smear.


It's also 49%. That's a huge figure.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 9, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> It's also 49%. That's a huge figure.


It is. As someone I follow said on twitter presumably the Greens are polling at 1+% too which makes this the first majority pro-indy general election poll.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 9, 2015)

NicciLeaks didn't have the desired effect, then.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 9, 2015)

weepiper said:


>



Lib 1. More effort needed.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Apr 9, 2015)

The lib dems will spin it as a win.  "They said we'd only get one, but we took Shetland AND Orkney!"


----------



## Sue (Apr 9, 2015)

Remind me. What was it Jim Murphy was saying about not losing any seats in Scotland..?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 9, 2015)

Sue said:


> Remind me. What was it Jim Murphy was saying about not losing any seats in Scotland..?


He's spinning that as:

"We can't.  We won't have any to lose".


----------



## brogdale (Apr 10, 2015)

Some signs that the 'kipper rot has been stopped? Could go some way to explaining the vermin's inertia? Well that and their shite campaign.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 10, 2015)

No apparently noticeable effect from the Green's frankly bizarre election broadcast then.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 10, 2015)

kabbes said:


> No apparently noticeable effect from the Green's frankly bizarre election broadcast then.


did they do a song?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> did they do a song?


Yes, that strange boy band thing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 10, 2015)

oh god yeah, you'd have thought thatmight go down badly. Who knows, maybe earnest but shit plays well with a green voter


----------



## Sue (Apr 10, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> He's spinning that as:
> 
> "We can't.  We won't have any to lose".


Eh? Don't understand...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> oh god yeah, you'd have thought thatmight go down badly. Who knows, maybe earnest but shit plays well with a green voter


Not green voters they need though. It's posher end labour and non-voters.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 10, 2015)

Sue said:


> Eh? Don't understand...


They can't fall any further.


----------



## Sue (Apr 10, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> They can't fall any further.



But since they haven't actually lost all those seats yet (if it is on the cards), surely they've way further still to fall..?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 10, 2015)

Sue said:


> But since they haven't actually lost all those seats yet (if it is on the cards), surely they've way further still to fall..?


I was tired.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I was tired.


Only another 4 weeks to go.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Only another 4 weeks to go.


True, but postal ballot papers can be sent out from today! (all candidates are known now) For some folks the election will 'be over' very soon.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 10, 2015)

*snigger*


----------



## brogdale (Apr 10, 2015)

Why the blue bit?


----------



## The Boy (Apr 10, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Why the blue bit?



For the Tory. We're an inclusive bunch up here.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 10, 2015)

The Boy said:


> For the Tory. We're an inclusive bunch up here.


Latest projection suggests there will be no tory.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 10, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Latest projection suggests there will be no tory.




I don't buy that yet.  Reckon they'll hold D&G and possibly take the Borders too, though I imagine the Lib Dem vote will hold up.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> oh god yeah, you'd have thought thatmight go down badly. Who knows, maybe earnest but shit plays well with a green voter



of course earnest but shit plays well with a green voter, that is what the green party are


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 11, 2015)

What sort of odds might a Scottish bookie offrt that Labour will actually end up with a few more seats than 4? (10 to 15 say?)

4 seems too extreme to be believable really. SNP would still be making massive gains whatever, but to gain all except 4? Finding that a bit hard to believe.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 11, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> What sort of odds might a Scottish bookie offrt that Labour will actually end up with a few more seats than 4? (10 to 15 say?)
> 
> 4 seems too extreme to be believable really. SNP would still be making massive gains whatever, but to gain all except 4? Finding that a bit hard to believe.


You might be interested in Gary Gibbon's latest blog considering the polling evidence of the propensity for ('unionist') tactical voting in Scotland to save some Lab/Ld seats.



> We asked an extra question checking whether voters had an appetite for tactical voting – would pro-union parties switch their votes to the party with the best chance of defeating the SNP?
> 
> Ask that question and the SNP lead falls to 15 per cent. Analysis suggests that this could save Labour up to nine seats they lose without tactical voting (and the Lib Dems possibly save two extra seats as well).


----------



## weepiper (Apr 11, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Apr 11, 2015)

Looks like UKIP -> Con there.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Apr 12, 2015)

Agreed, brogdale .  There's been a lot of analysis as to where the UKIP vote is coming from (and going to in their recent slump), but as far as opinium polls are concerned the UKIP trend is a mirror of the conservative.






http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/election-polling-centre


----------



## Quartz (Apr 12, 2015)

brogdale said:


> You might be interested in Gary Gibbon's latest blog considering the polling evidence of the propensity for ('unionist') tactical voting in Scotland to save some Lab/Ld seats.



I can vouch for this round here (Aberdeen). Some nationalists have been appalling.


----------



## Sue (Apr 12, 2015)

Quartz said:


> I can vouch for this round here (Aberdeen). Some nationalists have been appalling.


 
Hang on, what proof is there of this? Seems to be based solely on conjecture by the Tory candidate who obviously has a vested interest in slagging off nationalists/the SNP. Plenty of people hate both Labour and the Tories. Could be a disgruntled Lib Dem, no?


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 12, 2015)

For Scotland this non-Scot   thinks, very much more generally, that the Gary Gibbon blog linked to above, is *really *worth a read.

In his analysis, the 'Labour will do bugger all for me' is Labour's greatest weakness (among many), but the chance of tactical voting their greatest (concealed!?) strength.

I also think that point in his blog about peoples' disinclanation for a second IndyRef any time soon, and dislike of Indy-related divisiveness, might help Labour a little bit.

But Labour need to do a shedload more in Scotland then rely on tactical votes from Tories, LDs etc. 

Poll-geek here would like to see an opinon poll sampled from Scots who don't live in Scotland


----------



## brogdale (Apr 13, 2015)




----------



## treelover (Apr 13, 2015)

> Conservatives take six-point lead in Guardian/ICM poll
> 
> Poll takes Tories to 39% ahead of Labour on 33%, as Lib Dem support stays at 8% and Ukip drops back two points to tie with Greens on 7%
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...tives-six-point-lead-guardian-icm-poll-labour




Guardian ICM poll, Tories 39%, Labour 33% Ukip drop to 7%

Rogue poll or are the Kipper Tories going back to base?

oh and the GP are back on 7%, votes from Labour?


----------



## treelover (Apr 13, 2015)

> Boon said the sample chosen looks “demographically sound”, but acknowledges there are signs in the raw data that this sample “could be a just touch too Tory”. In particular, there are more 2010 Conservative voters than ICM would ordinarily expect, and also more voters from the professional occupational grade.



Ah


----------



## killer b (Apr 13, 2015)

Rogue poll, obviously.


----------



## treelover (Apr 13, 2015)

yes, they only got 36% last time, but its pushed Labour's manifesto and Ed's assured performance(according to the commentariat) off the media front pages,

who commissioned this poll on this day?

Guardian, looking at you...


----------



## killer b (Apr 13, 2015)

Off which front pages?


----------



## treelover (Apr 13, 2015)

Well, the Guardian web front page.


----------



## killer b (Apr 13, 2015)

Looks like both stories are there to me?


----------



## treelover (Apr 13, 2015)

> it's *23%* lead the Conservative have over Labour in Scotland.



someone on CIF has posted this, if correct the ICM poll is dodgy as sin.

Oh, and it is all over the Mail and telegraph, a poll like this outlier or not gives a party a massive morale and possibly electoral boost, makes them look like winners..


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2015)

It has 35% for con in scotland and 12% for lab - poll of 44 people. So 16 people against 5 people.


----------



## killer b (Apr 13, 2015)

Why would anyone's morale be boosted by a blatantly flawed poll? They aren't idiots.


----------



## treelover (Apr 13, 2015)

Eh, even Ashcroft has discussed the concept that the Tories are basically in wish fulfilment mode and will jump on any positive news,

I can't remember his exact phrase, 'conformation bias'?


----------



## Santino (Apr 13, 2015)

Comfort polling?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2015)

Confirmation bias, or the "halo and horns" effect is a well established psychological trick we play on ourselves.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> Eh, even Ashcroft has discussed the concept that the Tories are basically in wish fulfilment mode and will jump on any positive news,
> 
> I can't remember his exact phrase, 'conformation bias'?


It's comfort polling as Santino said - and he aimed it at Tories who fall for it. He wasn't applauding it.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> Rogue poll, obviously.



Obviously?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2015)

http://www.tnsglobal.com/uk/press-release/snp-increases-its-lead-in-latest-tns-poll

"More than half of adults in Scotland who are certain to vote in the May 7 general election (52%), said they would vote SNP, against 24% backing Labour. 

In the event of a hung parliament, 44% of Scottish voters would prefer a Labour-led government against 15% backing a Tory-led government.  The most popular single option is a Labour-SNP coalition


A sample of 978 adults aged 18+ was interviewed across Scotland over the period March 18th-April 8th 2015."


----------



## killer b (Apr 13, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Obviously?
> 
> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/


interesting piece, thanks.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 13, 2015)

chilango said:


> I know someone who is transferring their vote to their 2nd/holiday home in order to vote LibDem in a seat where they might win.


When you say 'know' I trust it is a euphemism for 'beat to death with a shovel'?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 13, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> It has 35% for con in scotland and 12% for lab - poll of 44 people. So 16 people against 5 people.


well that's clearly bollocks. Too small a sample size. Tories consistently get around 15% here. It's hardly changed at all - all the movement has been between Labour, the Libs and SNP. This post is more directed at treelover than you butchers but your post has the numbers in it


----------



## belboid (Apr 13, 2015)

weepiper said:


> well that's clearly bollocks. Too small a sample size. Tories consistently get around 15% here. It's hardly changed at all - all the movement has been between Labour, the Libs and SNP. This post is more directed at treelover than you butchers but your post has the numbers in it


it was a poll of 90, breaking 16-9 - about right in terms of proportion of Scots to include in a UK wide poll, but quite useless in getting meaningful cross-tabs for any individual part of the UK. According to the poll there are 0 LibScum in Wales, but I, sadly, expect that not to be the case.

(full tabs)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2015)

**


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> Why would anyone's morale be boosted by a blatantly flawed poll? They aren't idiots.



Because if it's played up enough in some bits of the press it might make a Tory victory look possible, and those who'd jumped ship to UKIP on the basis that the Tories were on a loser anyway might see some point in voting for them again.

On the other hand it might motivate Labour voters/supporters to avoid a Tory govt, so this is just speculation.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> **


Keep the poll in the freezer for a month?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 13, 2015)

Calm down dears....



> Labour and the Conservatives are tied at 33% in this week’s Ashcroft National Poll, conducted over the past weekend. Both parties are down since the last ANP two weeks ago (Labour by one point, the Tories by three); UKIP and the Lib Dems are each up three points at 13% and 9% respectively, with the Greens down one at 6% and the SNP unchanged at 4%.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 13, 2015)

> ....the daily YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of:-
> 
> * CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 8%, UKIP 13%, GRN 6% *
> – a one point Labour lead. Putting all four polls together that ICM poll looks very much like an outlier...


Here.


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 14, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Here.


Did you read bi0boy's link?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 14, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Did you read bi0boy's link?


Yes.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 14, 2015)

Ashcroft's latest marginal polling takes a "_..look further down the Conservative defence list to see whether there could be some surprises in seats which ought, on paper, to be safer for the Tories." 
_
He finds that...


> I found the *Conservatives ahead in five of the ten seats*: Cleethorpes (though by only by two points), Dover, Dudley South, Harlow and North East Somerset, where Jacob Rees-Mogg is sixteen points clear of Labour despite the Liberal Democrat vote falling by more than half.
> 
> However, I found *ties in Rossendale & Darwen (where the Tory vote was unchanged since 2010 at 42%, but Labour were up ten points) and South Ribble.*
> 
> I found *Labour leads in three seats*, albeit well within the margin of error: Crewe & Nantwich (by three points), Finchley & Golders Green (by two points) and Milton Keynes South (by two points).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2015)

...and the 3 labour gains are target seats #69, 86 and 89. Av swing 3.5% tory to lab across the polled seats.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Obviously?
> 
> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/


The opposite to _herding _is happening in this elections polling - we're having large leads for labour side by side with larger leads for the tories. And the UK pollsters have been pretty accurate on UK elections. Whilst that author's attempts at UK polling saw him scurrying back over the water sharpish.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2015)

One of these marginals that ashcroft has labour leading in being thatchers seat of course.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 14, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> One of these marginals that ashcroft has labour leading in being thatchers seat of course.


Yep, but with slight (but significant) boundary changes since 1997. Lost some Northern wards and gained some more southerly ones from Hendon...making it more marginal.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 14, 2015)

Why is it that a number of Tory politicians are being paid by polling companies? 
Philip Davies has been paid for his services on 18 occasions by ComRes.
http://searchthemoney.com/profile/156/8?p0=1#tabsx-1

Priti Patel too.
http://searchthemoney.com/profile/481/8

ComRes isn't the only company to do this, YouGov have paid Davies over £1,000 over the course of 4 years.

Are Labour MPs also working for polling companies? How does this affect objectivity and, more importantly, validity?


----------



## The Boy (Apr 14, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> How does this affect objectivity and, more importantly, validity?



Unless they're being paid to actually carry out field work or number crunching, then not very much.


----------



## chilango (Apr 14, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> YouGov have paid Davies over £1,000 over the course of 4 years.



That's one fuck of a lot of surveys he must have filled in.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 14, 2015)

chilango said:


> That's one fuck of a lot of surveys he must have filled in.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 14, 2015)

Guardian piece on different results produced by phone and online polling.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/telephone-internet-polling-different-results


----------



## brogdale (Apr 15, 2015)

Lighting failure, broken-down bus....and now this! Quite a day for the LDs.



> The latest *ComRes / ITV News* Battleground poll has focused in on the Liberal Democrat heartland – 14 currently Liberal Democrat seats in the South West (where their Coalition partners, the Conservatives, are in second) - and reveals a *13-point swing from the Liberal Democrats to the Conservatives*. If a 13 point swing was seen in each constituency, *it could hand the Conservatives control of all of these seats*.





> In further bad news for Nick Clegg, three in ten voters in these seats (29%) say that Mr Clegg puts them off voting for the Liberal Democrats. Strikingly, one in three voters in these Liberal Democrat seats (32%) say that the party has become irrelevant, including one in five (21%) people who voted Liberal Democrat in 2010.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 16, 2015)

Really interesting post from YG's Anthony regarding the discrepancy between the ComRes (LD wipe-out) LD -> Con swing of 13% and Ashcroft's constituency polling pointing to a 4% swing.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 16, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Apr 16, 2015)

...and, as Smithson says...


> After the debate about phone polls and internet ones today’s Ipsos-MORI survey for the Standard has LAB up a touch and still in the lead. This contrasts sharply with. Monday’s ICM phone poll with its 6% CON lead and the ComRes phone poll series. There is a small ratings boost for Ed but he continues to trail behind Dave. This doesn’t seem to have affected the voting numbers. On a general level *the election is now only 20 days away and at some stage the Tories need that long hoped for cross over.*



people are voting now.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 17, 2015)

That's an *England only* 4.5% Con -> Lab swing. (In 2010 the vermin had a vote lead in England of 11.4%.)


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 17, 2015)

nope


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2015)

All the polls were wrong but more accurate than the polls. Thanks.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 17, 2015)

The pollsters need to strive to get a greater degree of accuracy than the average. More work needed.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2015)

Astonishing thing. I wonder if bioboy could explain why he used the average to beat pollsters who are not producing the average with?


----------



## Santino (Apr 17, 2015)

I would like to see all polling companies performing better than the average by next election.


----------



## Santino (Apr 17, 2015)

kabbes


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2015)

Santino said:


> I would like to see all polling companies performing better than the average by next election.


I think flat polling is  the way to go. No prizes for anyone.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> The pollsters need to strive to get a greater degree of accuracy than the average. More work needed.





Santino said:


> I would like to see all polling companies performing better than the average by next election.



That's what you meant to say i think brogdale?


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 17, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Astonishing thing. I wonder if bioboy could explain why he used the average to beat pollsters who are not producing the average with?



eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2015)

The bastards couldn't even do that right.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 17, 2015)

.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 17, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> That's what you meant to say i think brogdale?



Not really concentrating properly, (I'm 'in' Antigua), but I do remember that great tory 'thinker' Eric Forth once make a parliamentary speech calling for more and more schools to become above average.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 17, 2015)

More Ashcroft Scottish constituency polling (note: including Jim Murphy's seat and it looks like he's going to get a whupping)


----------



## Steel Icarus (Apr 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Not really concentrating properly, (I'm 'in' Antigua), but I do remember that great tory 'thinker' Eric Forth once make a parliamentary speech calling for more and more schools to become above average.



Forth may have said this, but Gove definitely did a couple of years ago http://leftfootforward.org/2013/10/michael-gove-doesnt-understand-averages/


----------



## brogdale (Apr 17, 2015)

weepiper said:


> More Ashcroft Scottish constituency polling (note: including Jim Murphy's seat and it looks like he's going to get a whupping)


He's succinct, if nothing else...


> _I wanted to know whether the SNP surge had subsided in places I had previously surveyed; whether it threatened other incumbents, especially Lib Dems; and whether there were any potential surprises in store. The answers are no, yes and yes._


----------



## JTG (Apr 17, 2015)

weepiper said:


> More Ashcroft Scottish constituency polling (note: including Jim Murphy's seat and it looks like he's going to get a whupping)


So, Murphy and Kennedy are in severe trouble and the Tories could end up with two, one or no seats in Scotland


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2015)

weepiper said:


> More Ashcroft Scottish constituency polling (note: including Jim Murphy's seat and it looks like he's going to get a whupping)


That's terrific news. Let it be so.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 17, 2015)

JTG said:


> So, Murphy and Kennedy are in severe trouble and the Tories could end up with two, one or no seats in Scotland


Looks like probably only one - the only existing Tory seat (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) is on there too and that's gone from a tie in January to a 2% lead for the SNP now. They're both margin of error at the moment though.


----------



## JTG (Apr 17, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Looks like probably only one - the only existing Tory seat (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) is on there too and that's gone from a tie in January to a 2% lead for the SNP now. They're both margin of error at the moment though.


That's what I meant. Both that and B, R & S are very close so could be two, one or neither


----------



## weepiper (Apr 17, 2015)

32%!!


----------



## brogdale (Apr 17, 2015)

weepiper said:


> 32%!!



That's well off the swingometer!


----------



## weepiper (Apr 17, 2015)

JTG said:


> That's what I meant. Both that and B, R & S are very close so could be two, one or neither


The temptation for Labour voters to consider a tactical SNP vote in those seats must be tearing them apart.


----------



## treelover (Apr 17, 2015)

Will there be a 'shame factor for UKIP votes?, people who are supporters not admitting it to pollsters, etc, but voting UKIP on the day, . This was the case for the Tories to some degree in the 80's.


----------



## belboid (Apr 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> Will there be a 'shame factor for UKIP votes?, people who are supporters not admitting it to pollsters, etc, but voting UKIP on the day, . This was the case for the Tories to some degree in the 80's.


they do do better in online polls than telephone ones, but not vastly. And it may be something other than the polling method, of course.  iirr, the polls for the two by  elections they won were pretty accurate


----------



## JTG (Apr 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> Will there be a 'shame factor for UKIP votes?, people who are supporters not admitting it to pollsters, etc, but voting UKIP on the day, . This was the case for the Tories to some degree in the 80's.


Doubt it, I think UKIP voters won't be particularly embarrassed about it


----------



## weepiper (Apr 17, 2015)

In my experience your average UKIP voter couldnae get a red neck with a blowtorch, so no.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 17, 2015)

Survation bigging-up their latest poll with a tory lead for only the second time since they started in 2011...but....


----------



## brogdale (Apr 17, 2015)

weepiper said:


> More Ashcroft Scottish constituency polling (note: including Jim Murphy's seat and it looks like he's going to get a whupping)



Of course the LDs will come out with all their usual guff about their own polling, but Anthony nails their comfort polling methodology:-



> Note that the East Dunbartonshire is one of the seat where the Lib Dems have recently released their own private polling (which may or may not be a co-incidence!). Their own polling showed figures of CON 13%, LAB 16%, LDEM 35%, SNP 32%. The SNP are 8 points lower than in Ashcroft’s poll, the Lib Dems 6 points higher. I wrote about the Lib Dem’s own polling at more length here. *The primary differences are that the Lib Dems prompt using candidate name, which is fair enough, and ask about how favourably people see their local MP before they ask that voting intention question, a more questionable approach.* We shall see which is the better guide. *The Lib Dems have not released any of their private polling for the other three Lib Dem seats Lord Ashcroft released polls for today, from which one must draw one’s own conclusions.*


----------



## laptop (Apr 17, 2015)

I can't see a posting of the BBC's build-a-majority game...

*_Each result is randomly generated and not a prediction of the election_ - read more.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 17, 2015)

All this talk of cross-over points etc. There's one cross-over that would be worthy of celebration...when the yellow went above orange!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 17, 2015)

belboid said:


> they do do better in online polls than telephone ones, but not vastly. And it may be something other than the polling method, of course.  iirr, the polls for the two by  elections they won were pretty accurate


if any thing UKIP, Greens, and SNP are more likely to have people claiming to vote for them who won't on the day (for a variety of reasons).


----------



## brogdale (Apr 17, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> if any thing UKIP, Greens, and SNP are more likely to have people claiming to vote for them who won't on the day (for a variety of reasons).


That's certainly the conventional wisdom. Whether we are living in conventional (psephological) times is another matter.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 18, 2015)

weepiper said:


> The temptation for Labour voters to consider a tactical SNP vote in those seats must be tearing them apart.



The expectation would be that an SNP MP would sit in Labour's 'block', lib dem wouldn't. Tactically worthwhile for Labour supporters I would have thought.


----------



## miktheword (Apr 18, 2015)

opinium observer has Cons 36 (unchanged) and Lab 32 (-2)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...lead-labour-opinium-observer-poll-challengers

But Yougov for Sunday Times has Lab 36 Cons 33 after level yesterday.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 19, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Tactically worthwhile for Labour supporters I would have thought.



The Lib Dems seem perfectly happy to ally with Labour, and voting SNP has unwanted side-effects.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2015)




----------



## kabbes (Apr 20, 2015)

This is fascinating:

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/0...ve-failed-to-change-in-five-years/#more-11246

It'd be a disservice to pick out one or two bits from it, but the section comparing what voters actually vote on to the lead each party has on that question is particularly interesting.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2015)

It's all about the _leaners_....


----------



## weepiper (Apr 20, 2015)

New Ashcroft Scottish constituency polls too

 

Edinburgh South is the seat where the SNP had their lowest share of the vote in 2010.


----------



## JTG (Apr 20, 2015)

weepiper said:


> New Ashcroft Scottish constituency polls too
> 
> View attachment 70489
> 
> ...


Crikey. I know it doesn't always follow but it looks like a wholesale Lib Dem > SNP switch there


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 20, 2015)

makes sense, they're both vaguely progressive centre parties that can make undeliverable promises...


----------



## weepiper (Apr 20, 2015)

JTG said:


> Crikey. I know it doesn't always follow but it looks like a wholesale Lib Dem > SNP switch there


SNP are definitely taking a lot of votes off the Libs all over Scotland. I think there's been some Labour>SNP movement here too though but it's been masked by the Tory vote realising the SNP might get in and choosing a tactical Labour vote.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 20, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> makes sense, they're both vaguely progressive centre parties that can make undeliverable promises...


Except the SNP have been delivering on those promises in government for 8 years


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 20, 2015)

I see the words 'Tory gain' on that table. That's unacceptable, fucking sort it out Scotland.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 20, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> I see the words 'Tory gain' on that table. That's unacceptable, fucking sort it out Scotland.



Within the margin of error.  Fear not.

At least not until the count is in.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> I see the words 'Tory gain' on that table. That's unacceptable, fucking sort it out Scotland.


Well within the margin of error.
Mind you, it's the Borders: Lib Dem heartland.  In that area, they're more likely to desert for the Tories than for the SNP.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Apr 20, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> if any thing UKIP, Greens, and SNP are more likely to have people claiming to vote for them who won't on the day (for a variety of reasons).


Not according to polling findings. 95% of SNP voters are very likely to vote. HMs loyal Lumpen Party are getting 68% likely to vote.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

Last night's YG...



> YouGov for the Sun – has topline figures of:-
> 
> * CON 34%, LAB 35%, LD 7%, UKIP 13%, GRN 5%*.
> 
> So we have two polls giving Labour leads, two giving Conservative leads, and the polls apparently still fluctuating around an underlying picture of Labour and Conservative neck-and-neck.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 21, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/feb/27/guardian-poll-projection

16 days to go - @guardian projection: CON 271 seats LAB 270 SNP 55 LDEM 28


----------



## kabbes (Apr 21, 2015)

325 being insufficient for a majority, of course...


----------



## magneze (Apr 21, 2015)

kabbes said:


> 325 being insufficient for a majority, of course...


It's 323 due to Sinn Fein not taking up their seats IIRC.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 21, 2015)

magneze said:


> It's 323 due to Sinn Fein not taking up their seats IIRC.



321, taking the Speaker and three deputies into account as well.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> 321, taking the Speaker and three deputies into account as well.


deputies dont count. We dont know who they are going to be, nor which party they will be drawn from (ts always been an even Lab/Tory split postwar, but with their collapse this time, it could well be different). Also, unlike the Speaker, they are elected as representatives of their party.

323 it is


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> deputies dont count. We dont know who they are going to be, nor which party they will be drawn from (ts always been an even Lab/Tory split postwar, but with their collapse this time, it could well be different). Also, unlike the Speaker, they are elected as representatives of their party.
> 
> 323 it is



The speaker and deputies are elected first thing the day after parliament reassembles, before any confidence vote on a new govt - dropping it down to 321.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 21, 2015)

Interesting.  Normally these things don't make much difference but this time it could be crucial.

Mind you, the Speaker may drop it down but if the speaker comes from Labour, that'll also drop their total.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The speaker and deputies are elected first thing the day after parliament reassembles, before any confidence vote on a new govt - dropping it down to 321.


Once that parliament is elected, and is begun. Prior to that, they are there for their party.  So, on election day,  the key number is 323. 

The tradition (I cant recall if its law or not) is, there will be another member of the Speakers party as one deputy, and two from another party - so that the loss of seats is balanced. But seeing as there will be more than two key parties after this election, they could try and nominate a LibScum for one of the 'other party' roles, meaning the required majority down to 320!


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> Once that parliament is elected, and is begun. Prior to that, they are there for their party.  So, on election day,  the key number is 323.
> 
> The tradition (I cant recall if its law or not) is, there will be another member of the Speakers party as one deputy, and two from another party - so that the loss of seats is balanced. But seeing as there will be more than two key parties after this election, they could try and nominate a LibScum for one of the 'other party' roles, meaning the required majority down to 320!



By the time of the Queen's speech it will, dependent upon a similar SF seat haul, be 321.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> By the time of the Queen's speech it will, dependent upon a similar SF seat haul, be 321.


could be months before a Queen's Speech! On Friday morning, we are looking at 323


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> could be months before a Queen's Speech! On Friday morning, we are looking at 323


 No, it pretty much has to come before anything substantive can occur:-



> The first business of the House of Commons when it meets is to elect or re-elect a Speaker and for Members to take the oath.The first business of the House of Lords is also for its Members to take the oath. *Normally the Queen’s Speech outlining the Government’s legislative programme will take place in the second week of Parliament’s sitting *and is followed by four or five days of debate. This is when the business of the new Parliament properly begins



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf

321 it is, in reality.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> No, it pretty much has to come before anything substantive can occur:-
> 
> 
> 
> ...




On Friday May 8th, the key figure is 323. None of this other stuff kicks in until a government has been agreed. Once parliament is up and running, the figure is probably 321, but not until then.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2015)

What does 323 mean on may 8th exactly?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> On Friday May 8th, the key figure is 323. None of this other stuff kicks in until a government has been agreed. Once parliament is up and running, the figure is probably 321, but not until then.


No it's not  at all, actually.

Before a successful Queen's speech there are tight restrictions upon what the incumbent administration can undertake. Though they may, in name 'govern'; they remain caretakers without power to initiate policy until they have the QS passed. Look in my link; it's all there.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> No it's not  at all, actually.
> 
> Before a successful Queen's speech there are tight restrictions upon what the incumbent administration can undertake. Though they may, in name 'govern'; they remain caretakers without power to initiate policy until they have the QS passed. Look in my link; it's all there.


It isn't.  that concerns only the Speaker - I can't see any mention (at a quick glance) at the role of his Deputies.

Also, it's still irrelevant.  As I said before, the key thing _on friday morning_, ie before parliament is recalled, is the number before any deputies are elected. If a party/agreed partnership has 321, they will be likely to lose another two votes when they become deputies, reducing the party/parties to 319. 

Hence, the key number on friday morning is 323.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> It isn't.  that concerns only the Speaker - I can't see any mention (at a quick glance) at the role of his Deputies.
> 
> Also, it's still irrelevant.  As I said before, the key thing _on friday morning_, ie before parliament is recalled, is the number before any deputies are elected. If a party/agreed partnership has 321, they will be likely to lose another two votes when they become deputies, reducing the party/parties to 319.
> 
> Hence, the key number on friday morning is 323.



I just don't get the obsession with the 8th May. Nothing will be decided on that morning; that's when the horse-trading begins in earnest. 

If, on the morning of 8th May, a parliament is elected with no party with an overall majority the figure you mention would be irrelevant. In such a situation the incumbent administration will remain in (holding) office, unless Cameron resigns immediately. At first sitting (on the 18th) the Speaker & deputies will be (re)/elected, and the next week when the QS is voted upon the government would require at least *321 votes* to get it passed.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I just don't get the obsession with the 8th May. Nothing will be decided on that morning; that's when the horse-trading begins in earnest.


because that is when people are elected.  It's pretty straight forward.

In order to govern, the ruling party/parties will need at least 323 MP's to be elected.  Yes or no?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> because that is when people are elected.  It's pretty straight forward.
> 
> In order to govern, the ruling party/parties will need at least 323 MP's to be elected.  Yes or no?


No.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> No.


You are, quite simply, wrong.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> You are, quite simply, wrong.



Then erase from the history books the minority administrations of the past.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Then erase from the history books the minority administrations of the past.


They are irrelevant (as irrelevant as your previous link, which you've now quietly forgotten about, it seems). Try reading, and understanding, what is written.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> They are irrelevant (as irrelevant as your previous link, which you've now quietly forgotten about, it seems). Try reading, and understanding, what is written.


I'm uncertain about what exactly you don't understand. I've tried quite hard to explain the situation...perhaps take a break and have a bit of think about it?


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I'm uncertain about what exactly you don't understand. I've tried quite hard to explain the situation...perhaps take a break and have a bit of think about it?


lol.   I'll do that, while you go away and learn to count.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

back to the polling...


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> lol.   I'll do that, while you go away and learn to count.


 OK, to help my numeracy skills (or lack of) perhaps you'd be good enough to talk me through the numbers that you claim? For claity let's assume status quo wrt the number of SF and speaker MPs, eh? Off you go...


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> OK, to help my numeracy skills (or lack of) perhaps you'd be good enough to talk me through the numbers that you claim? For claity let's assume status quo wrt the number of SF and speaker MPs, eh? Off you go...


see post 2164, amongst others.

Where are your three Deputies coming from, btw?  Which parties?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> see post 2164, amongst others.
> 
> Where are your three Deputies coming from, btw?  Which parties?



Here.


> Government majority calculated as Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs less all other parties. This calculation excludes the Speaker, Deputy Speakers* (2 Labour, 1 Conservative) and Sinn Fein.



HTH


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

So, shall we have another go, then?

650 minus 5(SF) = 645
645 minus 4 (Speakers) = 641
641 divided by 2 = *321* & 320

Geddit?


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Here.
> 
> 
> HTH


we dont have the election results yet, so those figures might be right, they might not.  It is _likely _that there will be two Labour deputies, but it is by no means certain.

But let's assume it is.  In that case, when parliament is fully up and running, the government chosen and in place, then - and only then - it will require 321 MP's to vote in favour of something for it to be passed. 

But, in order for that to happen, the ruling party/parties will require 323 MP's to be elected to their ranks.  From which two will then be chosen as deputies. But it still requires 323 to be elected in the first place, as I've stated all along, and which you have denied all along (see post 2166/7)


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> we dont have the election results yet, so those figures might be right, they might not.  It is _likely _that there will be two Labour deputies, but it is by no means certain.
> 
> But let's assume it is.  In that case, when parliament is fully up and running, the government chosen and in place, then - and only then - it will require 321 MP's to vote in favour of something for it to be passed.
> 
> But, in order for that to happen, the ruling party/parties will require 323 MP's to be elected to their ranks.  From which two will then be chosen as deputies. But it still requires 323 to be elected in the first place, as I've stated all along, and which you have denied all along (see post 2166/7)


If there are 320 Labour/SNP MPs elected, who do you think will form the government?


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> If there are 320 Labour/SNP MPs elected, who do you think will form the government?


Labour - thanks to SDLP, PC & Greens.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> we dont have the election results yet, so those figures might be right, they might not.  It is _likely _that there will be two Labour deputies, but it is by no means certain.
> 
> But let's assume it is.  In that case, when parliament is fully up and running, the government chosen and in place, then - and only then - it will require 321 MP's to vote in favour of something for it to be passed.
> 
> But, in order for that to happen, the ruling party/parties will require 323 MP's to be elected to their ranks.  From which two will then be chosen as deputies. But it still requires 323 to be elected in the first place, as I've stated all along, and which you have denied all along (see post 2166/7)


I think I can now see what you don't understand. You seem to be under the misapprehension that in order to be considered as the _formateur _of a new administration, the party leader would require an absolute majority. In that assumption you are wrong, and that is why you have been wasting my time. Now, go away and read up on this matter...this is quite good..

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourki...rms-uk-government-in-event-of-hung-parliament


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> Labour - thanks to SDLP, PC & Greens.


If Labour+SDLP+PC+Greens+SNP are on 320, then who will form the goverment?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> If Labour+SDLP+PC+Greens+SNP are on 320, then who will form the goverment?



Don't you start up as well. 

Remember, if those numbers come about parliament will be hung, and probably fractured as well. So...in such circumstances, Cameron will be given the first opportunity to present a QS to parliament. If the combined opposition could muster 321 to defeat it, then convention would dictate that Miliband would then be offered the opportunity to have a go.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2015)

I'd prefer hanged


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I think I can now see what you don't understand. You seem to be under the misapprehension that in order to be considered as the _formateur _of a new administration, the party leader would require an absolute majority. In that assumption you are wrong, and that is why you have been wasting my time. Now, go away and read up on this matter...this is quite good..
> 
> https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourki...rms-uk-government-in-event-of-hung-parliament


is this link as useless as the last one?  the one which didnt even mention deputies despite you claiming it did? 

Look, you cant count. You thought you'd discovered something clever, but you hadn't, and you can't now admit that you were wrong. Sad, but true.  Nothing anyone can say will convince you you are wrong, despite you obviously being so.  Hey ho.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> If Labour+SDLP+PC+Greens+SNP are on 320, then who will form the goverment?


Depends on the DUP.

Either way, it'll probably collapse before the year is out.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 21, 2015)

In the event of a very close Parliament, I wonder if the Deputy Speakers will be chosen from the very minor parties? Say the SDLP and the Greens and UKIP?


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 21, 2015)

Quartz said:


> In the event of a very close Parliament, I wonder if the Deputy Speakers will be chosen from the very minor parties? Say the SDLP and the Greens and UKIP?



I suspect Labour wouldnt mind that if they manage to form a government, I imagine Milliband will want as many of his MP's to vote as possible, so thats Hoyle back on the benches I reckon.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 21, 2015)

Quartz said:


> In the event of a very close Parliament, I wonder if the Deputy Speakers will be chosen from the very minor parties? Say the SDLP and the Greens and UKIP?



Can't see the Greens volunteering to have their only MP removed from taking part in party politics.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourki...rms-uk-government-in-event-of-hung-parliament


This link in no way supports the argument you were making.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

Quartz said:


> In the event of a very close Parliament, I wonder if the Deputy Speakers will be chosen from the very minor parties? Say the SDLP and the Greens and UKIP?


An anti-Tory LibScum might accept, or maybe an Irish bod. Can't see anyone else doing so.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> is this link as useless as the last one?  the one which didnt even mention deputies despite you claiming it did?
> 
> Look, you cant count. You thought you'd discovered something clever, but you hadn't, and you can't now admit that you were wrong. Sad, but true.  Nothing anyone can say will convince you you are wrong, despite you obviously being so.  Hey ho.


Well...if you were prepared to offer some numbers supporting what you claim, I might be able to see the error of my ways. I've shown you very clearly how 321 is arrived at. Why don't you show me in what way I can't count?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> This link in no way supports the argument you were making.


Which argument? Exactly.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> An anti-Tory LibScum might accept, or maybe an Irish bod. Can't see anyone else doing so.



Why not?  The position is considered a great honour, no?  It would also give whichever party the person comes from a bit of influence at the top table and there is probably a decent wage with it as well.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Well...if you were prepared to offer some numbers supporting what you claim, I might be able to see the error of my ways. I've shown you very clearly how 321 is arrived at. Why don't you show me in what way I can't count?


i have done.  Stop being so dishonest.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Which argument? Exactly.


have you forgotten already?  That might explain a lot.

your link has some relevance into numbers required if SNP (or whoever) decide they wont vote for a Labour policy, but will vote against tory ones.  It has no relevance as to whether a party requires 323 or 321 MP's to be elected.  If you want to follow the argument inherent in that article, then both 323 AND 321 are wrong.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> have you forgotten already?  That might explain a lot.
> 
> your link has some relevance into numbers required if SNP (or whoever) decide they wont vote for a Labour policy, but will vote against tory ones.  It has no relevance as to whether a party requires 323 or 321 MP's to be elected.  If you want to follow the argument inherent in that article, then both 323 AND 321 are wrong.


The link explained the protocols governing how the post-election negotiations might proceed. I'd posted that for you because you'd claimed that in order to form an administration a party leader would require 323 seats on the 8th May. That was, and remains incorrect.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> i have done.  Stop being so dishonest.


I really don't think you have. 

For clarity, what exactly do you disagree with here?


brogdale said:


> 650 minus 5(SF) = 645
> 645 minus 4 (Speakers) = 641
> 641 divided by 2 = *321* & 320


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> The link explained the protocols governing how the post-election negotiations might proceed. I'd posted that for you because you'd claimed that in order to form an administration a party leader would require 323 seats on the 8th May. That was, and remains incorrect.


Go back and reread what I wrote you dishonest child.



belboid said:


> On Friday May 8th, the key figure is 323. None of this other stuff kicks in until a government has been agreed. Once parliament is up and running, the figure is probably 321, but not until then.





belboid said:


> because that is when people are elected.  It's pretty straight forward.
> 
> In order to govern, the ruling party/parties will need at least 323 MP's to be elected.  Yes or no?
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (Apr 21, 2015)

jesus. put your dick away belboid.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> Go back and reread what I wrote you dishonest child.


But belboid what you've quoted of my post is correct.

As I keep on explaining, in the case of a hung parliament the number of seats gained on May 8th by the "ruling" party will not matter; as incumbent Cameron will remain in office and be entitled to see if his administration can command the confidence of the house on his QS. At the precise moment of that vote, if the opposition can muster a total of 321 votes they would be in a position to vote down the QS.

The only significance of 326, 323 or 321 on May 8th relate to the performance of an opposition party. If they win an outright majority, (however that is defined*), then the incumbent PM and government would immediately resign and the Queen would summon the leader of the majoritarian victor party.

* tbh that is the crucial thing. I can't yet see how that number is defined. I'm sure that the vermin will insist on it being the higher figure to trigger resignation?


----------



## andysays (Apr 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ...this is quite good...
> 
> https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourki...rms-uk-government-in-event-of-hung-parliament



Yes, it is.

I think the question of Deputy Speakers and if 323 or 321 is needed for an effective majority is less important that some are making it, because there is no need for a party or parties to command a majority in order to form a government.

But this bit is interesting


> When no party achieves an overall majority, this principle cannot apply so that alternative conventions must be invoked. Cabinet Manual refers political actors in this situation to the _continuation rule_, which was appealed to by Heath and Wilson in 1974. This principle stipulates that the “incumbent government is entitled to wait until the new Parliament has met to see if it can command the confidence of the House of Commons” (ibid. § 2.12). Only when it emerges that the incumbent is “unlikely” to command the confidence of parliament, *and there is a clear alternative*, is the government expected to resign.



Given that the SNP have explicitly ruled out a formal coalition with Labour, I can see the possibility of Cameron (no doubt with widespread support in the media) claiming that there isn't a clear alternative to the incumbent government and that he should be given first chance at forming a government, especially if, as still seems likely, the combined Con & LD MPs are more than Lab.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 21, 2015)

So how long can a government go on without a vote of confidence?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2015)

Quartz said:


> So how long can a government go on without a vote of confidence?


5 years


----------



## rioted (Apr 21, 2015)

The vote on the Queens speech is a vote of confidence


----------



## magneze (Apr 22, 2015)

Anyway, it's interesting that many of the polls posted have the SNP in the "Other" category. What percentage of the national vote are they polling at? It feels like they should be broken out of "Other" to me ...


----------



## JTG (Apr 22, 2015)

magneze said:


> Anyway, it's interesting that many of the polls posted have the SNP in the "Other" category. What percentage of the national vote are they polling at? It feels like they should be broken out of "Other" to me ...


4%ish


----------



## weepiper (Apr 22, 2015)

magneze said:


> Anyway, it's interesting that many of the polls posted have the SNP in the "Other" category. What percentage of the national vote are they polling at? It feels like they should be broken out of "Other" to me ...


I think it's been between 4-6% nationally


----------



## magneze (Apr 22, 2015)

Thanks, so quite a decent percentage then. Interesting how it's not split out in many polls.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2015)

Lab -4, LD +3


----------



## Quartz (Apr 23, 2015)

Those poll results are all within the margins of error, aren't they?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2015)

Quartz said:


> Those poll results are all within the margins of error, aren't they?


they are


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2015)




----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2015)

This is the 'interesting' survation poll everyone was on about:

New South Thanet p
UKIP - 39%
CON - 30%
LAB - 26%
GRN - 2%
LDEM - 2%


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2015)

UKIP polled+across the board this week - including another 17%.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 23, 2015)

Those BNP voters turning out


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Those BNP voters turning out


All important.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> This is the 'interesting' survation poll everyone was on about:
> 
> New South Thanet p
> UKIP - 39%
> ...


Presumably this had named candidate methodology?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Presumably this had named candidate methodology?


We'll see soon.I expect so.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2015)

lol


----------



## miktheword (Apr 23, 2015)

brogdale said:


> lol







they're all over the place. 4 Labour (smallish) leads, five now; four Tory (bigger ones) but ComRes haven't had a Labour lead all year, have dropped online polls now apparently, which mostly show Labour leads (consistent Tory leads by different pollsters are all phone polls)
also UKIP has been between 12 and 18% today..!?  Survation had Tories ahead of Labour in North of England?!....many thinking Labour 29% with Tories down and Libdems up could be Red Libs going back, maybe tactically and regionally south-west.

and survation now have Farage up by 9% over Tories in South Thanet..
didn't Guardian have them third two days ago?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2015)

miktheword said:


> they're all over the place. 4 Labour (smallish) leads, five now; four Tory (bigger ones) but ComRes haven't had a Labour lead all year, have dropped online polls now apparently, which mostly show Labour leads (consistent Tory leads by different pollsters are all phone polls)
> also UKIP has been between 12 and 18% today..!?  Survation had Tories ahead of Labour in North of England?!....many thinking Labour 29% with Tories down and Libdems up could be Red Libs going back, maybe tactically and regionally south-west.
> 
> and survation now have Farage up by 9% over Tories in South Thanet..
> didn't Guardian have them third two days ago?


Was only a week ago, or so, that someone was criticising the pollsters of 'herding' based on that Nate Silver shite.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2015)

_How come they don't all agree with each other if they're right?_


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> We'll see soon.I expect so.


Seems to have been named.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Seems to have been named.


Yeah, unlike that 'neck and neck' one from last week.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2015)

Usual good sense from Anthony...



> Looking at reactions on social media there are lots of people getting excited or dismayed by getting two Conservative four point leads in short succession. There is always a temptation to look for movement in the random variation of polls (especially when there has been so little genuine movement to get excited over!). However, there are four polls today – two Conservative leads, two Labour leads. The time to pay attention would be when the balance of the polls consistently starts showed one party or the other ahead, right now they still seem pretty evenly balanced.


----------



## miktheword (Apr 24, 2015)

Populus ‎@PopulusPolls  

Latest Populus VI: Lab 35 (+1), Con 32 (-), LD 8 (-1), UKIP 14 (-1), Greens 5 (+1), Others 6 (-). Tables here: http://popu.lu/sVI240415 


11:23 AM - 24 Apr 2015


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 24, 2015)

The polls cannot be an accurate prediction of the election because they are based on proportional representation and the real elections are fptp. My guess is that we end up with another hung parliament. Someone asked me yesterday what the politicians would do if nobody voted for anyone as a protest. The idea appeals to me. The idea that is of there being no government at all. Is it too late to organise a complete boycott of the General Election?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 24, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The polls cannot be an accurate prediction of the election because they are based on proportional representation and the real elections are fptp.


Sorry that's utter nonsense, it doesn't even make any sense.

Polls attempt to measure the share of the vote each party will receive (well it's a bit more complicated than that because different polls are trying to measure slightly different things but it's close enough). And these days are really pretty accurate,

That's a separate thing to the models that predict the number of seats that each party will get, though many/most of those models use polling data as a input. These models do take into account the fact that we use FPTP, indeed even the most crude model, Uniform National Swing, is based on the fact that the UK uses the FPTP system. Sorry but you're simply talking rubbish.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 24, 2015)

An accurate prediction of the election cannot be an accurate prediction of the election. Because.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 24, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The polls cannot be an accurate prediction of the election because they are based on proportional representation and the real elections are fptp. My guess is that we end up with another hung parliament. Someone asked me yesterday what the politicians would do if nobody voted for anyone as a protest. The idea appeals to me. The idea that is of there being no government at all. Is it too late to organise a complete boycott of the General Election?


Is there any political subject about which you don't not know anything?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 24, 2015)

I agree that the polls estimate the share of the vote that a party might be expected to get from a snapshot taken at a particular time in the electoral process. However people who go on to calculate the final election results based on this do not consider the effect  of the voting system on the result.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 24, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Is there any political subject about which you don't not know anything?


I know nothing, I am from Barcelona.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2015)

Ashcroft has just released his latest batch of marginal polling...

BriUrbs might well be interested in this set:-





> In Bristol North West, Charlotte Leslie is well ahead in the seat she won for the Conservatives in 2010 in a three-way fight with the Liberal Democrats. Elsewhere in the city, the Green Party has been heavily targeting Bristol West, a seat the Lib Dems won in 2010 with a 20-point majority over Labour. I found the Greens in second place with a 25% vote share, with more voters attracted from the Lib Dems than from any other party. This, combined with the fact nearly three in ten 2010 Lib Dems have switched straight to Labour, would be enough for Labour to take the seat with a swing of 19% if the result were repeated on 7 May.


----------



## JTG (Apr 25, 2015)

Not surprised about the NW seat and reassured about West. Was a little worried the fucking Greens may let Williams back in


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 25, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I know nothing, I am from Barcelona.


racist


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2015)

Bet they're glad the Greens moved up 1 point....


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Apr 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I really don't think you have.
> 
> For clarity, what exactly do you disagree with here?



So 321 it is then?

Having considered 326, 323, and 321...I see that, under their seat projection graphics, the Guardian has included this note....


> _If no party secures a majority, *an alliance of more than 322 MPs* could probably survive a confidence vote_


----------



## weepiper (Apr 26, 2015)

Scottish poll of polls


----------



## brogdale (Apr 26, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Scottish poll of polls
> 
> View attachment 70738


wonder how far back you'd have to go to find Lab just 9% ahead of the vermin?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 26, 2015)

"More than 322" = at least 323, right?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 26, 2015)

kabbes said:


> "More than 322" = at least 323, right?


Well, I'm sticking by 321 tbh, but clearly the Guardian think 323 is required to _"secure a majority". _I think I'll try to ask them how they've got to that figure, because if my assumptions about SF and 'Denison's rule' applying to all 4 speakers/deputies are correct, then 321 would suffice. This sort of stuff could become very important.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 26, 2015)

YG/Anthony's poll of polls graph for the year, so far...


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 26, 2015)

Latest on Sheffield Hallam? Anyone?


----------



## belboid (Apr 26, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Latest on Sheffield Hallam? Anyone?


nowt new.  Lots of Labourites working their arses off - an endorsement from a former Tory candidate, Coppard refusing to turn up to a Save the NHS demo, but popping along at the end for a bit of canvassing.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2015)




----------



## bemused (Apr 27, 2015)

Bet the LibDems are happy that proportional representation lark isn't happening now.


----------



## belboid (Apr 27, 2015)

bemused said:


> Bet the LibDems are happy that proportional representation lark isn't happening now.


8% = 52 seats, more than they'll be getting now


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Apr 27, 2015)

If they can manage to drop to 5%-ish but somehow retain 30 seats, they'll finally have achieved full PR.  The AV referendum and the coalition, the tuition fees - it was all just a clever ploy all along masking their real aim.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2015)

SNP 54% in this TNS poll.


----------



## JTG (Apr 27, 2015)

These SNP figures are getting mental


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2015)

JTG said:


> These SNP figures are getting mental


Murphy was supposed to get these down. He's done the opposite: they've gone higher than anyone thought possible.


----------



## belboid (Apr 27, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Murphy was supposed to get these down. He's done the opposite: they've gone higher than anyone thought possible.


Funny that.  Who'd have thought Scots have blatantly had enough of Blairite bullshit?

Oh yes, everyone outside of the Labour Party.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2015)

That TNS poll would give SNP 57 seats. We're used to hearing these huge figures now, but just take a moment to let that sink in. 57.


----------



## belboid (Apr 27, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> That TNS poll would give SNP 57 seats. We're used to hearing these huge figures now, but just take a moment to let that sink in. 57.



not bad out of 56

(I know, I do, honest)


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> That TNS poll would give SNP 57 seats. We're used to hearing these huge figures now, but just take a moment to let that sink in. 57.



That allows Miliband in with mid 260s.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2015)

belboid said:


> not bad out of 56
> 
> (I know, I do, honest)


Lol. 

Now, I think it's doubtful it'll be quite as much as that. But it's stunning that we're talking in those terms.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2015)

http://www.scotlandvotes.com


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2015)

> The Guardian’s ICM poll is just out. It gives the Conservatives a 3-point lead, up 1 from last week. Here the start of Tom Clark’s story.
> 
> Conservative support has edged up in the latest Guardian/ICM campaign poll, with David Cameron’s party registering a three-point lead over Labour.
> 
> ...



Consistent with other telephone-based polling.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2015)

UKIP almost doubling their polling from week before last there.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> UKIP almost doubling their polling from week before last there.


Which undermines Smithson's 'shy-kipper'/phone poll thesis.


----------



## treelover (Apr 27, 2015)

Is this significant, hasn't Guardian/ICM consistently shown the Tories in the lead?

Does this mean that the UK basically has a 'conservative majority' including UKIP, and is a small C Conservative country, at least amongst those that vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Which undermines Smithson's 'shy-kipper'/phone poll thesis.


Yep. Look at the lib-dems in that second chart. Shameless.


----------



## belboid (Apr 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> Does this mean that the UK basically has a 'conservative majority' including UKIP, and is a small C Conservative country, at least amongst those that vote.


No


----------



## treelover (Apr 27, 2015)

> That ranks it as less important than education (8%) and resolving the deficit (7%), but more important than Europe (4%), pensions (3%) and crime and disorder, which only 2% of those surveyed name as their chief concern.



Incredible that crime is only a major concern for 2%, in the 80's it was much much more. Oh, and welfare is nowhere to be seen, yet all parties plan more 'reform'


----------



## treelover (Apr 27, 2015)

belboid said:


> No



I was waiting for that,
please expand.


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2015)

It means people's voting choices are based on more complex criteria than where they sit on a simple conservative>liberal axis


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> I was waiting for that,
> please expand.


Not all people voting UKIP are doing so out of agreement with UKIP's policy agenda.


----------



## belboid (Apr 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> I was waiting for that,
> please expand.


anyone taking a single election result, or even a couple, as meaning 'the UK basically has a 'conservative majority' ' is a complete idiot.


----------



## treelover (Apr 27, 2015)

That is why I asked, I wasn't agreeing with the question, believe it or not plenty of posters on here don't have all the answers and want to find out what others may think, even know.


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 27, 2015)

Also, 35% is not a majority.


----------



## belboid (Apr 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> That is why I asked, I wasn't agreeing with the question, believe it or not plenty of posters on here don't have all the answers and want to find out what others may think, even know.


what's the point in asking a completely stupid question?

Would Boris being exposed as a Martian affect his chances of becoming PM?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2015)




----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 27, 2015)

belboid said:


> what's the point in asking a completely stupid question?
> 
> Would Boris being exposed as a Martian affect his chances of becoming PM?


He is not is he?  If so I think his residential qualification outweighs his origin as I understand it.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 27, 2015)

brogdale re Ashcroft's poll :

According to miktheword in the GE2015 thread the headline figures slightly mask somewhat stronger Labour polling in marginals/battleground seats (South of Scotland, obvs).


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> brogdale re Ashcroft's poll :
> 
> According to miktheword in the GE2015 thread the headline figures slightly mask somewhat stronger Labour polling in marginals/battleground seats (South of Scotland, obvs).


I can't see what he is referring to and I can't really understand what he means. People need to link to what they're talking about.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 27, 2015)

Where does Ashcroft have the Tories massively beating Labour in Scotland?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Where does Ashcroft have the Tories massively beating Labour in Scotland?


in davidson's dreams


----------



## weepiper (Apr 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> in davidson's dreams


Ruth Davidson's actually really quite popular and if she wasn't hamstrung by Cameron and Osborne the Tories might do a lot better in Scotland.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 27, 2015)

brogdale : Something tells me I should have checked the link myself instead of just taking another poster's word for it ....


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2015)

weepiper said:


> ... if she wasn't hamstrung by Cameron and Osborne the Tories might do a lot better in Scotland.



But then she wouldn't be a tory, would she?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 27, 2015)

The Ashcroft Scottish focus groups from this week make interesting reading in general, specifically though this is the only mention the Tories get in the whole thing



which doesn't strike me as 'massively beating Labour'. Labour are nosediving but the Tories are still beneath them, except maybe in one or two Borders seats.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/04/ashcroft-national-poll-con-36-lab-30-lib-dem-9-ukip-11-green-7/


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 27, 2015)

Seems to me most of the (non-Scottish) polls are registering very small changes either way for the Tories/Labour with little overall statistically significant movement of late. Does anyone know if there's somewhere which separates out the percentage of undecided voters, particularly in key marginals? What chance of the 'late deciders' having a significant effect on the overall result?


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2015)

None of the national polls would have any kind of useful constituency level data, and there's only Ashcroft doing any significant marginal polling. All of them publish their workings if you go looking though, I think.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Seems to me most of the (non-Scottish) polls are registering very small changes either way for the Tories/Labour with little overall statistically significant movement of late. Does anyone know if there's somewhere which separates out the percentage of undecided voters, particularly in key marginals? What chance of the 'late deciders' having a significant effect on the overall result?


The vermin are hanging onto the _belief _that DKs break roughly 2:1 to the incumbent. I'm not aware of any fieldwork that explores that meme. 

Smithson has been looking at the variability of DK across the pollsters and the gender gap..


----------



## miktheword (Apr 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I can't see what he is referring to and I can't really understand what he means. People need to link to what they're talking about.




But there is some comfort for Labour in the even smaller sub-sample of the poll that comes from battleground seats in England and Wales. These are defined as those that Labour won by no more than 10 percentage points in 2010, or the Conservatives won by no more than 15 points. 

Labour is running at 40% in these seats, which is up four points on 2010, while the Tories are on 36%, which is down two points. Some caution is needed because the sample in this case is fairly small, but this would suggest the swing to Labour is slightly stronger in these swing seats than across Britain as a whole.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics...hree-point-lead-over-labour-guardian-icm-poll


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 27, 2015)

miktheword said:


> But there is some comfort for Labour in the even smaller sub-sample of the poll that comes from battleground seats in England and Wales. These are defined as those that Labour won by no more than 10 percentage points in 2010, or the Conservatives won by no more than 15 points.
> 
> Labour is running at 40% in these seats, which is up four points on 2010, while the Tories are on 36%, which is down two points. Some caution is needed because the sample in this case is fairly small, but this would suggest the swing to Labour is slightly stronger in these swing seats than across Britain as a whole.
> 
> ...


This has been the case for ages. I can't remember a constituency poll that looked good for the Tories.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 27, 2015)




----------



## miktheword (Apr 27, 2015)

weepiper said:


> The Ashcroft Scottish focus groups from this week make interesting reading in general, specifically though this is the only mention the Tories get in the whole thing
> 
> View attachment 70810
> 
> ...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> None of the national polls would have any kind of useful constituency level data, and there's only Ashcroft doing any significant marginal polling. All of them publish their workings if you go looking though, I think.


Cheers, yeah this page usefully collates all the data from the various polling orbs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#2015

Last few polls taken 24-26 April:

You Gov/Sun: 12.3% undecided
ICM/Guardian: 21% undecided
Populus: 13% undecided
Ashcroft: 9% undecided 

So quite a big variation in "don't know"s. Whether it's significant or not is another thing...


----------



## miktheword (Apr 27, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> brogdale : Something tells me I should have checked the link myself instead of just taking another poster's word for it ....









Or checked the link and seen that the poster was taking the word of ICM?


----------



## belboid (Apr 27, 2015)

another prediction from Nate Silver - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32488206

he really has no idea


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2015)

belboid said:


> another prediction from Nate Silver - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32488206
> 
> he really has no idea


Well maybe, but his predicted outcomes look remarkably similar to most current predictions....


----------



## belboid (Apr 27, 2015)

exactly, he has no idea who is going to win 

Just watching the full Panorama programme ('kippers have a 90% chance of 0, 1 or 2), and they have made a lot of his last two American predictions, but absolutely no mention of his attempts at our last one.


----------



## belboid (Apr 27, 2015)

Christ, this  is awful - he's just told us sometimes we need to name the local candidates to get an accurate poll!  basically, it's all stuff our pollsters worked out several years ago


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2015)

belboid said:


> exactly, he has no idea who is going to win
> 
> Just watching the full Panorama programme ('kippers have a 90% chance of 0, 1 or 2), and they have made a lot of his last two American predictions, but absolutely no mention of his attempts at our last one.


Well his numbers say he does.

All of the conservative parties combined come to 320. Not enough.


----------



## belboid (Apr 27, 2015)

But with a great margin of error. And 324 isn't really enough for the anti-tories either.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2015)

belboid said:


> But with a great margin of error. And 324 isn't really enough for the anti-tories either.


Of course MoE etc....but 324 _could _be made to pass a QS.


----------



## belboid (Apr 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Of course MoE etc....but 324 _could _be made to pass a QS.


aah, then it could all come down to who they can set up as a deputy.... 

More importantly, it'd be about as stable as francium


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2015)

belboid said:


> aah, then it could all come down to who they can set up as a deputy....
> 
> More importantly, it'd be about as stable as francium


Yeah, unstable alright...but this shows why our discussion about 321/323/324/326 etc. _could _be so important. The alternative to a QS/VoC vote is another GE.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, unstable alright...but this shows why our discussion about 321/323/324/326 etc. _could _be so important. The alternative to a QS/VoC vote is another GE.


e2a : I don't think there will be a DPM. Without a coalition there's no need to make up such a non-post.


----------



## belboid (Apr 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Well his numbers say he does.
> 
> All of the conservative parties combined come to 320. Not enough.


actually, the right-wing parties seem to come to 316.  283 tories, 24 libs, 8 DUP, 1 kipper. Where are you getting the others from?

e2a: The rest are:  Lab 270, SNP 48, and 'Others' 16.  That must be 5 SF, 3 SDLP, 1 alliance, 1 TUV, 1 Speaker, 1 Green, but the other two?  1 for that doctor chap, and...


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2015)

belboid said:


> actually, the right-wing parties seem to come to 316.  283 tories, 24 libs, 8 DUP, 1 kipper. Where are you getting the others from?


286 + 24 LD + 8 DUP + 1 UKIP + 1 UUP = 320


----------



## belboid (Apr 28, 2015)

aah, he's just said 283 on the programme!


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2015)

But even that 'grouping' makes many assumptions about minors willing to back the vermin.


----------



## belboid (Apr 28, 2015)

I could just have looked at your picture for the figures, couldn't I? 

His _site _now has a tory side on 317- 281/26/9/2/1. I bet he's got NI wrong

And is there really any point counting the doctor bloke (who will presumably be the other independent) as likely support either side?

Oh, and his site is only hosting the data, it's compilation is actually nothing to do with him


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 28, 2015)

belboid said:


> another prediction from Nate Silver - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32488206
> 
> he really has no idea


Really don't know why people go to him for UK elections. US ok, fine but his prediction for 2010 was rubbish and it's not like there's not loads of British pollsters they could have on


----------



## kabbes (Apr 28, 2015)

I turned over to that programme, saw them earnestly explain to me what "first past the post" means and turned it off again.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 28, 2015)

Labour facing wipe-out in Scotland, per the Telegraph. TNS-BMRB polling source here.



> SNP 54% (+2), Lab 22% (-2), Con 13% (0), LD 6% (0), Green 2% (-1), UKIP 2% (+1)


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 28, 2015)

Must be a dream for the SNP - simultaneously scooping up anyone vaguely to the left of labour wanting a more progressive choice whilst also picking up tactical tories and lib dem that see a scottish wipeout for Labour as improving their own chances of arguing for power in the wider UK.


----------



## Santino (Apr 28, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I turned over to that programme, saw them earnestly explain to me what "first past the post" means and turned it off again.


It annoys me constantly, because the phrase implies that there are other candidates who pass the post but, by virtue of being slower than the first to do so, are not elected. When the truth is that there is no post.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2015)

Last night's YG/Scum poll...



e2a: YG's lowest UKIP number for 9 months.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2015)

Santino said:


> It annoys me constantly, because the phrase implies that there are other candidates who pass the post but, by virtue of being slower than the first to do so, are not elected. When the truth is that there is no post.


It is a weak metaphor, but the 'post' of a plurality of the the votes cast does exist.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 29, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I turned over to that programme, saw them earnestly explain to me what "first past the post" means and turned it off again.



I thought I'd tuned into Newsbeat, and than I realised, no, it was actually Panorama, that flagship BBC current affairs program.



redsquirrel said:


> Really don't know why people go to him for UK elections. US ok, fine but his prediction for 2010 was rubbish and it's not like there's not loads of British pollsters they could have on



It can be interesting to get an outsider's view, but not if it's only a tool to explain what everyone already knows.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 29, 2015)

"New STV/Ipsos Mori poll shows SNP on course to win EVERY seat in Scotland"

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides...t-to-win-all-scots-seats-at-general-election/


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 29, 2015)

That'd be incredible if it pans out, especially as it'll dent tory/lib dem coalition prospects a fair bit.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 29, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> That'd be incredible if it pans out, especially as it'll dent tory/lib dem coalition prospects a fair bit.


I'm still guessing 30 -40 rather than 55 -59.  But the polls disagree.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 29, 2015)

Labour on 20%, only 3 points ahead of the Tories on 17%.  

That's worth reading again.


----------



## Santino (Apr 29, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Labour on 20%, only 3 points ahead of the Tories on 17%.
> 
> That's worth reading again.


I can't believe it. 17% of Scots might vote Tory?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 29, 2015)

Santino said:


> I can't believe it. 17% of Scots might vote Tory?


That's about right.  I think it was 16% in 2010.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 29, 2015)

Yup, 16.7% in fact.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 29, 2015)

Latest Scottish poll of polls: 

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/...westminster-vote-intentions-27-april-revised/


----------



## Quartz (Apr 29, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> "New STV/Ipsos Mori poll shows SNP on course to win EVERY seat in Scotland"



I rather doubt that, what with the Shetlands and Orkneys voting so heavily against independence. We'll see next week.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 29, 2015)

Quartz said:


> I rather doubt that, what with the Shetlands and Orkneys voting so heavily against independence. We'll see next week.


What do you doubt? 

I personally don't think this will happen, but it isn't a prediction, it's a poll. Do you doubt the poll?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 29, 2015)

Quartz said:


> I rather doubt that, what with the Shetlands and Orkneys voting so heavily against independence. We'll see next week.


Also, here's where we are in Scottish politics: your quibble is that there's _one seat_ you don't think the SNP can win.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 29, 2015)

What are the odds on a SNP clean sweep of the 59 seats - ? Might be worth a punt


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 29, 2015)

earlier in the year the polls had those islands as a lib dem stronghold. iirc.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 29, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> earlier in the year the polls had those islands as a lib dem stronghold. iirc.



Maybe we could offer them to Argentina?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 29, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Maybe we could offer them to Argentina?


The Lib Dems? Yes, I'm all for that.


----------



## killer b (Apr 29, 2015)

What have Argentina done to deserve that?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> What have Argentina done to deserve that?


Inspired a Lloyd Webber musical.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> What have Argentina done to deserve that?


The Hand of God


----------



## miktheword (Apr 29, 2015)

http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/itv-news-conservative-labour-battlegrounds-poll/


Comres have better news for Labour in 50 most marginal, 3 pt average lead.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 29, 2015)

Labour could squeak an outright victory if there's anti-SNP tactical voting in Scotland and the Tories continue to lose voters to UKIP in England.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 29, 2015)

Quartz said:


> Labour could squeak an outright victory if there's anti-SNP tactical voting in Scotland and the Tories continue to lose voters to UKIP in England.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 29, 2015)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> brogdale : Something tells me I should have checked the link myself instead of just taking another poster's word for it ...





miktheword said:


> Or checked the link and seen that the poster was taking the word of ICM?



Yeah, I did pick up on that 'wrong source' thing a little while after, so various  's again ... just haven't been on here for a while to plead stupidity as a defence of idiocy


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 29, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


>


It's the way he tells em


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2015)




----------



## Wilf (Apr 29, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Labour on 20%, only 3 points ahead of the Tories on 17%.
> 
> That's worth reading again.


Hard to imagine a few years ago that we'd have a scenario where there was an outside chance of the tories having more mps in Scotland than Labour.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 30, 2015)

Larger 'cross-over' for the vermin, but it is a phone poll.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 30, 2015)

brogdale -- do you reckon there are there good reasons to distrust phone polls then? Recent results from a few of them seem out of line with other ones.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 30, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> brogdale -- do you reckon there are there good reasons to distrust phone polls then? Recent results from a few of them seem out of line with other ones.


One good reason is that, like face to face, they're more likely to elicit "shy voter" responses.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 30, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> brogdale -- do you reckon there are there good reasons to distrust phone polls then? Recent results from a few of them seem out of line with other ones.


No. It's not a matter of trust, but there is certainly good empirical evidence to suggest that different polling methodologies are (unsurprisingly) yielding different outcomes. Recently Smithson graphed up some polling to illustrate one aspect of this relating to the notion of the 'shy 'kipper'...







It's clear that the actual human interaction of the phone call appears to depress support expressed for UKIP, hence disproportionately raising tory numbers as a consequence. That's all.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 30, 2015)

danny la rouge brogdale Ta. That shy voter factor is interesting ...

UKIP aside, the Tory figure was a bit higher in that most recent one, Labour's a bit lower ... probably best to be cautious and not jump to conclusions though (yet). Just interested is all.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 30, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> danny la rouge brogdale Ta. That shy voter factor is interesting ...
> 
> UKIP aside, the Tory figure was a bit higher in that most recent one, Labour's a bit lower ... probably best to be cautious and not jump to conclusions though (yet). Just interested is all.



Hmmm - Labout have now been behind in four of the last five polls and UK Polling report average has the Tories in a one point lead. The nearer to the election the greater reluctance for change in swing voters. It's not looking good this week for Labour.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 30, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Hmmm - Labout have now been behind in four of the last five polls and UK Polling report average has the Tories in a one point lead. The nearer to the election the greater reluctance for change in swing voters. It's not looking good this week for Labour.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 30, 2015)

brogdale said:


>




Add the Ipsos Mori that's maybe 2 out of 7.


----------



## miktheword (Apr 30, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Hmmm - Labout have now been behind in four of the last five polls and UK Polling report average has the Tories in a one point lead. The nearer to the election the greater reluctance for change in swing voters. It's not looking good this week for Labour.





on its own, means little. Far more depends on the marginals, especially Con - Lab ones; posts have been on this thread recently explaining. A Tory boost by a couple of points nationally means little if they're taking them off Lib Dems in the south west. Labour losing share to SNP similarly means nothing.

Also, most (all?) polls have a built in Tory swing back factor ..many are level until they build that in and 'how did you vote in 2010?'..that means less this time with many Labour staying at home then, many UKIP not voting, and obviously overstates Lib Dem  and understates those who have now switched to Labour.

 Plus many weight by intention to vote.. The Ipsos Mori I think only had those definitely voting, discounting others totally...advantaging the Tories.

Cameron has a very difficult path to No 10, even with a late swing ..and his best chance includes Clegg holding his seat and being able to carry the members again this time.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 30, 2015)

None of it good news for Labour as they need to buck trends to have a majority. It's not good to lose even if the Tories don't end up with a majority coalition to form.


----------



## miktheword (Apr 30, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> None of it good news for Labour as they need to buck trends to have a majority. It's not good to lose even if the Tories don't end up with a majority coalition to form.








have you been looking at the numbers recently?! Its well known Labour can't get a majority..

virtually certain they will with SNP (more Left than Labour)..Seems as if you've just parachuted in after a few weeks away.


----------



## miktheword (Apr 30, 2015)

YouGov/Sun poll tonight – Labour have a one-point lead: CON 34%, LAB 35%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%, GRN 5%


----------



## brogdale (May 1, 2015)




----------



## miktheword (May 1, 2015)

so 3 of last 4 polls have Labour ahead yet Guardian comes out with another 'clear lead for Tories' 'polls have definitely shifted'  today .. without any details of Ashcroft sampling and Ipsos weighting , whether phone or on-line etc.


----------



## brogdale (May 1, 2015)

brogdale said:


>



slight correction...


----------



## brogdale (May 1, 2015)




----------



## miktheword (May 1, 2015)

Ashcroft had his final marginal out today. (does he only publish those that he wants?..he's a Tory after all, and may earlier have published polls as he could perhaps change their policy..too late to do so now..) His sample of marginal is very selective. he says bottom end of Labour targeted for a reason - Peterborough Lab +2, high UKIP, also high migrant labour force.
Anyway, Pudsey seems tied, Norwich North Lab +2, McVey looks in trouble in Wirral, but has Battersea 12 pt Tory lead?! also ahead in Croydon South despite London average swing going the other way.

He also found some shift in Murphy's seat from SNP to Lab..Tory tactical maybe?

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/05/mixed-fortunes-in-my-final-round-of-marginals/



Ipsos the other day had crossbreaks  of Tories winning  (big sometimes) amongst DE's, 18-24s, London...some posts saying internally they were nearly not going to publish due to the incredibility of this.

Finally on Methodology, Populus the other day have just changed their allocation of DKs to 2010 vote , putting Labour back and increasing Tory, Lib Dem giving a tie..  Labour ahead before that.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 2, 2015)

Im not sure i can take another week of obsessive poll watching and the stress it produces. You Gov and panelbase polls are consistantly showing lab and tory in a dead heat - with labour maybe shading it by ball hair. Other pollsters are less consistent but  MORI, Ashcroft - keep recently given the  tories leads of 4-6% - enough for them to scrape some sort of majority together.

I think that the you gov polling is more reliable - but I am definitely not certain. The spectre of 1992 still lingers. There may be a number of  'shy' tories out there. 

Thursday is going to be a long, anxious, night.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 2, 2015)

miktheword said:


> Finally on Methodology, Populus the other day have just changed their allocation of DKs to 2010 vote , putting Labour back and increasing Tory, Lib Dem giving a tie..  Labour ahead before that.



I don't really undestand the implications of this I must confess ...


----------



## brogdale (May 2, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> I don't really undestand the implications of this I must confess ...


It's just that they allocate the present DKs on the basis of their (recalled) 2010 choice. The vermin and collaborators did better than Lab in 2010...so...that methodological tweak slightly enhances the coalition parties polling number.


----------



## killer b (May 2, 2015)

I'd imagine there's proportionally a lot less people who voted Labour last time among the 'don't knows' - so it'll be much more heavily weighted toward the vermin parties.


----------



## brogdale (May 2, 2015)

killer b said:


> I'd imagine there's proportionally a lot less people who voted Labour last time among the 'don't knows' - so it'll be much more heavily weighted toward the vermin parties.


In all honesty I'm quite suspicious of the notion of DKs altogether. I think that a majority of interviewees claiming DK status are merely those people unwilling to reveal (shy/embarrassed/guilty) or lacking the confidence/self-esteem to express a preference. I think most people do know tbh.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (May 2, 2015)

I'd think the lib-dems would be the biggest beneficiaries of that.  There was a lot of them - "don't know, but not them" is probably a common answer among the 50ish % of their voters they've dropped, yet would be reallocated to their 2010 vote.


----------



## brogdale (May 2, 2015)

For anyone interested in the polling issues around DKs, and various attempts to overcome the problem, this is a good little account...

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/faq-dont-knows


----------



## brogdale (May 2, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (May 2, 2015)




----------



## William of Walworth (May 2, 2015)

Cheers for those Don't Know-related replies -- that ukpollingreport article is especially useful.


----------



## miktheword (May 2, 2015)

Survation. ?@Survation
 HEADLINE VI Survation/MoS LAB 34%; CON 31%; UKIP 17%; LD 8%; SNP 5%; GRE 4%; OTH 1% Tables: http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/mosfgep2128_020515.pdf …


----------



## miktheword (May 2, 2015)

@JohnRentoul: ComRes for @IndyOnSunday & @TheSundayMirror Con 33% (-2) Lab 33% (-2) Lib Dem 8% (+1) UKIP 13% (+2) Green 7% (+1) http://t.co/KhLBguYb5b


ComRes have shown ties in their last two, more important may be they haven't had a Labour lead all year and that they are phone pollsters, which all big Tory leads are.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 3, 2015)

Any (or how much?) validity in this 'Labour Uncut' stuff, posted today on the General Election thread?

Hoping for some expertise-based interpretation. Here on the right thread for it.

brogdale and @ others ...


----------



## brogdale (May 3, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Any (or how much?) validity in this 'Labour Uncut' stuff, posted today on the General Election thread?
> 
> Hoping for some expertise-based interpretation. Here on the right thread for it.
> 
> brogdale and @ others ...


Sorry mate; no idea about this.

Could it be an activist motivator tool? Like the old "Neck and neck" meme?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 3, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Any (or how much?) validity in this 'Labour Uncut' stuff, posted today on the General Election thread?



How closely do postal voters mirror the wider electorate? I'm guessing it skews older.


----------



## JimW (May 3, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> How closely do postal voters mirror the wider electorate? I'm guessing it skews older.


My folks (in their 70s) have postal voted already, none of the rest of the family have yet, which fits. They voted Labour mind, so maybe not the best fit for this case.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 3, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Sorry mate; no idea about this.
> 
> Could it be an activist motivator tool? Like the old "Neck and neck" meme?




That sounds pretty plausible actually ...


----------



## William of Walworth (May 3, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> How closely do postal voters mirror the wider electorate? I'm guessing it skews older.




You would think so yes ...


----------



## jannerboyuk (May 3, 2015)

Don't know if this site has been posted, but has some interesting ward by ward breakdowns for us real sad bastards! http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html


----------



## Celyn (May 3, 2015)

Ooh, Inverness, NB & S looks amazing. Poor old Danny Alexander.  Oh dear, how sad, never mind.		 But where I live is probably a Labour hold.  Oh well.


----------



## miktheword (May 3, 2015)

It's bullshit , Labour uncut meant to be part of that BluLabour thing, very Blairite and anti Miliband.
Reading through blogs on UKPR, first it is extremely hard to even see an 'x' through a ballot paper placed faced down. Many posted, who've been present at counts, that it is very hard to guess.

electoral commission changed the law this year, forcing them to be placed downwards, and ID numbers match with ballot lists before being placed in sealed box (after Davison and Scottish referendum fuck up, I think she revealed some early results.

Apart from that, postal ballots are meant to be favoured by an older age profile, benefiting the Tories

Also, from looking at the article's timings of events, there would hardly have been that many posted and returned , counted to cause Miliband to plan to visit Brand as a result. 


Mischief making by Hodges types, who may want to speak to their lawyers....

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/media-law/publication-of-exit-polls-law.htm

“The Representation of the People Act 2002 inserted a section 66A into the initial 1983 of the same name and this read as follows. It is a criminal offence ‘to publish, before a poll is closed, any statement about the way in which voters have voted in that election, where this statement is, or might reasonably be taken to be, based on information given by voters after they voted.’

“Not only statements and statistics but also making forecasts based on exit polls, constitute an offence. The 2002 Act specifically makes it an offence ‘to publish, before a poll is closed, any forecast – including any estimate – of that election result, if the forecast is based on exit poll information from voters, or which might reasonably be taken to be based on it.”


----------



## redsquirrel (May 3, 2015)

miktheword said:


> Mischief making by Hodges types, who may want to speak to their lawyers....


Aye, I was going to mention that they'll need to be careful or they could be in trouble with the law.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 4, 2015)

This belongs more in the Guardian down the pan thread, really,  but it's popped up in the main GE 2015 thread.

'Exclusive' Guardian poll makes Tory tactical votes in Hallam keep Clegg in ....

But look at the seriously shit methodology issues below.

This is lifted from treelover's post in the GE thread, and was posted in CiF (apparantly) by some astute person

(Couldn't find that actual response in the Graun myself, but thanks to treelover for alerting me/people in the other thread to it)




			
				Comment Is Free said:
			
		

> In a poll of 501 people just 5 people changing their intended preference gives a 1% change to the polling result. 5 people.
> 
> So when we hear about Clegg's 7% 'surge' remember that only 35 people in this sample are meant to have changed their intended vote in his favour.
> 
> ...



Worth some technical/metholodology-related comments, polling experts? 

brogdale and @ every other expert


----------



## Dogsauce (May 4, 2015)

People are voting for him out of spite, because they know if he's at the helm of the lib Dems they'll continue to slide into obscurity. I think we win whatever the result.


----------



## brogdale (May 4, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> This belongs more in the Guardian down the pan thread, really,  but it's popped up in the main GE 2015 thread.
> 
> 'Exclusive' Guardian poll makes Tory tactical votes in Hallam keep Clegg in ....
> 
> ...



Small sample (by Ashcroft standards) but the general story should not really come as any surprise to anyone who has followed this (and other related) thread(s). The data on voter contact by party has demonstrated that the vermin have never conducted anything like a proper campaign in Hallam, and several 'influential' vermin have called directly for support for Clegg over their candidate.

Ashcroft has resolutely stuck with unnamed polling and he has taken criticism for this approach, but he has applied his method consistently for comparative purposes. In a few days we'll all be able to see if he was right to do so.


----------



## brogdale (May 4, 2015)

Gotta say that anyone responding differently to the un-named question 1 and named question 2 strikes me as being pretty hard of thinking tbh.


----------



## laptop (May 4, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Gotta say that anyone responding differently to the un-named question 1 and named question 2 strikes me as being pretty hard of thinking tbh.



They _could_ be sentimental about the value of a known face.

Then again, they could be hard-of-thinking...


----------



## brogdale (May 4, 2015)

laptop said:


> They _could_ be sentimental about the value of a known face.
> 
> Then again, they could be hard-of-thinking...


former suggests latter


----------



## brogdale (May 4, 2015)

Sorry its the Scum...


----------



## brogdale (May 5, 2015)

Presumably Ashcroft's last pre-election national poll.

He has the tory lead cut down to 2%.


----------



## brogdale (May 5, 2015)

Populus level pegging...again


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 5, 2015)

ashcroft's national polls seem a bit whacky - this one is no exception with labour as low as 30% and the greens on 7% - thats way out of line with the other polls.


----------



## binka (May 5, 2015)

are there any figures for england and wales only? labour's national share of the vote was 29% in 2010, if it is now 33/34 they must be doing better in england and wales than only 4/5% to make up for the collapse of their vote in scotland?


----------



## brogdale (May 5, 2015)

binka said:


> are there any figures for england and wales only? labour's national share of the vote was 29% in 2010, if it is now 33/34 they must be doing better in england and wales than only 4/5% to make up for the collapse of their vote in scotland?


This was a fairly recent analysis...


----------



## brogdale (May 5, 2015)

*"n/c"
*


----------



## brogdale (May 5, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (May 5, 2015)




----------



## redsquirrel (May 5, 2015)

Sadly the LDs seem to be creeping up slightly


> BMG’s poll is also the third of the past four to put the Lib Dems in double-digits. It gives the Lib Dems 10 per cent. The past five national polls have given the party 9, 10, 10 and 11 per cent. They seemed to have escaped the nadir of 7 per cent they fell to earlier this year, when some lone polls put them as low as 5



Gah


----------



## weepiper (May 5, 2015)




----------



## Fez909 (May 6, 2015)

Anthony's predictions:


> my personal best guess is Conservatives around 277 seats, Labour around 267, the Lib Dems around 29 and the SNP around 52.



http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9377


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Anthony's predictions:
> 
> 
> http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9377


Fair play...that's the vermin(s) 9 or 10 short of a maj.


----------



## Fez909 (May 6, 2015)

His guesses for the Blue Vermin (© Sass) was spot on last time: 



			
				2010 said:
			
		

> Con 300-310
> Lab 220-230
> LD 80-90



Though he got carried away with the Cleggmania


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2015)

As though anything else was going to happen....


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2015)

> *TNS poll gives Tories 1-pt lead*
> And there is a TNS poll out too. Here is an extract from the news release.
> 
> A new poll by TNS UK shows that voter intention figures are as follows:
> ...


----------



## frogwoman (May 6, 2015)

Kind of torn between not voting and spgb. On one hand i dont want to legitimise it etc etc but on the other hand i like the spgb candidate and i think a high percentage of their vote could shit the other parties up a bit. Then again NHA are also running and they have far more chance of getting in. 

The thing is I also like voting in an odd way


----------



## killer b (May 6, 2015)

do you live in Hunt's constituency? If so, NHA without a doubt.


----------



## frogwoman (May 6, 2015)

killer b said:


> do you live in Hunt's constituency? If so, NHA without a doubt.



nah I live in oxford. My mp is nicola blackwood. 

I have a horrible feeling that the lib dem candidate might get in.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 6, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> nah I live in oxford. My mp is nicola blackwood.
> 
> I have a horrible feeling that the lib dem candidate might get in.


"Oxford West and Abingdon is a mainly urban constituency in the South East.In the General Election 2010, the constituency was an Ultra Marginal seat, and a Con-Lib Dem contest. Nicola Blackwood won with a majority of .3% (176 votes); gaining the seat for the Conservatives.

*This year, the constituency is looking like it will be a Con-Lib Dem Semi-Marginal seat.*

Your result is due around *6:00am* on Election Night."

http://democraticdashboard.com/constituency/oxford-west-and-abingdon/


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2015)

Not looking good for capital vermin! Lab extend lead and the swing improves to 5.5%...bye bye Barfwell.


----------



## frogwoman (May 6, 2015)

I think Labour are going to get back in. Either as a minority govt or with a very slight majority.


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I think Labour are going to get back in. Either as a minority govt or with a very slight majority.


They certainly would be in that position had they any chance of hanging onto their 40 Scots seats. But, as the chances of that happening are very close to zero, they will have to rely on some sort of a "progressive" grouping.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 6, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Kind of torn between not voting and spgb. On one hand i dont want to legitimise it etc etc but on the other hand i like the spgb candidate and i think a high percentage of their vote could shit the other parties up a bit. Then again NHA are also running and they have far more chance of getting in.
> 
> The thing is I also like voting in an odd way




You mean you are sitting on TWO left of Labour no hopers you can vote for in good conscience? Luxury! Round here its some beardy green or else various stripe of r/w lunatics including the god damn English Democrats


----------



## Dogsauce (May 6, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Not looking good for capital vermin! Lab extend lead and the swing improves to 5.5%...bye bye Barfwell.



I think a recent Ashcroft constituency poll had the chinless one 4% ahead, they've been campaigning hard there.  4% behind in one a couple of months before, so who knows.


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2015)

Interesting to note, (maybe?), that when this thread was started in the mid-term, just over two years ago, that London lead of 13% was the national lead found by the pollsters in the OP.


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> I think a recent Ashcroft constituency poll had the chinless one 4% ahead, they've been campaigning hard there.  4% behind in one a couple of months before, so who knows.


I honestly think Ashcroft fucked up there. I've posted elsewhere that he found a LD -> Con break twice the size of all the other constituencies polled at the same time. Rouge.


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> You mean you are sitting on TWO left of Labour no hopers you can vote for in good conscience? Luxury! Round here its some beardy green or else various stripe of r/w lunatics including the god damn English Democrats


Same in mine, except in place of the ED we've got Richard Edmonds for the fucking NF.


----------



## frogwoman (May 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> You mean you are sitting on TWO left of Labour no hopers you can vote for in good conscience? Luxury! Round here its some beardy green or else various stripe of r/w lunatics including the god damn English Democrats



In the neighbouring seat TUSC are standing too!


----------



## Smangus (May 6, 2015)

So the remarkably unambitious Labour strategy of aiming for 35% of the vote was never realised and will by all indicators not be met. What a striking lack of aspiration in the 1st place followed by dire safety first campaigning (by all parties) and paucity of imagination.


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2015)

Last 1 point lead for the vermin from Opinium...


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2015)

I know it's him, but this is quite good...


----------



## Wilf (May 6, 2015)

At least if Miliband gets in it twists the knife in the guts of his brother.


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2015)

Wilf said:


> At least if Miliband gets in it twists the knife in the guts of his brother.


Any excuse...


----------



## Dogsauce (May 6, 2015)

Wilf said:


> At least if Miliband gets in it twists the knife in the guts of his brother.



You get to see all the right-wing commetariat go into meltdown too.  Tears from Tobes, apoplexy from Guido.  Could be a beautiful thing.


----------



## killer b (May 6, 2015)

they've been panicking for months. Not sure if they've got anything left in reserves...


----------



## Dogsauce (May 6, 2015)

Final YouGov seat prediction



It's just like one of those X-factor phone poll things. Your vote really matters...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (May 6, 2015)

BBC News just now asking people on the street have they made their mind up. People saying no, not yet. "I'm 95% there" said one, another said, "I'll decide when I get to the ballot" - jaysus fucking christ, what the actual fuck is wrong with these people?


----------



## killer b (May 6, 2015)

they don't want to tell a BBC journalist who they're going to vote for? Seems eminently sensible to me.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 6, 2015)

I'm undecided, might vote differently for local & national too.  I know who I *won't* be voting for with some certainty.  I think I might have tossed a coin at the last local one.


----------



## killer b (May 6, 2015)

that said: I've seen a lot of people breaking for Labour in the last day or so, so things are clearly up in the air. I'm not drawing any conclusions from a lot of my friends breaking for Labour, mind. Anyone with a tory bent melted away years ago...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (May 6, 2015)

killer b said:


> they don't want to tell a BBC journalist who they're going to vote for? Seems eminently sensible to me.



It wasn't that covert. Just fucking idiots. They'll probably toss a fucking coin - tails for Tory, heads for Ed


----------



## Dogsauce (May 6, 2015)

From what I've seen on facebook it's been a mixture of people saying 'fuck it, I might as well vote Green' (in a lab-lib marginal) and people coming out for Labour motivated by fear of more tory rule or in anger at the shit being thrown at Miliband in the press.  Murdoch playing his hand has made quite a lot of people angry, which might not have been the intended effect.


----------



## killer b (May 6, 2015)

I dunno, I'm undecided too. I was all set for spunking cock, but the savagery of the scum press has made me think a Labour victory would be a good thing, just to piss them off.


----------



## J Ed (May 6, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> It wasn't that covert. Just fucking idiots. They'll probably toss a fucking coin - tails for Tory, heads for Ed



Someone at my work literally said that was what they were planning on.


----------



## rioted (May 6, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Someone at my work literally said that was what they were planning on.


Its as good as way as any.


----------



## J Ed (May 6, 2015)

rioted said:


> Its as good as way as any.



No it isn't.


----------



## Quartz (May 6, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> It wasn't that covert. Just fucking idiots. They'll probably toss a fucking coin - tails for Tory, heads for Ed



IIRC tossing a coin to choose the winner of a constituency election is one of the officially approved tie-breakers if the count is tied, so it's an officially sanctioned method.


----------



## Dan U (May 6, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Final YouGov seat prediction
> 
> 
> 
> It's just like one of those X-factor phone poll things. Your vote really matters...



The scum have one coming at ten as well


----------



## rioted (May 6, 2015)

J Ed said:


> No it isn't.


Yes it is.


----------



## chilango (May 6, 2015)

J Ed said:


> No it isn't.





rioted said:


> Yes it is.



Only one way to settle this...


----------



## miktheword (May 6, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I know it's him, but this is quite good...











More details from the ICM poll – issues which influence voting choice;  Tories not targeting top issues either
 79% – the future of the NHS
 57% – looming public expenditure cuts
 51% – squeezed living standards
 48% – the deficit
 46% – future tax rises
 39% – fears of the next government being held to ransom by smaller parties.



– Labour ahead by 37/33 on voting intention prior to adjustments.
– Labour ahead again on 35/34 after likelihood to vote.
– Cons draw level to 35/35 after reallocation of DK’s


ICM interviewing further 450 tonight, to be updated tomorrow


----------



## treelover (May 6, 2015)

> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...lled-cameron-miliband-prime-minister-election



The Guardian asks the pollsters, most come out for Milliband to 'win', but argue it will be a 'battle for legitimacy' in which public opinion will be crucial.


----------



## Wilf (May 6, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> BBC News just now asking people on the street have they made their mind up. People saying no, not yet. "I'm 95% there" said one, another said, "I'll decide when I get to the ballot" - jaysus fucking christ, what the actual fuck is wrong with these people?


To be honest, I haven't settled on 3 jizz drips or 4 yet.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (May 6, 2015)

Wilf said:


> To be honest, I haven't settled on 3 jizz drips or 4 yet.


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2015)

Nearly there...


----------



## JimW (May 6, 2015)

I saw the 3 Jizz Drips at Monterey in 1967, seminal performance.


----------



## Stay Beautiful (May 6, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> You get to see all the right-wing commetariat go into meltdown too.  Tears from Tobes, apoplexy from Guido.  Could be a beautiful thing.



The Blarites too. Dan Hodges would squeal like a pig.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 6, 2015)

JimW said:


> seminal performance.


Groan.


----------



## Wilf (May 6, 2015)

The Three Jizz Drips:


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2015)

ComRes 4.8% Con -> Lab for E&W only!


----------



## bemused (May 6, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ComRes 4.8% Con -> Lab for E&W only!




Isn't the margin for error 3%?


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2015)

bemused said:


> Isn't the margin for error 3%?


Well yeah, and this _is only polling..._but bear in mind the tories couldn't win with their 2010 performance...so...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 6, 2015)




----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 6, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2015)

OK, I'll come clean...I don't even know if I've already posted this one...



#bishopsfingerblur


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2015)

Look at that 4.8% SNP...that's 4.8% of UK popular vote!


----------



## killer b (May 6, 2015)

IT'S TOO EXCITING!!


----------



## Wilf (May 6, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ComRes 4.8% Con -> Lab for E&W only!



Yes, but though Labour will beat the tories in Scotish votes, it won't got m/any _seats_.  Whether you can add the snp to the seats Lab get in England depends on how daft Miliband wants to be after the election.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 6, 2015)

@ Most very recent polls above :

The legendary last minute swing?? 

A(O)TAB etc.

All (Official) Tories Are Bastards ...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 6, 2015)

There doesn't appear to be any significant change in the polling over recent days/weeks….pretty much everything is within the margin of error +/- 3%.

There's bound to be a few surprises and upsets, but if pollsters and bookies are right I reckon we're looking at:

Con 272-282
Lab 265-275
SNP 49-57
Ld 25-29
UKIP 1-3
Grn 1


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> There doesn't appear to be any significant change in the polling over recent days/weeks….pretty much everything is within the margin of error +/- 3%.
> 
> There's bound to be a few surprises and upsets, but if pollsters and bookies are right I reckon we're looking at:
> 
> ...


Even through my #bishopsfingerheaven I can tell those top numbers are la la


----------



## mk12 (May 6, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> There doesn't appear to be any significant change in the polling over recent days/weeks….pretty much everything is within the margin of error +/- 3%.
> 
> There's bound to be a few surprises and upsets, but if pollsters and bookies are right I reckon we're looking at:
> 
> ...



Do you mean 272-282 for Cons, and 265-275 for Lab?


----------



## William of Walworth (May 6, 2015)

For 3's read 2's as the first digit of those 3-figure Lab/Con ones ....

ETA mk12 beat me to it ...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 6, 2015)

whoops ha ha, someone's swapped the keys round on the laptop 



[no alcohol was involved in the production of these figures]


----------



## mk12 (May 6, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> For 3's read 2's as the first digit of those 3-figure Lab/Con ones ....
> 
> ETA mk12 beat me to it ...



I was going to say! What happens if Labour _and _the Tories gained a majority?! __


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 6, 2015)

mk12 said:


> I was going to say! What happens if Labour _and[\i] the Tories gained a majority?! _


they would run out of green benches!


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 6, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> BBC News just now asking people on the street have they made their mind up. People saying no, not yet. "I'm 95% there" said one, another said, "I'll decide when I get to the ballot" - jaysus fucking christ, what the actual fuck is wrong with these people?



Blame FPTP. I haven't decided yet either, I want Labour to form the next government but whatever I do in the safe tory constituency where I live won't make a blind bit of difference. I'll probably vote Green because a big turn out for them nationally will at least send the message that some of us still think that global warming is an important issue.

I'm 96% there.


----------



## Wilf (May 6, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Yes, but though Labour will beat the tories in Scotish votes, it won't got m/any _seats_.  Whether you can add the snp to the seats Lab get in England depends on how daft Miliband wants to be after the election.


What I think I'm trying to say is that something like those figures for eng and wales might actually leave the tories on more seats than labour for the whole uk (though, as always the translation of votes into seats will be messy).


----------



## treelover (May 7, 2015)

> Labour has one-point lead over Tories in final Guardian/ICM poll
> Labour has moved into a wafer-thin one-point lead in the final pre-election Guardian/ICM poll, leaving the country on a knife-edge with the markets starting to jitter.
> 
> On Wednesday, ICM released provisional numbers which showed the two main parties deadlocked on 35% each. But the telephone fieldwork continued into evening, and the final figures – based on the full sample of 2,000 interviews – find Labour holding steady on 35%, while the Conservatives slip to 34%.
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/07/labour-one-point-lead-tories-final-icm-poll



Bit surprised at this, but Ed has run a dynamic if sterile campaign and people have seen there is more to him(though I still don't trust the party itself) but I still think shy tories and ukip drifters will manifest themselves as the day goes on.


----------



## treelover (May 7, 2015)

FFS, apparently the Telegraph emailed its readers begging them to vote Tory.

from G update, can't link.


----------



## Quartz (May 7, 2015)

treelover said:


> FFS, apparently the Telegraph emailed its readers begging them to vote Tory.



It could be worse: they could have urged them to vote UKIP.


----------



## treelover (May 7, 2015)

> With its double-size sample, the final poll gives more scope than usual for looking for difference in voting patterns across different types of parliamentary seat. Doing so provides additional grounds for Labour optimism. In the English and Welsh battleground constituencies – defined as those with a Tory majority of up to 15 points, or a Labour advantage of no more than 10 points – today’s poll finds the the opposition running well ahead.
> 
> On average across these seats, the Conservatives start out with a 2010 score of 38% to Labour’s 36%. But today’s poll suggests that Labour is now well in front here, by 46% to 35%. Based on the sub-sample of 290 individuals in these marginal seats, *some caution is needed, but Labour’s 11-point advantage is wide enough to give the party real hope*.



Significant?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 7, 2015)

290 across all battleground seats? those kind of figures have caused problems for the Irish pollsters before


----------



## Wilf (May 7, 2015)

treelover said:


> Significant?


It's certainly significant in terms of the trends from the icm/guardian polls. Think they've gone from con leads of 6% and then 3%, to a tie, to now Lab up 1%.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 7, 2015)

Just put a £10 on Labour to get most seats at 7/2. Great odds surely for something which is more like 50/50?


----------



## Wilf (May 7, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> 290 across all battleground seats? those kind of figures have caused problems for the Irish pollsters before


Ah!


----------



## Wilf (May 7, 2015)

Amazing how close the polls have been for the last month. Virtually no drift:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#2015


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 7, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Just put a £10 on Labour to get most seats at 7/2. Great odds surely for something which is more like 50/50?


How is it 50/50 if more people are betting Tories will get most seats?


----------



## treelover (May 7, 2015)

People are mentioning The SUN Poll also showing one point lead for Labour, can't find it though


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2015)

treelover said:


> People are mentioning The SUN Poll also showing one point lead for Labour, can't find it though


That's because it doesn't exist. At least not showing a labour lead. They had it level.


----------



## mather (May 7, 2015)

Quartz said:


> It could be worse: they could have urged them to vote UKIP.



How is that worse???

I'm all for UKIP gaining more seats (at the Tories expense) and splitting the right-wing vote. There is fuck all chance of UKIP winning the election or even being in some type of coalition so all that this liberal hyperbole about UKIP does is shore up the Tories.


----------



## Fez909 (May 7, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> How is it 50/50 if more people are betting Tories will get most seats?


Betting odds don't reflect the likelihood of something happening. Nor does where gamblers put their money.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 7, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> How is it 50/50 if more people are betting Tories will get most seats?



Latest guardian seat projection has lab and tory getting the same number of seats - but the bookies odds have the tories have favourites for most seats by some distance - I dont think this reflects the _real_ odds - which Id say are about evens. So - worth a flutter if you can still get those odds.


----------



## Santino (May 7, 2015)

JimW said:


> I saw the 3 Jizz Drips at Monterey in 1967, seminal performance.


A young Ruddy Yurts on electric bassoon.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 7, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Latest guardian seat projection has lab and tory getting the same number of seats - but the bookies odds have the tories have favourites for most seats by some distance - I dont think this reflects the _real_ odds - which Id say are about evens. So - worth a flutter if you can still get those odds.



I guess if both parties get the same it'll be snake eyes, and all the cash put on tories or labour having the highest number goes in the bookie's pocket.


----------



## Flanflinger (May 7, 2015)

Just voted Labour in General and local. Free sweets were on offer.


----------



## belboid (May 7, 2015)

Flanflinger said:


> Just voted Labour in General and local. Free sweets were on offer.


that's bribery and corruption.  I'm going to demand the whole election be annulled


----------



## mk12 (May 7, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Just put a £10 on Labour to get most seats at 7/2. Great odds surely for something which is more like 50/50?



I'm tempted to bet on UKIP getting over 150 second places. Is it worth it?


----------



## mk12 (May 7, 2015)

belboid said:


> that's bribery and corruption.  I'm going to demand the whole election be annulled



Wait to see what the result is first....


----------



## bi0boy (May 7, 2015)

The mean scores from 11 final polls from all the pollsters are:

Con: 33.727
Lab 33.727





_________Con Lab
Ipsos phone 36 35 
Opinium online 35 34 
COmRes online 35 34 
TNS online 33 32 
BMG online 34 34 
YouGov online 34 34 
Survation online 33 33 
Ashcroft phone 33 33 
ICM phone 34 35 
Populus online 33 34 
Panelbase online 31 33 
AVERAGE 33.72727 33.72727


----------



## Dogsauce (May 7, 2015)

As long as I've known Labour have done worse than expected leading to a lot of disappointment in my younger more tribal self.  Do the polling numbers from previous elections back this up?  I think they did better last time but it was still a defeat.


----------



## belboid (May 7, 2015)

mk12 said:


> I'm tempted to bet on UKIP getting over 150 second places. Is it worth it?


hmm, they wont get any in scotland, only one or two tops in wales, which leaves them needing them all from Englands 550.  Over 150 of those are marginals where they wont come close, so they'd be needing to get second in almost half the remaining seats.  I don't see it, myself. 75-90 would be my guess.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 7, 2015)

oh god, exit poll on C4 predicting:

Con 316
Lab 239
SNP 58
LD 10
UKIP 2
Other 25


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 8, 2015)

A quick summary of the thread. From the sublime



brogdale said:


> Today's YouGov:-
> 
> CON 29% (31), LAB 42% (40), LD 11% (12), UKIP 12% (12); Govt app -40
> 
> ...



to the ridiculous.



Brixton Hatter said:


> oh god, exit poll on C4 predicting:
> 
> Con 316
> Lab 239
> ...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 8, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> A quick summary of the thread. From the sublime
> 
> 
> 
> to the ridiculous.


Yeah WTF happened?

The pollsters will probably have some questions to answer...


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Yeah WTF happened?
> 
> The pollsters will probably have some questions to answer...


They certainly will, but those first numbers were from March 2013 tbf


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 8, 2015)

good point, well made


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 8, 2015)

If we can't trust the pollsters on General Election voting intentions, how can we trust them on Europe? Currently there's supposed to be a reasonable margin protecting us from a Brexit in 2017. But the scale of this polling disaster - everyone, from online panels to phone interviewers, presumably calibrating against each other - suggests that all bets on Europe are off.


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> If we can't trust the pollsters on General Election voting intentions, how can we trust them on Europe? Currently there's supposed to be a reasonable margin protecting us from a Brexit in 2017. But the scale of this polling disaster - everyone, from online panels to phone interviewers, presumably calibrating against each other - suggests that all bets on Europe are off.


A Y/N question is considerably easier to poll with more accuracy tbh


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> A Y/N question is considerably easier to poll with more accuracy tbh



Maybe. One takeaway from this evening is that the impact of newspapers may have been underestimated. Miliband tried to be the first party leader to cock a snook at Murdoch and still win. The viciousness of the press against Labour in the last couple of days was extraordinary, but we all hoped that their influence had waned with readership. Now, we have to double check what UK media owners have to gain or lose from Brexit.


----------



## belboid (May 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> A Y/N question is considerably easier to poll with more accuracy tbh


like in scotland? out by a similar margin, which can produce big shocks


----------



## kabbes (May 8, 2015)

Back to the drawing board for the polling companies.  An utter disaster for them.


----------



## Supine (May 8, 2015)

I think there will be some unemployed ex pollsters kicking around soon.

No doubt they will get jobs in banks


----------



## Santino (May 8, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Back to the drawing board for the polling companies.  An utter disaster for them.


They must have each been using all the other polling companies to confirm the accuracy of their models.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2015)

someone mentioned 'clumping' somewhere upthread. looks like they were right.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Survavtion bottled out of publishing last minute poll that found:

CON 37%
LAB 31%
LD 10
UKIP 11
GRE 5


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Survavtion bottled out of publishing last minute poll that found:
> 
> CON 37%
> LAB 31%
> ...


Bottling doesn't do that justice.


----------



## bi0boy (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Survavtion bottled out of publishing last minute poll that found:
> 
> CON 37%
> LAB 31%
> ...



It was certainly a sign of something wrong when the polls started converging and there was a suspicious lack of outliers.


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> It was certainly a sign of something wrong when the polls started converging and there was a suspicious lack of outliers.


What was wrong was to fail to spot the cross-over point and subsequent overtake.


----------



## Fez909 (May 8, 2015)

Even if it was an outlier, why didn't they publish? You don't poll to see the results you want. You poll to find out what's going on.

It's for the analysts to decide whether to ignore outliers or whatever, not pollsters.

How many other "outliers" were not published?


----------



## bi0boy (May 8, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Even if it was an outlier, why didn't they publish? You don't poll to see the results you want. You poll to find out what's going on.
> 
> It's for the analysts to decide whether to ignore outliers or whatever, not pollsters.
> 
> How many other "outliers" were not published?



It's a well known phenomenon, the omission of "obviously wrong" outliers. The expected number of outliers can be calculated, so it's usually easy to spot.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

British polling council statement.



> The final opinion polls before the election were clearly not as accurate as we would like, and the fact that all the pollsters underestimated the Conservative lead over Labour suggests that the methods that were used should be subject to careful, independent investigation.
> 
> The British Polling Council, supported by the Market Research Society, is therefore setting up an independent enquiry to look into the possible causes of this apparent bias, and to make recommendations for future polling.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2015)

I wonder how much it influenced people's voting behaviour?  How many thought Labour wouldn't lose a seat they gained last time and voted green?


----------



## J Ed (May 8, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> I wonder how much it influenced people's voting behaviour?  How many thought Labour wouldn't lose a seat they gained last time and voted green?



Not enough to matter


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> I wonder how much it influenced people's voting behaviour?  How many thought Labour wouldn't lose a seat they gained last time and voted green?


I would guess at fuck all.


----------



## Roadkill (May 8, 2015)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> The lib dems will spin it as a win.  "They said we'd only get one, but we took Shetland AND Orkney!"



Just remembered this post. Prescient, perhaps...


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 8, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> Just remembered this post. Prescient, perhaps...



What a strange election. the pollsters got it incredibly wrong. The only one that was on the nose was the BBC exit poll, unbelievable as it was at that point.


----------



## belboid (May 8, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> What a strange election. the pollsters got it incredibly wrong. The only one that was on the nose was the BBC exit poll, unbelievable as it was at that point.


Except that was wrong too. Not generous enough to the tories


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

belboid said:


> Except that was wrong too. Not generous enough to the tories


Indeed, was only right in terms of direction of march.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 8, 2015)

Labour policy to persist with Ed just because the polls indicated they needed only to hold their nerve was found lacking in the extreme.

Labour haven't won anything in 10 years. The polling gap closed quite a while back. Alarm bells should have rung.


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Labour haven't won anything in 10 years. The polling gap closed quite a while back. Alarm bells should have rung.



Wonderful thing hindsight; but if we're playing that game...perhaps there were signs that Lab knew things were awry? I suppose alarm bells might have rung a little louder when they wheeled Blair out to endorse Milibrand.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Wonderful thing hindsight; but if we're playing that game...perhaps there were signs that Lab knew things were awry? I suppose alarm bells might have rung a little louder when they wheeled Blair out to endorse Milibrand.



Not hindsight. Many wanted Miliband gone, but on here that was dismissed as Blairite plotting and a misreading of the polls which, thanks to the Kippers, apparently promised victory.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Wonderful thing hindsight; but if we're playing that game...perhaps there were signs that Lab knew things were awry? I suppose alarm bells might have rung a little louder when they wheeled Blair out to endorse Milibrand.


they didn't have a clue. did you see how shell shocked they were last night? how much the vermin and assorted allies were panicking in the run up?


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

killer b said:


> they didn't have a clue. did you see how shell shocked they were last night? how much the vermin and assorted allies were panicking in the run up?


They had plenty of clues; the polling on preferred PM and leader was consistently biased towards Cameron with Milibrand trailing badly.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2015)

they chose to ignore them then, or thought they'd done enough to counter them.


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

killer b said:


> they chose to ignore them then, or thought they'd done enough to counter them.


Some Lab MPs have been blabbing on the media all day about the doorstep evidence they were feeding back. The staged Blair thing must have been a point of desperation for them.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Wonderful thing hindsight; but if we're playing that game...perhaps there were signs that Lab knew things were awry? I suppose alarm bells might have rung a little louder when they wheeled Blair out to endorse Milibrand.


What sort of polling would they need to have done to get very different results from the other pollers? One more in line with the wrong exit poll.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

(If i write exist rather than exit one more fucking time)


----------



## Mr Moose (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Bit what sort of polling would they need to have done to get very different results from the other pollers? One more in line with the wrong exist poll.



They need to forget polling and think about both history and offer.

History, Michael Foot, a lampooned leader annihilated. 1992, the polls wrong. The rareness of a Govt being ousted with a (perceived) strong economy.

The Labour offer? To be Tory lite. Never going to be good enough.


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Bit what sort of polling would they need to have done to get very different results from the other pollers? One more in line with the wrong exist poll.


I suspect (no more) that their focus-group stuff would have worried them...allied to the feedback from ground-troops.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> They need to forget polling and think about both history and offer.
> 
> History, Michael Foot, a lampooned leader annihilated. 1992, the polls wrong. The rareness of a Govt being ousted with a (perceived) strong economy.
> 
> The Labour offer? To be Tory lite. Never going to be good enough.


They might well do - my point was bout what sort of private polling they may have done that presaged the actual result.
I'm not being funny but the historical sweep you offer = nothing.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I suspect (no more) that their focus-group stuff would have worried them...allied to the feedback from ground-troops.


My still working labour tendrils were reporting back easy vics and sizable swings from the ground pre-election (all south and west mids). We've got shy tories and secret hidden lib-tories in the shed until the man goes now.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> They need to forget polling and think about both history and offer.
> 
> History, Michael Foot, a lampooned leader annihilated. 1992, the polls wrong. The rareness of a Govt being ousted with a (perceived) strong economy.
> 
> The Labour offer? To be Tory lite. Never going to be good enough.


Map this economic determinism onto history - see if it holds up.


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> My still working labour tendrils were reporting back easy vics and sizable swings from the ground pre-election (all south and west mids). We've got shy tories and secret hidden lib-tories in the shed until the man goes now.


Yeah.

I suppose one obvious problem with polling (public and party private) was identifying the 'marginals' in order to examine the breaks. Quite obviously, without appreciating the full extent of the LD implosion, the LD-> Con was never properly examined.

I'm not at all sure I'm making any sense any more....bishop's II opened


----------



## gosub (May 8, 2015)

killer b said:


> they didn't have a clue. did you see how shell shocked they were last night? how much the vermin and assorted allies were panicking in the run up?




Think tories might have had a better idea through private Ashcroft polling...In Basingstoke day before the polls Labour were pushing out polls saying it was neck and neck and even pointing out Maria Miller wasn't even in Basingstoke, but campaigning in Portsmouth.   Given her history in the last parliament,I am amazed to see she polled 48%,but she must of got confidence from somewhere to travel down to Pompey.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2015)

Ashcroft's polls were in line. He was just as surprised.


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

Second wind now!

One thing that does strike me was how fucking obvious it was that, post Euros, the UKIP and Labour trend lines were negatively correlated as mirror images of each other. What the break data didn't show was that there must have been differential 'stickyness' between the Con->UKIP and Lab->UKIP voters. It would seem that the more recent accretion from Lab stuck, whilst the shedding was biased to the vermin.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Map this economic determinism onto history - see if it holds up.



You mean the 'strong economy'? Not 100%. Blair got in when there was some recovery. But another factor, the utter cultural bankruptcy of the Tories was in play. In general it holds.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Second wind now!
> 
> One thing that does strike me was how fucking obvious it was that, post Euros, the UKIP and Labour trend lines were negatively correlated as mirror images of each other. What the break data didn't show was that there must have been differential 'stickyness' between the Con->UKIP and Lab->UKIP voters. It would seem that the more recent accretion from Lab stuck, whilst the shedding was biased to the vermin.


Which might say a frig load about the past and the future at once  - totally abandoned labour vote never coming back because of labours attitude, but not enough to swing anything - and the UKIP-tory relationship simply being about europe - nothing else. UKIP clipped in one scenario but expanding in another. The opposite of expected. But 2017...


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Second wind now!
> 
> One thing that does strike me was how fucking obvious it was that, post Euros, the UKIP and Labour trend lines were negatively correlated as mirror images of each other. What the break data didn't show was that there must have been differential 'stickyness' between the Con->UKIP and Lab->UKIP voters. It would seem that the more recent accretion from Lab stuck, whilst the shedding was biased to the vermin.



The 'Labour' ones had no reason to go back, not even a mug.


----------



## Quartz (May 8, 2015)

I suppose it's too early, but has anyone done any asking of why people voted Tory?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2015)

Quartz said:


> I suppose it's too early, but has anyone done any asking of why people voted Tory?



I've seen a few on facebook, paraphrasing a couple:

 'I'm working class and Labour always just want to keep us in our place' 
 'Labour bankrupted the country and haven't atoned for it'


----------



## treelover (May 8, 2015)

I have been following discussions, to a point, on my local furom, many of them decent people, helped fix my car, etc, many of them would consider a L/P run by Chukka, but isn't he just as posh, detached, etc, as Milliband was claimed to be.


----------



## treelover (May 8, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> I've seen a few on facebook, paraphrasing a couple:
> 
> 'I'm working class and Labour always just want to keep us in our place'
> 'Labour bankrupted the country and haven't atoned for it'




This has been echoed on social media, its the device the republicans use in the U.S, "patronising the WC", "telling folk what is good for them, etc."


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2015)

A few cut and pasted justifications/rants for voting tory (not my friends but comments on the feed of friends having a grumble about the result):

_"Of course Labour overspent: if you spend more than income in time of growth, you are overspending. Yes you need investment in the future, but that can be done through increased receipts tgrough growth. Also the "Banking Crash" (AKA don't blame me Bob) could have been limited if Labour had put in more controls on banks (like one Vince Cable predicted and suggested before the crash.)"

"Vote with your head not your heart... Voting labour doesn't lift every one up.... They drag everyone down... Socialism sux"

" I personally voted tory simply because of the benefits they'll have to me and labour have fucked right up letting Miliband in. When I was a union rep for USDAW we had to vote for labour leader and none of us voted for that cunt but he got in anyway. The new budget was brilliant and the tories HAVE got the country out of a lot of shit. If the wealthy get wealthier as a result so be it "

"We need to do a China and restrict families to 1 child each that would stop a lot of shit. If you get a dumb ass chavvy couple who don't earn 15k between them and have 9 kids to get extra income then their kids all fail school because the parents are too high to push the children then 20 years later the 9 children go and have 9 kids of their own and do the same shit. 
This is why poverty exists."

"last lot were a bunch of lying bullshit merchants and they now want us to vote for them again. great, either way we lose"

_​


----------



## Combustible (May 8, 2015)

There was some polling a few weeks ago showing a fair few people who said they would vote Labour would prefer a Tory government to a Labour-SNP deal. Which is presumably one of the reasons why the Tories pushed the SNP issue so hard. The odd thing was that the polling in the run-up to the election suggested that it hadn't been too effective...


----------



## Quartz (May 10, 2015)

Hey, brogdale, can you check something for me? Aren't the actual results within (just) the margins of error of the opinion polls? If that's the case, then perhaps future polls need to be larger - and thus have a smaller MoE - to be considered reliable?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 10, 2015)

The impression I get is that the election result wasn't so much a vote for the Tories as it was a vote against the SNP. I've no idea if that theory holds up beyond the immediate circle of humans I interact with though.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 10, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> The impression I get is that the election result wasn't so much a vote for the Tories as it was a vote against the SNP. I've no idea if that theory holds up beyond the immediate circle of humans I interact with though.



Clearly had a very significant impact in England and may well have been Crosby's dastardly plan all along. It dominated the messaging for a fortnight before the election; that wouldn't have continued if it wasn't cutting through.

Presumably one of Urban's nats will be along in a bit to explain laboriously that the breakdown of seats in Scotland made no difference to Cameron's majority.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 10, 2015)

Even if people didn't give a fuck about the potential of the SNP in government, it dominated the discussion at the expense of other subjects that might have won labour support such as the NHS. A clear case of the press (probably instructed by Crosby) setting the agenda I think. Don't think Miliband was at his best dismissing it either.


----------



## Combustible (May 10, 2015)

This was the polling I was thinking of, a potential 8% of the electorate the Tories had to target by going on about an SNP deal.



> Take away all those groups and YouGov were left with 8% of the electorate who think a Lab/SNP deal of some sort is likely AND think this would be a bad thing AND think a Tory government would be preferable BUT are not already voting Tory. That’s actually a significant chunk of people and is presumably the voters who the Conservative party are targetting with their current campaign – they are mostly made up of don’t knows, Lib Dems and Ukippers, the message seems to have very little potential to move people directly from Labour to the Tories. The challenge for the Tories is how many (if any) of that 8% of people they can get to go that one step further and vote Tory. The early weeks of the Tory campaign didn’t seem to have any effect on voters at all – this message does at least seem to have _potential_ for them. Whether or not they manage to translate it into votes remains to be seen.



http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9369


----------



## bi0boy (May 10, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Even if people didn't give a fuck about the potential of the SNP in government, it dominated the discussion at the expense of other subjects that might have won labour support such as the NHS. A clear case of the press (probably instructed by Crosby) setting the agenda I think. Don't think Miliband was at his best dismissing it either.



Labour offered nothing on the NHS. Less than the Tories and LibDems in fact. Just a vague nation that they've supplied shiny new PFI hospitals in the past and tend to be thought of as the party for public sector workers. Oh and some promise about 23,986 new midwives. Zilch about funding.


----------



## kabbes (May 11, 2015)

Quartz said:


> Hey, brogdale, can you check something for me? Aren't the actual results within (just) the margins of error of the opinion polls? If that's the case, then perhaps future polls need to be larger - and thus have a smaller MoE - to be considered reliable?


Error margins represent process uncertainty.  The failure was at very least parameter uncertainty but more likely model uncertainty.  You can't diversify that away with a bigger sample size.


----------



## belboid (May 11, 2015)

Quartz said:


> Hey, brogdale, can you check something for me? Aren't the actual results within (just) the margins of error of the opinion polls? If that's the case, then perhaps future polls need to be larger - and thus have a smaller MoE - to be considered reliable?


Labour are at the bottom of MoE, Tories at the top. The rest were about right.  The possibilities of every poll being similarly out is almost zero. There is strong evidence of either clumping (where the pollsters all decided that if that was what everyone else was saying, they should say it too) or simply them being wrong. Or both.


----------



## Quartz (May 11, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Error margins represent process uncertainty.  The failure was at very least parameter uncertainty but more likely model uncertainty.  You can't diversify that away with a bigger sample size.



True, but increasing poll sizes should reduce that factor. Are the other uncertanties testable with the extant data?  That said, surely not all psephologists use the same models, right? Because the polls results were pretty much the same across the board. (belboid's clumping) I vaguely recall that being an issue in 1992.

Anyway, I think Occam's Razor may well apply and it's more likely that the polls were not wrong: Ashcroft's post-election poll showed that many people made up their minds on the last day.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 11, 2015)

Maybe the polls were right and there was actually late swing?  One poll picked that up.

Doesn't really explain the exit poll underestimating the vermin vote, in particular the Sky and Ashcroft ones which were lower than the BBC iirc.


----------



## belboid (May 11, 2015)

Except those late deciders went more to Labour than the tories, so it doesn't explain anything


----------



## kabbes (May 11, 2015)

Quartz said:


> True, but increasing poll sizes should reduce that factor.


Not necessarily.  Not unless your poll size is five figures.  Not if the way you are interpreting data is flawed.


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2015)

the way quartz interprets everything is flawed tbf.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 11, 2015)

belboid said:


> Except those late deciders went more to Labour than the tories, so it doesn't explain anything



Was that point shown in the main exit poll then?


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2015)

The head of Ipsos Mori is saying today on BBC Radio 4 that the polls were far off because of 'lazy Labour voters' rather than 'shy Tory voters'
If its that case it is a real shame, but were they 'lazy' or disillusioned?


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> The head of Ipsos Mori is saying today on BBC Radio 4 that the polls were far off because of 'lazy Labour voters' rather than 'shy Tory voters'
> If its that case it is a real shame, but were they 'lazy' or disillusioned?


I did hear that...and wondered what % of those responding that they preferred Labour were not actually registered to vote? Probably a tiny amount, but the pollsters don't actually know the registration status of those they ask. Might be more significant in the younger cohorts...that were Labour biased?

Earlier in the year the electoral commission was talking about a fall of 900k electors since 2010.


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2015)

> On top of this, 32% of full-time students voted Tory. Labour didn’t argue about Ed
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dear-lefties-stop-whining---5679192




This was posted in The Mirror by Fleet St Fox, who also attacks 'no show' Labour voters, etc.

Is it credible, 32% of F/T students voted Tory, what were the figures in 2010?


----------



## killer b (May 12, 2015)

Why wouldn't it be credible? What background do students come from on the whole?


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> This was posted in The Mirror by Fleet St Fox, who also attacks 'no show' Labour voters, etc.
> 
> Is it credible, 32% of F/T students voted Tory, what were the figures in 2010?


That's by far the worst piece that i've read since friday.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> Why wouldn't it be credible? What background do students come from on the whole?


Lack of direct reference in that shouting piece of shit - for the only actual claimed fact in the whole thing.


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2015)

Yes, on second thoughts, the image of the 'radical student' is just that, a lot of students did vote for the lib dems in 2010 for a more benign govt, but overall I see your point.


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> That's by far the worst piece that i've read since friday.



yes, I usually like FSF, she has defended claimants, etc, but its an ill informed rant.


----------



## belboid (May 12, 2015)

I've found a couple of _pre_-election polls that put the tories on 32% of the student vote, but nowt for after. Doesn't seem that far from reality tho, students being what they are, and where they come from


----------



## BigTom (May 12, 2015)

Just got polled by yougov, one of the questions they asked is whether I'd take a call from an opinion pollster, wondering if they are seeing whether people who vote X are more/less likely to do polls online and not over the phone. Same question also asked about PPI sellers, personal injury lawyers, salesmen and something else (separate answers for each).


----------



## Mojofilter (May 17, 2015)

Ban Polls In Run-Up To Election, Urges David Cameron's Strategist Following Shock Tory Win
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...ction-david-cameron-strategist_n_7296714.html

Feels a bit dirty agreeing with him, but does he have a point?

My vote was influenced by the polls (voted Labour in an ultra safe Tory seat - thinking that it would be so close nationally that the popular vote might factor into which party was most credible. Otherwise would have gone Green).

Another question that I've wondered about but not seen discussed elsewhere is how many Tory voters were actually voting for "more of the same please" and potentially would have voted differently if the polls hadn't told them that a Tory majority wasn't a possibility?


----------



## Up the junction (May 17, 2015)

I don't understand the drama here; general election pollsters are schiesters, they're selling a bogus, fundamentally flawed product - and they get away with it because people forget in four-five years. People love those beautifully simple charts, those easy to read timelines, the premise. It's all bullshit.

Pay someone £8 an hour to make dozens of phone calls, ask the wrong question/s, pressure them to tick boxes on a sheet, pass the results to some data entry monkey - what could possibly go wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2015)

Mojofilter said:


> Ban Polls In Run-Up To Election, Urges David Cameron's Strategist Following Shock Tory Win
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...ction-david-cameron-strategist_n_7296714.html
> 
> Feels a bit dirty agreeing with him, but does he have a point?
> ...


I agree,  make polling for the rich only.  Us stupid.


----------



## Mojofilter (May 17, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I agree,  make polling for the rich only.  Us stupid.



I don't follow, sorry.


----------



## BigTom (May 17, 2015)

Mojofilter said:


> I don't follow, sorry.



if you ban public polls, there'll still be private polling, which only the wealthy can buy or see.


----------



## Up the junction (May 17, 2015)

I like his point:

"The trouble now is that polls have become part of the political process _so they're not an independent measurement_ that says this is what's going on, they actually influence what's going on."

In other words, not polls at all.

So bullshit quality polling formulated as to not be a poll, that is in any event not an independent measure.

2500 post later: Is anyone starting to get it yet?


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2015)

OMG the polls were wrong. Did you point this out prior to the election you one note cunt?  No, you did not. You simply said universal swing wasn't ensured, like every one else.


----------



## Quartz (May 17, 2015)

BigTom said:


> if you ban public polls, there'll still be private polling, which only the wealthy can buy or see.



But you could ban all political polling - both public and private - during the election campaign. Don't the French do this?


----------



## Up the junction (May 17, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You simply said universal swing wasn't ensured, like every one else.


Like here, before and after that post:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/characterising-ukip.323917/page-17#post-13848470


----------



## BigTom (May 17, 2015)

Quartz said:


> But you could ban all political polling - both public and private - during the election campaign. Don't the French do this?



Enforcement? I can't see it happening, even if it's really practical. There'll still be private polling going on by the parties and people like Ashcroft even if it's banned, they'll call it something else, find a loophole or just do it cos who is going to prosecute them really?


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Like here:
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/characterising-ukip.323917/page-17#post-13848470"]Characterising UKIP?


What did you reveal there? You said something about a poll of polls - a poll no one had commented on or cared about.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2015)

Ban murder too.


----------



## Up the junction (May 17, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> What did you reveal there? You said something about a poll of polls - a poll no one had commented on or cared about.


No one's better than you, right. If you were wrong everyone has to be more wrong. It's how you roll. LOL.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 17, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> general election pollsters are schiesters, they're selling a bogus, fundamentally flawed product.



Slightly more complicated than that. They lose money on opinion polling; newpapers pay peanuts and voting intention research, even online, is really quite resource-intensive. The justification for bothering is that commercial business gets a boost from the coverage which the pollster receives. So when it goes wrong it's embarrassing all round, and no-one is cackling all the way to the bank.


----------



## Up the junction (May 17, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Slightly more complicated than that. They lose money on opinion polling; newpapers pay peanuts and voting intention research, even online, is really quite resource-intensive. The justification for bothering is that commercial business gets a boost from the coverage which the pollster receives.


.. and the media feeds a seductive  narrative it won't be found out about until after the event. Meanwhile, muppets on here lap it all up like it's the Holy Grail and not some two-bob wank rag.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> No one's better than you, right. If you were wrong everyone has to be more wrong. It's how you roll. LOL.


You linked to you laughing at a polls of polls.  A poll no one used.  Great stuff. Great seerage. 

Fact is, you said nothing before the election  casting doubt on the generality of polls at all.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Slightly more complicated than that. They lose money on opinion polling; newpapers pay peanuts and voting intention research, even online, is really quite resource-intensive. The justification for bothering is that commercial business gets a boost from the coverage which the pollster receives. So when it goes wrong it's embarrassing all round, and no-one is cackling all the way to the bank.


Unless you have a YG/SUn relationship it' pretty costly to do proper polling.


----------



## Up the junction (May 17, 2015)

Climb out the drive-by clown car a minute and read; it's a thread, read around the post.

Or don't. I think we all understand you are a little fixed in your need for self-esteem.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> .. and the media feeds a seductive  narrative it won't be found out about until after the event. Meanwhile, muppets on here lap it all up like it's the Holy Grail and not some two-bob wank rag.


This is you now is it, _the polls were wrong - i didn't point it out, but i knew._


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Climb out the drive-by clown car a minute and read; it's a thread, read around the post.
> 
> Or don't. I think we all understand you are a little fixed in your need for self-esteem.


Not much to read around. You're claiming clairvoyance after the fact.


----------



## Up the junction (May 17, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> This is you now is it, _the polls were wrong - i didn't point it out, but i knew._


It is amusing how desperate you get to undermine anyone who shows the slightest more smarts than you on any given issue. Is this message board your patch, maaan?


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> It is amusing how desperate you get to undermine anyone who shows the slightest more smarts than you on any given issue. Is this message board your patch, maaan?


_I really knew it.I just didn't say. I have undermined you.
_
Odd chap.


----------



## Up the junction (May 17, 2015)

I'll pull out one post randomly, did you miss this. Me:
"What on earth are you going on about? Etc.

It's just the old way and very convenient. Means slightly more that fuck all. Only three weeks to the next round of 'how did the pollsters get it so wrong'."


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2015)

_Smarts_. I love this 50s beatnik style. It _grooves_.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 17, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Unless you have a YG/SUn relationship it' pretty costly to do proper polling.



Which is why even Ashcroft - a ludicrously rich man who polls in order to influence the Tories to do what he wants - can't afford to do it to the depth he would like, and his constituency-level polling still suffered from the dodgy assumptions and extrapolations and correlation to competitors which screwed everyone else.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> I'll pull out one randomly, did you miss this:
> 
> 
> Me:
> ...


Yep, and the one before when you asked how they got it right in previous elections.


----------



## Up the junction (May 17, 2015)

You're the best, you know that. You've got an answer for everything.

350 in this thread alone. 350 nonsense comments in one message board thread about polling - ever felt you've been mugged?

No, of course not.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Which is why even Ashcroft - a ludicrously rich man who polls in order to influence the Tories to do what he wants - can't afford to do it to the depth he would like, and his constituency-level polling still suffered from the dodgy assumptions and extrapolations and correlation to competitors which screwed everyone else.


Now here's a proper question - the extent to which polling seen as honest effects the way other pollsters act/don't act.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> You're the best, you know that. You've got an answer for everything.
> 
> 350 in this thread alone. 350 nonsense comments in one message board thread about polling - ever felt you've been mugged?
> 
> No, of course not.


Yeah, this is you now - _the polls were wrong. _

Cheers_._


----------



## Up the junction (May 17, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, this is you now - _the polls were wrong. _
> 
> Cheers_._


No. YOU were wrong - to go anywhere near them.

That was YOUR judgement. And no one could tell you different.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> No. YOU were wrong - to go anywhere near them.
> 
> That was YOUR judgement.


OMG the polls were wrong!!! YOU WERE ALL WRONG PEOPLE. DE-EVOLUTION IN ACTION! I didn't say any such thing or offer any evidence why mind.


----------



## Up the junction (May 17, 2015)

thank you. I'm here all week.

Now to enjoy the weather.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> thank you. I'm here all week.
> 
> Now to enjoy the weather.


Or,to say _polls _in every other post.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 10, 2015)

Shall we try again?



> SUPPORT for the SNP has risen to *62 per cent*, according to a new poll which predicts a landslide victory for Nicola Sturgeon’s party in next May’s Holyrood election.
> 
> However, the TNS survey also found only modest levels of satisfaction with the SNP’s performance in government, with no more than a third of voters believing the Nationalists had done well in four key policy areas.
> 
> ...


Sixty-two %; wow.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 10, 2015)

..a few more details..


> Constituency vote:
> 
> *SNP 62%, Labour 20%, Conservatives 12%, Lib Dems 3%*
> 
> ...


If nothing else, the LDs showing consistent levels of support.


----------



## JTG (Aug 10, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ..a few more details..
> ​If nothing else, the LDs showing consistent levels of support.


So - little difference between the two other than a slice of SNP going Green in the list vote.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 10, 2015)

JTG said:


> So - little difference between the two other than a slice of SNP going Green in the list vote.


Yeah, looks like a straight swap; need some local knowledge on that...Jocks?


----------



## Sue (Aug 10, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, looks like a straight swap; need some local knowledge on that...Jocks?


Jocks..?


----------



## JTG (Aug 10, 2015)

Jockanese


----------



## Sue (Aug 10, 2015)

JTG said:


> Jockanese


Eh?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 10, 2015)

Sue said:


> Jocks..?


sweaties


----------



## Sue (Aug 10, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> sweaties


Ah Urban, a hotbed of free and original thought.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 10, 2015)

Don't call us Jocks, we don't like it.

Re the SNP polling, this is a good article (from a Labour bod)

https://medium.com/@Kennyf1283/scotland-has-not-gone-mad-8843c015701


----------



## weepiper (Aug 10, 2015)

JTG said:


> So - little difference between the two other than a slice of SNP going Green in the list vote.





brogdale said:


> Yeah, looks like a straight swap; need some local knowledge on that...Jocks?


A lot of people know the Greens have no chance of getting elected on a constituency basis because of the overwhelming SNP vote. But they've a good chance on the list. Scottish Greens are pro-Indy so there's quite a bit of crossover between SNP and Green voters up here.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 10, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Sep 19, 2015)

Oh, go on then...I can't let it lie....


----------



## brogdale (Sep 19, 2015)

...and...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 1, 2015)

Tonight's 'Scum'/YouGov polling...


Vermin lead down from 9 points last time...and that's with a leader with the worst opening approval ratings for opposition.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2015)

Straw in the wind and all that...


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 30, 2015)

Did the polling industry complete its review of why they got the election utterly wrong?

Until they publish that and make any necessary changes, is it worth bothering with them?


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2015)

Interesting (although by no means indicative) result from a council by-election yesterday too (Euxton North - a seat sometime won by tories in recent memory): 

*Labour 697 [57.3%; +12.7%]*
Conservative 443 [36.4%; -0.3%]
UKIP 76 [6.2%; -12.4%]


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Did the polling industry complete its review of why they got the election utterly wrong?
> 
> Until they publish that and make any necessary changes, is it worth bothering with them?




The Inquiry into the Failure of the 2015 Pre-election Polls: Findings and Preliminary Conclusions

They haven't yet, and the first airing of the findings will be at a free event on 19th January, should you wish to be Urban's delegate.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Did the polling industry complete its review of why they got the election utterly wrong?
> 
> Until they publish that and make any necessary changes, is it worth bothering with them?


It's worth looking at trends, even if there is underlying bias.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2015)

The current polls will have adjusted weighting to take the election failure into account - whether this will actually make them accurate or not isn't clear though.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 30, 2015)

brogdale said:


> It's worth looking at trends, even if there is underlying bias.



How do you know the difference between a trend and noise?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> How do you know the difference between a trend and noise?


Keep watching the numbers.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 11, 2015)

Latest YG EUref poll numbers by nation...






Interesting.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 11, 2015)

That's a second Scottish referendum if overall we vote to leave the EU then.


----------



## killer b (Nov 12, 2015)

ComRes

Con 38% (-1)
 Lab 33% (+3)
 LD 8% (-1
 UKIP 10% (-2)
 Green 3% (-1)

Also only 8% support the text credit cut (!)


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2016)

YG's Anthony Wells gives his views in advance of this week's publication of the BPC/MRS’s inquiry into why the 2015 GE polls went wrong.



> _The most common theme through all these reports so far is that sampling is to blame. Late swing has been dismissed as a major cause by most of those who’ve looked at the data. Respondents giving inaccurate answers doesn’t look like it will be major factor in terms of who people will vote for (it’s hard to prove anyway, unless people suddenly start be honest after the event, but what evidence there is doesn’t seem to back it up), but could potentially be a contributory factor in how well people reported if they would vote. The major factor though looks likely to be sampling – pollsters interviewing people who are too easy to reach, too interested in politics and engaged with the political process and – consequently – getting the differential turnout between young and old wrong_.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 25, 2016)

Shall we give this another go?

Corbyn's Labour are making ground on the vermin....according to the polls!!!


> ComRes for the Daily Mail is in line with what we’ve seen already in the YouGov, ICM and MORI polls – *the Conservative lead has collapsed.* Topline figures are CON 37%(-1), LAB 35%(+4), LDEM 7%(-1), UKIP 9%(-3). The poll was conducted Friday to Sunday, at the same time as IDS’s resignation. Tabs are here


UK Polling Report​


----------



## chilango (Mar 25, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Shall we give this another go?
> 
> Corbyn's Labour are making ground on the vermin....according to the polls!!!
> 
> UK Polling Report​



...and no LibDem revival


----------



## brogdale (Apr 13, 2016)

Fill yer boots ska invita


----------



## ska invita (Apr 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Fill yer boots ska invita



Ukip 17!
ETA: just looking at UKIP polling history, the highest they've ever scored is 20...
Will be really interesting to see what happens to UKIP vote after the EU referendum
Holding up well so far though


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2016)

CON 31%
 LAB 34%
 LDEM 8%
 UKIP 17%
 GRN 3%

 in Times last night/today. Commentary.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Ukip 17!
> ETA: just looking at UKIP polling history, the highest they've ever scored is 20...
> Will be really interesting to see what happens to UKIP vote after the EU referendum
> Holding up well so far though



They've been as as high as 25% before - nearly all the 20%+ ones have been with survation, but all the others seem to have them at 20% at one point.


----------



## JimW (Apr 15, 2016)

Sad to see the Lib Dems hanging on to their rump eight percent.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2016)

Hang on, that Times one i just posted is the same one as earlier in the week that borgdale isn't it? Why were they tweeting it as new last night i wonder?


----------



## JimW (Apr 15, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on, that Times one i just posted is the same one as earlier in the week that borgdale isn't it? Why were they tweeting it as new last night i wonder?


A YouGov one? That's what I saw on Twitter a few days back too.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2016)

Right, Times published it 14th, Sam thing tweeted it 10pm on the 13th. And someone was tweeting it as new on the night of the 14th, which led me to think it was the same as usual -i.e a post 10pm tweet of next days published polling.


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2016)

As conventional wisdom would predict, the DKs are shaking out into the status quo...


----------



## redsquirrel (May 18, 2016)

Never thought leave would win but I am hoping for something like 55-45 split, which at least would keep up the Tory infighting.


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Never thought leave would win but I am hoping for something like 55-45 split, which at least would keep up the Tory infighting.


Yeah agreed, the smaller the gap the bigger the trouble for the vermin...but the truth is that historically there's most often been a bigger majority for 'remain'.





I still say a 'Remain' of low to mid 60's%, with 'Leave' mid to high 30's.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 19, 2016)

That's quite a *confident* prediction brogdale -- low-to-mid 60s% 'Remain'????? 

I do see what you/polls mean about Don't Knows tending to head 'Remain'-wards though.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 19, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Never thought leave would win but I am hoping for something like 55-45 split, which at least would keep up the Tory infighting.




Agreed -- narrow Remain win, maximum Tory war


----------



## Dogsauce (May 19, 2016)

A strong remain vote might knock UKIP back, which longer term would be a tory benefit.  Then again, the SNP didn't go anywhere after the independence referendum.


----------



## bi0boy (May 19, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> That's quite a *confident* prediction brogdale -- low-to-mid 60s% 'Remain'?????
> 
> I do see what you/polls mean about Don't Knows tending to head 'Remain'-wards though.



Will the DKs actually vote though? While the remain/leave trends are clear it remains to be seen who will actually turn out on the day.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 19, 2016)

I hate to say it but I'm slowly beginning to think that an in-vote would be preferable, if only to stop a break-up  of the UK in the event Scotland gets another independence vote. I don't like the idea of a UK without Scotland.


----------



## belboid (May 19, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Will the DKs actually vote though? While the remain/leave trends are clear it remains to be seen who will actually turn out on the day.


Enough did in Scotland to turn it from very narrow remain win into a fairly clear one. I think brogdale is slightly over generous to the remain vote, I reckon it'll be just under 60%, 62 tops


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> That's quite a *confident* prediction brogdale -- low-to-mid 60s% 'Remain'?????
> 
> I do see what you/polls mean about Don't Knows tending to head 'Remain'-wards though.


Only looking at historical trends, innate conservatism of the electorate and guessing...that's all there is to my 'forecast'. But, if I were a betting man, I'd put money on 61:39.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Will the DKs actually vote though? While the remain/leave trends are clear *it remains to be seen who will actually turn out *on the day.


Very good.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2016)

I suppose we only have to look back at the earlier pages in this thread to see how good most of us are at political forecasts around polling!!


----------



## redsquirrel (May 19, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> Agreed -- narrow Remain win, maximum Tory war


No a leave vote would cause the maximum damage to the Tories - splitting the leadership and backers of the party from it's base. But that's not on the cards IMO.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 19, 2016)

Dream scenario? Brexit wins out, Scotland has referendum but decides to stay in UK, Tories tear themselves apart triggering a crisis of legitimacy and a general election, Labour sweeps to power with Corbs at its helm and implements a decentralised workers' democracy. This shining example inspires a world revolution and Dominoes hand out free pizza.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 19, 2016)

I think whatever happens, be it Brexit or Remain, the Tories will continue the civil war. There's so much bad blood and open hostility that some rifts just won't heal. Some of them, like Bone and Hollobone (what a fucking pair) may even defect to the Kippers. 

I read earlier that 25 Tory Brexiteers were planning to vote against the Queen's Speech. If that were to happen, the government could suffer a catastrophic defeat from which it would be difficult to recover.

Get yer popcorn out!


----------



## treelover (May 19, 2016)

> *Labour MP apologises for calling voter 'horrible racist' after clash over immigration - Politics live*
> 
> Labour MP apologises for calling voter 'horrible racist' after clash over immigration - Politics live




Meanwhile, Labour is in more trouble, shades of Gordon..


----------



## killer b (May 19, 2016)

There was an interesting interview with Brown's bigot woman on R4 a month or so ago, she was very sharp & funny, and had some quite insightful things to say. Goes to show something or the other.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 19, 2016)

*shrugs* Maybe she was a racist. Now if Pat Glass had accused the voter of _anti-Semitism_, people would accept it _fait accompli_ and roundly condemned the voter. But as the word 'racist' was used instead, an apology must follow and the papers must use it as a stick with which to beat Labour. As far as the meeja is concerned, Labour just can't get it right.

However, there is a hierarchy of racisms being applied and that isn't right.


----------



## killer b (May 19, 2016)

The horrible racist was a man, in this case. Moaning about polish spongers.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 19, 2016)

Man, woman, whatever.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2016)

Not polling, but £ piling onto 'Remain'.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Bone and *Hollobone *(what a fucking pair) may even defect to the Kippers.


I've been expecting it for ages but he still holds faith. It'd be absolutely my luck to get him go kipper after a bremain, I deserve to be ruled by a fucking faragist for being a bit red


----------



## kabbes (May 20, 2016)

The closer the polls get to eachother, the more DKs will come out and vote remain, and the more that shaky exits will vote remain.

Voting exit or abstaining when you are sure it makes no difference is one thing.  Doing it when the vote is tight suddenly opens up the possibility of a scary-sounding exit for real, not just in theory.

There's a reason that the status quo almost always wins referenda.  People don't like change.  To go along with change they need three things:

1) Dissatisfaction with the status quo
2) A clear vision of what things will be like post-change
3) A clear roadmap of how they get from here to there

The exit camp are concentrating on 1 and neglecting 2 and 3.  In the end, this is what will lose it for them.

The vote will always be *quite* close because if remain is looking like a steamroller, people will feel brave enough to vote for exit.  But I also predict that the remain vote will end up in the low-60s as a result of these underlying issues.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 21, 2016)

I'd be amazed if remain gets to 60% plus. 55%-ish *at most*, I reckon.  

Other than that though, I think that kabbes analysis above looks like a very sharp assessment.


----------



## brogdale (May 22, 2016)

This is quite jolly...

YouGov |  EU Referendum Turnout Interactive

Enjoy!


----------



## gosub (May 22, 2016)

kabbes said:


> The closer the polls get to eachother, the more DKs will come out and vote remain, and the more that shaky exits will vote remain.
> 
> Voting exit or abstaining when you are sure it makes no difference is one thing.  Doing it when the vote is tight suddenly opens up the possibility of a scary-sounding exit for real, not just in theory.
> 
> ...



I'd say you are on the money, but I'd probably go further depending on events today (and most likely tommorrow).  Nobody can accidentally miss their marks THIS badly,- beyond fishy.

ETA. Actually strike that having just listened to Lord Owen, its the blinkers of compartmentalized expertise.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 2, 2016)

Derived from polling cross-breaks...and nothing terribly new or anything...but quite a pretty presentation from today's FT...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 3, 2016)

So - who are this 5% of UKIP supporters who _don't_ support Brexit? Maybe they just support them for their opposition to public breast feeding or something?


----------



## laptop (Jun 4, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> So - who are this 5% of UKIP supporters who _don't_ support Brexit? Maybe they just support them for their opposition to public breast feeding or something?


Colleague pointed that out this afternoon... I was surprised that that few were that confused


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 4, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> So - who are this 5% of UKIP supporters who _don't_ support Brexit? Maybe they just support them for their opposition to public breast feeding or something?



It'll be the ones who like the idea of taxi drivers having to wear a uniform, but don't want to lose their supply of cheap baccy from Belgium.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 5, 2016)

> *Understanding today's Opinium poll*



Good luck is all I can say...


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2016)

I'm still racking up my YouGov and IPSOS credits being a "don't know" who is "certain to vote". Kerching.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 5, 2016)

chilango said:


> I'm still racking up my YouGov and IPSOS credits being a "don't know" who is "certain to vote". Kerching.


just another month till that pink 50 note is yours 

I really should get on the paid opinion game given you lot get it for free every day lol


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2016)

I've cashed in £60 in the last month already.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 5, 2016)

chilango said:


> I've cashed in £60 in the last month already.


I am obviously missing a trick here ....
Do you have to let them call you? Because I might struggle with that


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2016)

Never been asked to do a phone poll. Don't know why.

I used to make at £10-20 a month off market research and polls for very little effort.

I only dabble these days and stick with YouGov and IPSOS so as to keep a high proportion of political polling.

The market research is painless though. 5 minutes of telling companies that their advert is shit, their product is shit and no, I won't be buying it. Job done. Come to think of it, that's exactly what I do in the political ones too!


----------



## weltweit (Jun 5, 2016)

I recently made the mistake of responding to an email that offered bonus points for my supermarket, thinking that it was from my supermarket, and ever since I have been bombarded with crappy emails for all sorts of tat..

Definitely the last time I will be doing that .. they all get caught in my spam traps but what concerns me is that I may have been added to an email list .. forever ..

I wish there was a TPS for email addresses!


----------



## Flanflinger (Jun 5, 2016)

weltweit said:


> I recently made the mistake of responding to an email that offered bonus points for my supermarket, thinking that it was from my supermarket, and ever since I have been bombarded with crappy emails for all sorts of tat..
> 
> Definitely the last time I will be doing that .. they all get caught in my spam traps but what concerns me is that I may have been added to an email list .. forever ..
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Jun 6, 2016)

Post-purdah, immig-bomb bounce continues...


----------



## brogdale (Jun 6, 2016)

Smithson makes a valid point...the Leavist 'bounce' coincides with actual, live (postal) voting.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 6, 2016)




----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 7, 2016)

I'm quite surprised by the postal vote thing. Is Smithson suggesting there's been a Leave surge from early postal votes (and how, methodologically, would he/the polls pick up on that?) 

Maybe us postal-vote-registering people who are getting our first ever postal votes because we're going to Glastonbury over the 23rd (most of those in our category will probably be Remainers) are very few indeed in number, and thus a niche minority.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 7, 2016)

The point is that people will be casting their postal votes _now_ at a time when Leave is apparently enjoying a bit of a boost, so that could favour Leave.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 7, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> I'm quite surprised by the postal vote thing. Is Smithson suggesting there's been a Leave surge from early postal votes (and how, methodologically, would he/the polls pick up on that?)
> 
> Maybe us postal-vote-registering people who are getting our first ever postal votes because we're going to Glastonbury over the 23rd (most of those in our category will probably be Remainers) are very few indeed in number, and thus a niche minority.


As his tweet says, the polls merely measure a sample of opinion...he's stressing the (potentially significant) coincidence of polls demonstrating an increase in 'Leave' and the start of actual, postal voting.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 8, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> The point is that people will be casting their postal votes _now_ at a time when Leave is apparently enjoying a bit of a boost, so that could favour Leave.




Thanks, as speculation that makes logical sense. I think I was wondering though whether he knew more about how postal votes would head than he could possibly yet know. I was overinterpreting it.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 8, 2016)

chilango said:


> I've cashed in £60 in the last month already.


Hrmm. Do you just sign up on their website for this?


----------



## chilango (Jun 8, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Hrmm. Do you just sign up on their website for this?



Yeah.

You do have to fill in a LOT of demographic information.

There's also a high proportion of market research to wade through. But I get less and less of that and more political polling these days. I must have hit a sweet spot demographic wise.

YouGov |  Register

Home


----------



## brogdale (Jun 12, 2016)

Much reference to '_neck-and-neck' _in Anthony's latest piece.



> There are two EU referendum polls in the Sunday papers – YouGov in the Sunday Times and Opinium in the Observer. Both of them have the race neck-and-neck: YouGov have REMAIN 49%, LEAVE 51%, Opinium have REMAIN 51%, LEAVE 49%. Tables for YouGov are here, for Opinium are here.
> 
> In both cases the topline figures are pretty much unchanged from figures a week ago, remaining roughly *neck-and-neck.* There is certainly no echo of that ten point Leave lead ORB produced on Friday.





> My guess is that there has been a little movement towards Leave, but perhaps not of the scale suggested by some of the more startling figures, and not necessarily a lasting one. Opinium’s poll a week ago had a significant underlying shift towards Leave, today’s unchanged figures suggest a consolidation of that movement. YouGov on the other hand showed what appeared to be a similar movement towards Leave two weeks ago, but have since moved back towards *neck-and-neck*.


----------



## jakethesnake (Jun 13, 2016)

EU referendum: leave campaign takes six-point lead in Guardian/ICM polls


----------



## brogdale (Jun 13, 2016)

jakethesnake said:


> EU referendum: leave campaign takes six-point lead in Guardian/ICM polls


Yeah, the leave leads are getting the punters interested...


----------



## brogdale (Jun 13, 2016)

YG Anthony's latest post on the EU polls

Main point...


> *The movement towards Leave is now pretty clear, the overall lead slightly less so:*


----------



## brogdale (Jun 14, 2016)

Quite meaty?


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 15, 2016)

Do any election geeks know how the counting will proceed and the results come in? Will different districts declare before sending off their totals to be collated? Just trying to plan ahead and wondering whether it will be a stay up all night job or a wake up nice and early one?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 15, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Do any election geeks know how the counting will proceed and the results come in? Will different districts declare before sending off their totals to be collated? Just trying to plan ahead and wondering whether it will be a stay up all night job or a wake up nice and early one?


When is the EU referendum result expected?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 16, 2016)

Polling suggests summat's up....



> *Ipsos MORI poll gives Leave a 6-point lead*
> A new Ipsos MORI poll for the Evening Standard gives Leave a six-point lead. Here’s an extract from the story.
> 
> In a dramatic turnaround since May, some 53 per cent now want to leave and 47 per cent want to stay, excluding don’t knows.
> ...


----------



## J Ed (Jun 16, 2016)

Tony Blair less trusted than Joey Essex on EU Ref


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 16, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Polling suggests summat's up....



Not clear in that link, but was that IPSOS-Mori poll for the *Evening Standard* London-area only??


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 16, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> Not clear in that link, but was that IPSOS-Mori poll for the *Evening Standard* London-area only??


No.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 16, 2016)

OK thanks.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 16, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> Not clear in that link, but was that IPSOS-Mori poll for the *Evening Standard* London-area only??


AFAICS it was a standard, national phone poll...but with some methodological (turn-out tweaking) change since the last one, but Anthony still sees the change as significant.


----------



## belboid (Jun 16, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Tony Blair less trusted than Joey Essex on EU Ref



JC the most popular serving politician! Tho probably better described as the least grotesquely unpopular serving politician.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 16, 2016)

belboid said:


> JC the most popular serving politician! Tho probably better described as the least grotesquely unpopular serving politician.



Yes, I think Corbyn and allies are going to come out with a strengthened hand within the Labour Party after the Ref. They have done exactly the right thing by refusing to share a platform with Tories while allowing the Blairites to repeat the same mistake they made during the Indy Ref.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 16, 2016)

Hmm, while I don't disagree that their strategy has been right (at least from their perspective) I don't think that will stop the Progress wankers from attacking Corbyn for "not making a strong enough case"


----------



## brogdale (Jun 16, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Hmm, will I don't disagree that their strategy has been right (at least from their perspective) I don't think that will stop the Progress wankers from attacking Corbyn for "not making a strong enough case"


Clearly been Cameron's tactic from the outset...prepare the ground for blame-sharing should the electorate 'get this wrong'. Of course _Progress _et al would happily exploit that vermin position.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 16, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Hmm, while I don't disagree that their strategy has been right (at least from their perspective) I don't think that will stop the Progress wankers from attacking Corbyn for "not making a strong enough case"



Yes but members of Progress have also been busy discrediting themselves by sharing platforms with Tories.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 16, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yes but members of Progress have also been busy discrediting themselves by sharing platforms with Tories.


But, just imagine their (faux?) ire with the leadership if this goes tits up for their ideological bed-fellows.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 16, 2016)




----------



## J Ed (Jun 16, 2016)

brogdale said:


> But, just imagine their (faux?) ire with the leadership if this goes tits up for their ideological bed-fellows.



Honestly even with a media obsessed with attacking Corbyn I think there will be more important things to focus on in the aftermath of the referendum..


----------



## brogdale (Jun 18, 2016)

80% of fieldwork conducted pre-Cox murder, but Opinium (for Observer) has R:L at 44% : 44%

UK Polling Report


----------



## J Ed (Jun 18, 2016)

Impossible to call this, isn't it?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Impossible to call this, isn't it?


It is.
A month ago I felt R60% :L40%, but I'm just not sure those youngsters will turn-out in sufficient number to get near that.


----------



## Red O (Jun 18, 2016)

Six point swing to Remain.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 18, 2016)

Red O said:


> Six point swing to Remain.



Fieldwork post-Cox murder.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 18, 2016)

Looking like the Cox effect & suspension has had a real impact on the Leave surge...


----------



## brogdale (Jun 18, 2016)

Pollsters think the reverse in the Leave surge 'significant'...


----------



## Red O (Jun 18, 2016)




----------



## jakethesnake (Jun 18, 2016)

After the murder people might be reluctant to tell a pollster, or anybody else, that they're going to vote leave. I think the polls are likely to be underestimating the leave vote.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2016)

jakethesnake said:


> After the murder people might be reluctant to tell a pollster, or anybody else, that they're going to vote leave. I think the polls are likely to be underestimating the leave vote.


I  think that's plausible, for some, but the nature of this kind of poll is that remain were almost certainly underestimated in the last 10 days or so. I've always expected remain to win by a clear margin, even if the polls were shaking my confidence in that recently.  I think it's over for leave now though.


----------



## gosub (Jun 20, 2016)

What was the polling at the weekend?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 20, 2016)

Leavists are, according to polling by Populus....


----------



## brogdale (Jun 20, 2016)

...and remainarians are...


----------



## brogdale (Jun 20, 2016)

Nothing about abstainers/spoilers.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 20, 2016)

I guess a lot of those factors correlate with age, e.g greater majority of those who rent privately voting remain - that's as Generation Rent (young) are much more likely to be in this situation (also students will make up a decent proportion of this).

They should have 'on facebook' as an index, be interesting to see how that splits.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 20, 2016)

lol


----------



## brogdale (Jun 20, 2016)

lol


----------



## brogdale (Jun 20, 2016)

I think some of these polls may turn out to be correct...dunno which ones, though.


----------



## JimW (Jun 20, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I think some of these polls may turn out to be correct...dunno which ones, though.


Thanks professor!


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 20, 2016)

I don't know what the socio-economic groupings mean, but I'm in none of the other groups of leavers.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 20, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> I don't know what the socio-economic groupings mean, but I'm in none of the other groups of leavers.


Male? (102)


----------



## Red O (Jun 20, 2016)




----------



## brogdale (Jun 21, 2016)

And just to clear matters up for the evening....


----------



## Wilf (Jun 21, 2016)

Yougov have leave back in the lead which, I'll be honest, I didn't expect

YouGov |  EU referendum: Leave lead at two


----------



## J Ed (Jun 21, 2016)

This is from a 13-14th June but interesting

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...3g4e5e0e/LBCResults_160614_EUReferendum_W.pdf

46% of Leave voters believe that the polls will be rigged


----------



## brogdale (Jun 21, 2016)

Dunno if it's rigged or not, but....


----------



## brogdale (Jun 22, 2016)

Some evidence of expected late swing to status quo?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 22, 2016)

and...


----------



## brogdale (Jun 22, 2016)

60R : 40L still on, then.


----------



## chilango (Jun 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> 60R : 40L still on, then.



Yep.

The first poll didn't even include the don't knows, dunno about the second.

Media hyping it as too close to call, but that's not exactly a surprise is it?


----------



## chilango (Jun 22, 2016)

Ah, from your  second poll:



> After don’t knows are accounted for, Remain would lead 54% to 46%


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> 60R : 40L still on, then.


Really fucking hope not, I've never thought Leave would win but losing by that margin is just a huge victory for capital. The starting gun for another round of attacks. That said I still think 55-45 is more likely.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 22, 2016)

My gut feeling is still that Leave will take it with a decent margin (53:47) - they have a broad demographic of motivated supporters, few voting remain actually have that much enthusiasm for doing so. They've got their message through, deceitful as it is. I don't think remain has been sold well, it's just been a parade of bankers and bosses going on about the economy - something that to most people will be abstract. They'd have done better highlighting free movement, consumer rights and so on - things that people can understand and see themselves benefitting from. It just feels exactly like the sort of campaign the Tory party would run at a general election - we can't let Labour ruin the economy etc. - perhaps because that is who is running the show.


----------



## killer b (Jun 22, 2016)

The economy isn't abstract at all. It's what wins elections.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 22, 2016)

People being shit scared of the economy going tits up is a huge factor for Remain. _Il est l'economie stupide_


----------



## Wilf (Jun 23, 2016)

I've always assumed the polls are overstating leave, for the usual/obvious reasons (leave as the vehicle for protest votes which might not become actual votes on the day; remain as the status quo position - allied with 'project fear' beginning to have some effect).  Must admit I did expect remain to have had a clearer lead this week, with the impact of the murder - they've had the best of the polls, but it hasn't been unanimous.  Same time, as they've been suggesting on the news, the bookies probably have a better sense of it than the pollsters.  I'd expect something like - fuck knows - 55-45, or even wider.  Enough for remain to have got away with it and enough to stop leave mounting any kind of campaign for a re-run in the next decade.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 23, 2016)

This all still holds, and the leave camp have done nothing to address it.


kabbes said:


> The closer the polls get to eachother, the more DKs will come out and vote remain, and the more that shaky exits will vote remain.
> 
> Voting exit or abstaining when you are sure it makes no difference is one thing.  Doing it when the vote is tight suddenly opens up the possibility of a scary-sounding exit for real, not just in theory.
> 
> ...


The economy is always the primary thing that drives the population in the closed ballot booth, where nobody can see our selfish, scared, short-term choices.  People are entirely understandably worried about their world collapsing around them.  It's easy to be declamatory and principled when making arguments but when decision time hits and the X has to go into the box, it all gets very real.  This referendum is no different.

Of course, I am wrong a _lot_ when I make predictions about elections, so you should bear that in mind


----------



## brogdale (Jun 23, 2016)

Last (52%R) EURef poll released from IpsosMORI coincided with another rise in sterling...


----------



## brogdale (Jun 23, 2016)

And Populus' 10-pointer won't have harmed that perception.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> And Populus' 10-pointer won't have harmed that perception.





> The scale of the lead has led some polling experts to say that a Remain result is now highly likely


No shit!


----------



## chilango (Jun 23, 2016)

Remember the General Election when the exit poll came in for a clear Tory win and minutes into the coverage everybody was stumped as result after result confirmed it and confounded expectations.

It'll be similar tonight.

It'll be clear pretty quickly that Remain will walk it and it'll be done and dusted pretty much in the early hours.

+60% Remain vs -40% Leave


----------



## J Ed (Jun 23, 2016)

chilango said:


> Remember the General Election when the exit poll came in for a clear Tory win and minutes into the coverage everybody was stumped as result after result confirmed it and confounded expectations.
> 
> It'll be similar tonight.
> 
> ...



I am starting to come round to this view myself.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 23, 2016)

chilango said:


> Remember the General Election when the exit poll came in for a clear Tory win and minutes into the coverage everybody was stumped as result after result confirmed it and confounded expectations.
> 
> It'll be similar tonight.
> 
> ...


-40%...that's a bad result!


----------



## chilango (Jun 23, 2016)

Plus being wildly overconfident in predicting the result is the only way I'm wringing any fun out of this.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 23, 2016)

I don't think it's going to be 60/40 but it's going to be at least 55%+ Remain imo


----------



## brogdale (Jun 23, 2016)

One way or another, there will be egg on face for some...


----------



## brogdale (Jun 23, 2016)

FWIW, ( and that's not much at all!), for the GE ComRes were the most accurate of the final polls.


----------



## laptop (Jun 23, 2016)

J Ed said:


> This is from a 13-14th June but interesting
> 
> http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...3g4e5e0e/LBCResults_160614_EUReferendum_W.pdf
> 
> 46% of Leave voters believe that the polls will be rigged


That "pencil" meme... Who knew there were so many tinfoilers?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 23, 2016)




----------



## mk12 (Jun 24, 2016)

So, again, the polls were wrong.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 24, 2016)

Political polling is even less of a science than economic forecasting.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 24, 2016)

mk12 said:


> So, again, the polls were wrong.


Yes, with a few 'honourable' exceptions.
Though, this was of course something of an exceptional event.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 24, 2016)

The polls got the numbers right, they just transposed the numbers onto the wrong positions!

Will political polling survive this debacle?


----------



## Libertad (Jun 24, 2016)

weltweit said:


> The polls got the numbers right, they just transposed the numbers onto the wrong positions!
> 
> Will political polling survive this debacle?



Who gives a fuck?


----------



## killer b (Jun 24, 2016)

weltweit said:


> The polls got the numbers right, they just transposed the numbers onto the wrong positions!
> 
> Will political polling survive this debacle?


Of course it will.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> Of course it will.


They got it wrong at the last general election, they got it wrong at the referendum .. will you trust them in future? I doubt I will.


----------



## killer b (Jun 24, 2016)

Bullshit. You'll be poring over them, same as ever. What's the alternative?


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 24, 2016)

Bookies got it wrong as well. So much for their wisdom.

Obviously they still made boat loads of cash


----------



## weltweit (Jun 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> Bullshit. You'll be poring over them, same as ever. What's the alternative?


Waiting for the actual result !


----------



## kabbes (Jun 24, 2016)

kabbes said:


> This all still holds, and the leave camp have done nothing to address it.
> 
> The economy is always the primary thing that drives the population in the closed ballot booth, where nobody can see our selfish, scared, short-term choices.  People are entirely understandably worried about their world collapsing around them.  It's easy to be declamatory and principled when making arguments but when decision time hits and the X has to go into the box, it all gets very real.  This referendum is no different.
> 
> Of course, I am wrong a _lot_ when I make predictions about elections, so you should bear that in mind


well I was right about one thing: I get it wrong a lot.


----------



## The Boy (Jun 24, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Bookies got it wrong as well.



No they didn't.  The punters did.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 24, 2016)

The Boy said:


> No they didn't.  The punters did.


Bookies don't lose cash. They don't predict outcomes based on odds of success, they hedge the odds against their potential losses. They will be up overall.


----------



## The Boy (Jun 24, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Bookies don't lose cash. They don't predict outcomes based on odds of success, they hedge the odds against their potential losses. They will be up overall.



Which was point.


----------



## The Boy (Jun 24, 2016)

And more specifically it was the big punters who got it wrong - according to William Hill, almost 70% of bets placed were for leave.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 24, 2016)

The Boy said:


> Which was point.


whoops. misread your post, sorry.


----------



## killer b (Jun 24, 2016)

kabbes said:


> well I was right about one thing: I get it wrong a lot.


Innit. I've called every major election wrong for the past 10 years.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 24, 2016)

i won ninety two quid!


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 24, 2016)

This isn't a Brexit thread


----------



## killer b (Jun 24, 2016)

everything is a brexit thread today, soz.


----------



## The Boy (Jun 24, 2016)

The Boy said:


> And more specifically it was the big punters who got it wrong - according to William Hill, almost 70% of bets placed were for leave.



Just to come back to this for a minute. As I understand it, one of the reasons analysts like using betting markets as a bellweather is that people are actually risking money to back up their opinion. 

It would appear, if the guy from William Hill that I follow on twitter is correct, that the overwhelming majority of punters were backing leave but that this was being skewed by the fact that large investors were backing remain and warping the markets.  I saw a figure that 69% of bets were backing leave, but 69% of total value was for remain.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 25, 2016)

weltweit said:


> They got it wrong at the last general election, *they got it wrong at the referendum *.. will you trust them in future? I doubt I will.



Did they?


> If I were TNS or Opinium I would be rather annoyed today. Looking through social media, twitter and so forth there are lots of comments about the polls all being wrong and it being a terrible night for the pollsters, etc, etc. _*Both TNS and Opinium had final call figures of REMAIN 49%, LEAVE 51% – within a point of the actual result. Far from being a terrible night, they got it pretty much spot on, and should be getting congratulated.*_





> Since the error in the polls in 2015 I’ve said that the problems won’t be solved overnight. Pollsters are experimenting with different methods. Some of those things will work, some will not – it is a learning process. The record of polls conducted online is getting more promising – the performance of the mostly online polls at the May elections was mostly good, and most of the online polls for the EU referendum were either good, or at least only a few points out. While the problems of 2015 are probably not entirely cured yet, online companies are showing clear progress, for some phone polls there is clearly still work to be done.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 25, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Both TNS and Opinium had final call figures of REMAIN 49%, LEAVE 51% – within a point of the actual result. Far from being a terrible night, they got it pretty much spot on, and should be getting congratulated.



Should they be? With so many pollsters giving such a broad range of results, it was inevitable that some would be closer to the result than others. This doesn't make them more competent or mean that their methodology is better than others. Were these two pollsters' turnout, regional and demographic predictions were also spot on? If not then it makes it more likely they fluked it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 14, 2016)

Ipsos Mori gives Labour a 5% lead...surely an outlier!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2016)

They didn't really did they? I think the unweighted figures had a 5 point lead, the weighted figures had them level.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> They didn't really did they? I think the unweighted figures had a 5 point lead, the weighted figures had them level.


the weight total is also 38% to 33% labour leading., page 2

eta - ah, that includes all voters, the headline figure for it only includes those who're most likely to vote.


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2016)

It's not the final figure though is It? The final figure has them level (actually tories slightly ahead), once likelihood to vote is factored in.


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2016)

The figures the polling companies produce are predictions based on the data collected and loads of other variables - you can't just point at the figures they've based their prediction on as if they mean much by themselves, just because you want them to be true.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 14, 2016)

Mods, can we please now move this thread back to the Politics forum?
editor 
Thanks.


----------



## editor (Jul 14, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Mods, can we please now move this thread back to the Politics forum?
> editor
> Thanks.


Please use the report post function if you wish to get the attention of the mods. Thanks.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> The figures the polling companies produce are predictions based on the data collected and loads of other variables - you can't just point at the figures they've based their prediction on as if they mean much by themselves, just because you want them to be true.



I certainly wasn't posting it because I wanted it to be true. I was just surprised at the raw data given what's in the news at the moment. Also Mori provide a caveat for their adjusted figure; i.e. they're in the middle of a review of their own practices. So all in all 'they're very close' seems to be the best bet at present.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Jul 14, 2016)

editor said:


> Please use the report post function if you wish to get the attention of the mods. Thanks.


Thanks & OK; noted.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 14, 2016)

Been some kerfuffle around the weighting (or not) on this poll, but here are the numbers IpsosMORI got for the Standard. (Fieldwork conducted before May as PM)


> Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor has a much closer race than ICM’s last poll. Topline figures are:-
> *CON 36%, LAB 35%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 8%, GRN 4% *(full tabs are here.)


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jul 14, 2016)

Fieldwork not just pre-May as PM, but during Labour shenanigans as well.  Likely a whole lot of "settling" for those numbers to do once things look a bit more stable on both sides.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 14, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Been some kerfuffle around the weighting (or not) on this poll, but here are the numbers IpsosMORI got for the Standard. (Fieldwork conducted before May as PM)
> ​





> 10 Jul	38	30	8	15	Con +8
> 5 Jul	36	32	9	12	Con +4
> 3 Jul	37	30	8	15	Con +7
> 30 Jun	34	29	7	17	Con +5
> ...


You can imagine patterns in there but its broadly similar to the month or two that preceded it. 

There may be a trend of a move from UKIP to Con? Slight drop in Labour but given the turmoil in the political system it seems as if the polling is relatively stable around a Con lead of about 3-4%


----------



## brogdale (Jul 20, 2016)

Some bounce...aided by the UKIP collapse of relevance?


----------



## poului (Jul 20, 2016)

This is an even worse indication, IMO.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2016)

Those numbers are really bad


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 20, 2016)

Unsurprising really given the circumstances engineered by the PLP. Idiots cutting off their bellend to spite their balls.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 25, 2016)

Bit random and I doubt anyone would be interested but; I fiddled with recent polling results from here and munged them into a csv format.   They can be loaded into excel or the like to have a play. I did screw up the sample sizes but I was not bothered with them anyway. You can play around and check the LD+LAB vs the CON+UKIP to see how stable the two blocks are relative to each other, get the variance for each column,



Spoiler





```
conducted,Polling organisation/client,Sample size,Con,Lab,UKIP,Lib Dem,SNP,Green,Others,Lead,,
17 ..18 Jul,YouGov,1891,40,29,12,9,7,3,1,11,
13 ..15 Jul,ICM,2027,39,29,14,9,4,4,2,10,
13-Jul,Theresa May becomes the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,,,,,,,,,,,
9 ..11 Jul,Ipsos MORI,1021,36,35,8,11,5,4,1,1,
8 ..10 Jul,ICM,2025,38,30,15,8,5,4,1,8,
4 ..5 Jul,Survation/Constitutional Research Council,1008,36,32,12,9,6,-,7,4,
04-Jul,Nigel Farage stands down as leader of UK Independence Party,,,,,,,,,,,
1 ..3 Jul,ICM,1979,37,30,15,8,5,4,2,7,
28 ..30 Jun,Opinium,2006,34,29,17,7,5,4,2,5,
24 ..26 Jun,ICM/The Guardian,2001,36,32,15,7,5,5,1,4,
24 ..25 Jun,Survation/Mail on Sunday,1033,32,32,16,9,4,4,2,0,
23-Jun,United Kingdom European Union membership referendum: the UK votes to leave European Union; David Cameron announces he will resign as Prime Minister,,,,,,,,,,,
20 ..22 Jun,Opinium,3011,34,30,19,6,6,4,2,4,
14 ..17 Jun,Opinium/Observer,2006,34,30,18,6,6,4,1,4,
16-Jun,Tooting by-election; killing of MP Jo Cox, leading to a suspension of referendum campaigning until 19 June,,,,,,,,,,
15 ..16 Jun,ComRes/Sunday Mirror Independent on Sunday,2046,34,29,19,8,5,4,2,5
11 ..14 Jun,Ipsos MORI/Evening Standard,1257,35,34,10,9,5,4,3,1,
10 ..13 Jun,ICM/The Guardian,2001,34,30,19,8,4,4,1,4,
10 ..13 Jun,ICM/The Guardian,1000,34,33,14,9,4,5,2,1,
7 ..10 Jun,Opinium/Observer,2009,35,32,18,4,5,4,1,3,
31 May ..3 Jun,Opinium/Observer,2007,34,30,18,6,6,4,2,4,
27 ..29 May,ICM/The Guardian,2052,36,31,17,7,4,4,2,5,
27 ..29 May,ICM/The Guardian,1004,36,32,15,7,4,3,2,4,
17 ..19 May,Opinium/Observer,2008,35,30,18,5,6,5,2,5,
14 ..16 May,Ipsos MORI/Evening Standard,1002,36,34,10,8,5,5,2,2,
13 ..15 May,ICM/The Guardian,1002,36,34,13,7,4,4,2,2,
13 ..15 May,ICM/The Guardian,2048,34,32,17,7,5,4,1,2,
11 ..12 May,ComRes/Sunday Mirror Independent on Sunday,2043,36,30,17,8,5,4,-,6
05-May,United Kingdom local elections, 2016 as well as Ogmore and Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough by-elections,,,,,,,,,,
26 ..29 Apr,Opinium/Observer,2005,38,30,15,5,5,5,2,8,
25 ..26 Apr,YouGov/The Times,1650,30,33,20,6,8,3,-,3,
22 ..26 Apr,BMG Research,1375,33,32,18,6,5,4,2,1,
16 ..18 Apr,Ipsos MORI/Evening Standard,1026,38,35,11,6,6,3,1,3,
15 ..17 Apr,ICM/The Guardian,1003,38,33,13,7,5,3,1,5,
15 ..17 Apr,ICM/The Guardian,2008,36,31,16,7,4,4,2,5,
13 ..14 Apr,ComRes/Sunday Mirror Independent on Sunday,2036,35,30,16,8,5,4,1,5
11 ..12 Apr,YouGov/The Times,1639,31,34,17,8,7,3,-,3,
29 Mar ..1 Apr,Opinium/Observer,1966,33,32,17,5,6,4,2,1,
24 ..29 Mar,BMG Research,1298,36,31,16,7,5,5,2,5,
19 ..22 Mar,Ipsos MORI,1023,36,34,11,10,5,3,2,2,
18 ..20 Mar,ComRes/Daily Mail,1002,37,35,9,7,5,4,2,2,
16 ..17 Mar,YouGov/The Times,1691,33,34,16,6,6,3,2,1,
16-Mar,George Osborne delivers the 2016 United Kingdom budget,,,,,,,,,,,
11 ..13 Mar,ICM/The Guardian,1001,36,36,11,8,3,3,1,0,
9 ..10 Mar,ComRes/Sunday Mirror Independent on Sunday,2059,38,29,16,7,4,4,1,9
21 ..23 Feb,YouGov/The Times,3482,37,30,16,8,6,3,-,7,
17 ..23 Feb,BMG Research,1268,38,30,16,5,5,5,2,8,
19 ..22 Feb,ComRes/Daily Mail,1000,38,31,12,8,4,3,3,7,
13 ..16 Feb,Ipsos MORI,1001,39,33,12,6,6,3,2,6,
12 ..14 Feb,ICM/The Guardian,1004,39,32,11,7,4,4,3,7,
10 ..12 Feb,ComRes/Sunday Mirror Independent on Sunday,2018,41,27,15,9,5,3,1,14
3 ..4 Feb,YouGov/The Times,1675,39,29,18,6,4,3,1,10,
27 ..28 Jan,YouGov,1735,39,30,17,6,4,3,1,9,
23 ..25 Jan,Ipsos MORI,1027,40,31,11,7,5,4,1,9,
22 ..24 Jan,ComRes/Daily Mail,1006,37,32,12,6,4,4,4,5,
15 ..17 Jan,ICM/The Guardian,1001,40,35,10,6,4,3,2,5,
15 ..16 Jan,Survation/Mail on Sunday,1017,37,30,16,7,5,3,3,7,
13 ..15 Jan,ComRes/Sunday Mirror Independent on Sunday,2004,40,29,16,7,4,3,1,11
8 ..14 Jan,Panelbase/Sunday Times,2087,39,31,14,6,5,5,-,8,
18 ..20 Dec,ICM/The Guardian,1003,39,34,10,7,4,3,3,5,
17 ..18 Dec,YouGov/The Times,1598,39,29,17,6,5,3,1,10,
15 ..18 Dec,Opinium/Observer,1936,38,30,16,5,6,5,2,8,
12 ..14 Dec,Ipsos MORI/Evening Standard,1040,38,31,9,9,5,6,2,7,
11 ..13 Dec,ComRes/Daily Mail,1001,37,33,11,7,4,5,2,4,
9 ..11 Dec,ComRes/Independent on Sunday Sunday Mirror,2049,40,29,16,7,4,3,1,11
03-Dec,Oldham West and Royton by-election,,,,,,,,,,,
30 Nov ..1 Dec,YouGov/The Times,1657,41,30,16,6,4,3,1,11,
20 ..24 Nov,YouGov,4317,38,29,17,6,5,3,1,9,
20 ..22 Nov,ComRes/Daily Mail,1000,40,29,11,8,4,3,4,11,
18 ..20 Nov,ComRes/Independent on Sunday Sunday Mirror,2067,42,27,15,7,5,3,1,15
16 ..17 Nov,Survation/Leave.EU[b],1546,37,30,16,6,5,3,3,7,
14 ..17 Nov,Ipsos MORI/Evening Standard,1021,41,34,7,7,6,4,-,7,
11 ..17 Nov,BMG Research,1334,37,30,15,7,4,4,2,7,
13 ..15 Nov,ICM/The Guardian,1006,39,33,12,7,5,3,1,6,
9 ..11 Nov,Survation/Leave.EU[b],2007,36,30,15,7,5,3,3,6,
22 ..27 Oct,BMG Research,1467,37,31,15,6,4,5,2,6,
23 ..25 Oct,ComRes/Daily Mail,1002,38,33,10,8,3,3,4,5,
17 ..19 Oct,Ipsos MORI/Evening Standard,1021,36,32,12,10,5,3,2,4,
13 ..16 Oct,Opinium,1934,37,32,15,5,6,4,2,5,
14 ..15 Oct,ComRes/Independent on Sunday Sunday Mirror,2051,42,29,13,7,5,3,1,13
9 ..11 Oct,ICM/The Guardian,1002,38,34,11,7,5,3,3,4,
29 ..30 Sep,YouGov/The Sun,2064,37,31,17,7,5,2,1,6,
26 ..28 Sep,ComRes/Daily Mail,1009,39,30,12,9,4,4,3,9,
21 ..22 Sep,Survation/Huffington Post,108,37,32,13,9,5,3,1,5,
19 ..22 Sep,Ipsos MORI/Evening Standard,1255,39,34,7,9,5,4,1,5,
17 ..18 Sep,YouGov/Sunday Times,1601,39,31,16,6,5,3,1,8,
15 ..18 Sep,Opinium,1942,37,32,14,6,5,4,1,5,
16 ..17 Sep,ComRes/Independent on Sunday Sunday Mirror,2015,42,30,13,7,5,3,1,12
11 ..13 Sep,ICM/The Guardian,1006,38,32,13,8,5,3,2,6,
12-Sep,Jeremy Corbyn is elected leader of the Labour Party and appointed Leader of the Opposition,,,,,,,,,,,
3 ..4 Sep,Survation/Mail on Sunday,1004,38,32,13,6,5,4,2,6,
21 ..23 Aug,ComRes/Daily Mail,1001,42,28,9,8,5,6,3,14,
12 ..13 Aug,ComRes/Independent on Sunday Sunday Mirror,2035,40,29,13,8,5,4,1,11
12 ..13 Aug,Survation/TSSA,1007,38,33,15,6,5,3,1,5,
7 ..9 Aug,ICM/The Guardian,1000,40,31,10,7,5,4,2,9,
24 ..26 Jul,ComRes/Daily Mail001,1,40,28,10,7,5,5,4,12,
18 ..20 Jul,Ipsos MORI/Evening Standard,1026,37,31,9,10,5,8,1,6,
16-Jul,Tim Farron is elected leader of the Liberal Democrats,,,,,,,,,,,
10 ..12 Jul,ICM/The Guardian,1005,38,34,13,6,4,4,1,4,
26 ..28 Jun,ComRes/Daily Mail,1002,39,27,11,9,5,6,3,12,
14 ..16 Jun,Ipsos MORI/Evening Standard,1005,39,30,8,9,5,6,2,9,
12 ..14 Jun,ICM/The Guardian,1004,37,31,13,8,5,5,1,6,
29 ..31 May,ComRes/Daily Mail,1000,41,29,10,8,5,5,3,12,
25 ..26 May,YouGov/The Sun,1709,41,30,13,7,4,4,1,11,
8 ..9 May,Survation/Mail on Sunday,1027,40,31,12,6,5,3,2,9,
07-May,General Election results (GB only),29980107,37.8,31.2,12.9,8.1,4.9,3.8,1.4,6.6
```

Interestingly or not
I used this to calculate the correlation between 3 groups, Labour and the Whigs, Tories and the Kippers and Labour and the Tories.
Lib\Lab 0.019211
CON\UKIP  -0.49259
Lab\Con   -0.34753
The result is that over the past 15 months there is a very weak correlation between Labour and the Libs polling but a strong one with the Labour Conservative and a stronger one (significantly so) between the Tories and the Kippers.

In and off itself it says nothing as it is likely to be picking up a lot of noise from sample and methodology biases but it does seem to indicate the Tories rise and fall with UKIPs popularity more than anything else while Labour are not yet shipping votes to the Whig dems at a significant rate.....  perhaps.... caveat emptor and all that good shit.


/nerdgasm over.

edited for links and clarity


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 26, 2016)

https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2016_july_vote_poll-3.pdf



> Conservative 43% (+4)
> 
> Labour 27% (-2)
> 
> ...


12% lead for the Tories, taking points of everyone so much more likely a May bounce than anything else. 

29% of those classed as Social Class DE say they will vote Labour, 7% wont vote and 22% dont know. 

The tories are ahead of Labour in in every region of Great Britain (polling excludes NI) but in Scotland they are far distant to the Nats. The Nats seem to be down vote share since the GE but I think thats likely sample bias. For all we hear about the kippers and the North they are strongest in the midlands and Wales, though I suspect London shifts things slightly in the South.  

Comparing with this from December Labour seem to have lost the biggest ground in the North(41%-24%) and Midlands (39% to 18%)and with age tranches 45-65 and 35-44 (they ganged the groupings on that so I might be wrong). In social class C1 they have dropped 35%-20%. 

https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/OmICM-Dec15_BPC.pdf

Its only one poll and all caveats apply. You can invent you own explanation as to why, one that likely validates your currently existing views but from where I am looking it looks like Labour are losing in the key swing demographics (mid life, C1\C2, Midlandsish) From memory I recall a few polls where the middle age groups of about 35-55 were pretty strong for Labour in the last election, well in the polling before hand. 

Its is my very strong view that much will change in the coming months once Mays new warm glow fades and if a recession emerges. And especially as the Brexit negotiations roll on and the kipper tendency feels shafted. But the more you dig into those numbers the less good it looks.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 26, 2016)

Worse than Kezia


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Its is my very strong view that much will change in the coming months once Mays new warm glow fades and if a recession emerges. And especially as the Brexit negotiations roll on and the kipper tendency feels shafted. But the more you dig into those numbers the less good it looks.



Yeah, the poll tracker graph would suggest a fair degree of negative correlation between the tory and 'kipper numbers.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 26, 2016)

Blairites fucking it up.


----------



## where to (Jul 27, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, the poll tracker graph would suggest a fair degree of negative correlation between the tory and 'kipper numbers.




so key change is ukip tories returning home now they have an anti-EU cabinet, and mission accomplished.

anyone remember what happened in March to cause the labour bump - Cam's offshore scandal?

looks like m/c labour liberals also drifting back to their natural home after Brexit/ labour infighting. bye then.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 27, 2016)

where to said:


> looks like m/c labour liberals also drifting back to their natural home after Brexit/ labour infighting. bye then.


Because Labour has so many voters it can afford to lose them to make internet people feel good about themselves. 

And as you failed to read what I wrote earlier the Lab\Con movement is also reasonably positively correlated over the past 15 months. Given its poor showing in 2015 Labour cannot afford to lose votes to the Tories and Liberal Democrats in 2020 and still hope to pick up marginals.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Because Labour has so many voters it can afford to lose them to make internet people feel good about themselves.
> 
> And as you failed to read what I wrote earlier the Lab\Con movement is also reasonably positively correlated over the past 15 months. Given its poor showing in 2015 Labour cannot afford to lose votes to the Tories and Liberal Democrats in 2020 and still hope to pick up marginals.


I don't think you mean positive correlation?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 27, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I don't think you mean positive correlation?


Negative, Labour goes down Tories go up and visa versa.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Negative, Labour goes down Tories go up and visa versa.


That's it; although over the last 5 months there's little evidence of much Con/Lab correlation...the recent tory 'bounce' certainly looks more like UKIP->Con swing.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 28, 2016)

Dangerous if the Tory UKIPpers return home but the Labour ones do not.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 28, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Dangerous if the Tory UKIPpers return home but the Labour ones do not.


True, but the 'stickiness' of that trend should diminish as it dawns on the leavists that the tories ain't going to give them what they voted for.


----------



## killer b (Jul 28, 2016)

It's become abundantly clear that the govt can't deliver what was voted for without destroying the British economy: whatever way they end up trying to go - in, out or unworkable fudge - we can expect significant volatility as far as the UKIP vote is concerned.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 4, 2016)

> CON 42%(+2), LAB 28%(nc), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 12%(-1), GRN 3%(-1)


https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...djgfxsp/TimesResults_160802_Trackers&VI_W.pdf
Tories picking up votes from nearly everyone, Labour down to its core vote but that seems to be holding. 

For all cross breaks are worth YouGov have the Tories ahead in the C2DE demographic but Labour slightly ahead in the "North".


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 11, 2016)

YouGov |  David Cameron was the best Prime Minister since Thatcher


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 11, 2016)

Cons 38% 
Lab 31%
YouGov |  Voting Intention: Is the Conservative bounce over?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Aug 11, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Cons 38%
> Lab 31%
> YouGov |  Voting Intention: Is the Conservative bounce over?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Well, the news cycle (such as it is during the dogs days of the 'lympics) is all Corbyn....meanwhile May is missing marching around the Mönch!


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 8, 2016)




----------



## Sherman Tank (Sep 9, 2016)

I think as the realities of hard brexit start to hit home the political illiterates who voted for it, will blame the Tories for failing to carry out an impossible task and if UKIP have elected a half way appealing leader will drift back to them, if not they will float around looking for someone to support. 

It's impossible to imagine them returning to Labour while the indignant continue to wage guerilla war on the incompetent (the indignant and incompetent being interchangeable).


----------



## Libertad (Sep 9, 2016)

Sherman Tank said:


> I think as the realities of hard brexit start to hit home the political illiterates who voted for it



Fuck off.


----------



## Sherman Tank (Sep 12, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Fuck off.



Did you vote for Brexit?


----------



## Libertad (Sep 13, 2016)

Sherman Tank said:


> Did you vote for Brexit?



Yes, solely to cunt you off.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2016)

no matter how often you state your case, you are still reduced to being a thick racist. I've been suprised at how many take that line. Perhaps I can only read one big word written on the wall beggining with G and ending in E


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> no matter how often you state your case, you are still reduced to being a thick racist. I've been suprised at how many take that line. Perhaps I can only read one big word written on the wall beggining with G and ending in E



Typical brexiteer calling for genocide.


----------



## Sherman Tank (Sep 14, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Yes, solely to cunt you off.



Bit of a childish reason? I am not calling anyone racist for voting for Brexit, just politically illiterate. Which you are unless you really wanted visas, companies up and leaving and taking jobs with them, tarrifs, racist attacks to rise, and everything else that the Remain camp warned of prior to the vote? Nothing else was going to happen.


----------



## Sherman Tank (Sep 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> no matter how often you state your case, you are still reduced to being a thick racist. I've been suprised at how many take that line. Perhaps I can only read one big word written on the wall beggining with G and ending in E



You are clearly quite thick as a brief search of your posts reveals, but who is calling anyone racist?


----------



## Santino (Sep 15, 2016)

Sherman Tank said:


> Bit of a childish reason? I am not calling anyone racist for voting for Brexit, just politically illiterate. Which you are unless you really wanted visas, companies up and leaving and taking jobs with them, tarrifs, racist attacks to rise, and everything else that the Remain camp warned of prior to the vote? Nothing else was going to happen.


 Did you vote Remain because you wanted refugees drowning in the Mediterranean and soaring suidice rates in Greece?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 15, 2016)

Sherman Tank said:


> You are clearly quite thick as a brief search of your posts reveals, but who is calling anyone racist?


You of all people shouldn't be talking about searching past posts and calling people political illiterates at the same time. Dangerous game.


----------



## Sherman Tank (Sep 19, 2016)

I am not sure online forums are places of danger except for children.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 24, 2016)

Couple of polls have narrowed a touch since the May "bounce". Perhaps just froth off the top. Now, those who favour social democracy have to focus very fucking hard on how to move those numbers.

Edited to add the recent trends. Mostly Tories gaining from the kippers rather than much movement to or from Labour.


----------



## JHE (Sep 24, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Couple of polls have narrowed a touch since the May "bounce". Perhaps just froth off the top. Now, those who favour social democracy have to focus very fucking hard on how to move those numbers.
> 
> Edited to add the recent trends. Mostly Tories gaining from the kippers rather than much movement to or from Labour.




Clearly it's bad to be so far behind the Tories and, for one of the main parties, 30% is not good, but in a way it's impressive that Labour isn't doing worse.  The MPs have been slagging off and trying to get rid of the leader.  We are told Corbyn's both useless and extreme.  The general opinion in the media is that Corbyn cannot be Prime Minister.  Most people seem to agree.  Voters generally punish divided parties and I cannot remember any greater divisions than those in Labour over the past year.  Yet in the face of all of that a stubborn 30% say they'd vote Labour, the same %age as at the last general election.  

Maybe if they got their act together... but, no, I don't suppose they will...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 30, 2016)

Conference and the leadership result does not seem to have helped or harmed. You can always see what you want too see in polling (and I know that includes me). 



Really interesting pair of Brexit polls


And yet May gets a glowing report



A guess? The people blame Cameron and the Brexiters for not having a plan and May is the "safe pair of hands". That will change, but for the moment she is free from the dogs breakfast that is Brexit. 

Rather be a luck politician than a good one and all that.


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Sep 30, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Rather be a luck politician than a good one and all that.



In politics as in life. I totally agree.


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 1, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Today's YouGov:-
> 
> CON 29% (31), LAB 42% (40), LD 11% (12), UKIP 12% (12); Govt app -40
> 
> ...



I wonder if Milliband, E. is bitter or amused.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 1, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> I wonder if Milliband, E. is bitter or amused.



Well I don't know the answer to that but one thing he isn't is Prime Minister


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 10, 2016)

Guardian/ICM: Con 43% (+2) Lab 26% (-2) UKIP 11% (-2) LD 8% (-1) Grn 6% (+2)

The Clergyman's Daughter must be getting tempted to engineer the circumstances for an early GE.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 11, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> early GE.



Why do people keep saying this nonsense? Over and over.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Why do people keep saying this nonsense? Over and over.


The provisions of the FTPA are not well understood.


----------



## bemused (Oct 11, 2016)

I wonder what those numbers look like if you take out Scotland?


----------



## kebabking (Oct 20, 2016)

Ipsos MORI...

Ipsos MORI | Poll | Sharp fall in economic optimism over last month

Tory 47%, Labour 29%, UKIP 6%.


----------



## bemused (Oct 20, 2016)

I'd like to pay tribute to Tim Farron, under his leadership the LibDems have returned to their rightful place as the third most popular political party - I bet there will be an amazing party around his gaff tonight.


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 20, 2016)

kebabking said:


> Ipsos MORI...
> 
> Ipsos MORI | Poll | Sharp fall in economic optimism over last month
> 
> Tory 47%, Labour 29%, UKIP 6%.



Ipsos are going to find themselves candidates for nationalisation if they don't watch their step.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 20, 2016)

bemused said:


> I'd like to pay tribute to Tim Farron, under his leadership the LibDems have returned to their rightful place as the third most popular political party - I bet there will be an amazing party around his gaff tonight.



yes, some sort of sex party where after they cum they all apologise


----------



## kebabking (Nov 29, 2016)

YouGov |  Voting Intention: Conservatives 41%, Labour 28%

Tory 41, Lab 28, LD 9, UKIP 12,

Nov 24th, yougov.

ICM Unlimited | Polling Archive

Tory 44, Lab 28, LD 7, Gn 4, UKIP 12.

ICM, 29th November.

the breakdowns are, as ever, interesting. ICM have the Tories ahead in every single socio-economic group, and in every demographic except the 18-24's.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 29, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Why do people keep saying this nonsense? Over and over.


i know a couple of people who have connections up in the labour party and supposedly theres a lot of talk at westminster over the last month about a spring election - and its source is tory mps. we've been through why its not possible etc, but nonetheless that seems to be real gossip. who knows. maybe the tories are spreading rumours to fuck with labour mps heads


----------



## kebabking (Nov 29, 2016)

ska invita said:


> ...maybe the tories are spreading rumours to fuck with labour mps heads



the Tory MP's are probably talking about it because they'd like it to be true, secondly because seeing the reaction on a Labour MP's face when you say the word 'election' is funny, and thirdly because if Labour goes into election mode it will spend money hand over fist, and the PLP will have to decide whether to stand with Corbyn in the plumetting Lift of Doom, or fight him and learn what the electorate think of split parties..

the fourth reason is that, despite the hurdles and pitfalls, it is infact possible for a government to bring about the conditions that the FTPA  allows a GE to be held. and actually, despite the Tories massive poll lead, they may need to hold a GE as their government is incapable of getting its legislation through.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 17, 2016)

A straw in the wind/sign of things to come as the electorate increasingly sense the betrayal of their will?


----------



## kebabking (Dec 17, 2016)

brogdale said:


> A straw in the wind/sign of things to come as the electorate increasingly sense the betrayal of their will?




Unlikely to be that specifically, given that Labour aren't exactly mirroring the apparent public view on immigration - much more likely to be a reaction to the government still being all over the place on Brexit and Corbyn having a decent go at the government over Adult Social Care. He is improving at PMQ's while May isn't - and yes, it is important, its the only time normal people see them go head to head, and just before bedtime so it sticks in the mind.

The Tories are looking less in control and Corbyn is looking much less like a disinterested and slightly senile old hippy/geography teacher - I'm not remotely surprised that Labour are picking up voting intentions. Whether that translates to 'X's in the ballot cubicle is another issue...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2017)

YG's latest Brexit tracker polling (by stated, current GE vote intent):-



Smithson sees this position for May as vulnerability to LD/UKIP 'pincer' vote loss.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2017)

3% of UKIP voters didn't want the UK to be independent.  Some people really will just vote for _anything_.

Also, at least 12% of Lib Dem voters literally _still_ have no idea what they party they are voting for actually stands for.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2017)

kabbes said:


> 3% of UKIP voters didn't want the UK to be independent.  Some people really will just vote for _anything_.
> 
> Also, at least 12% of Lib Dem voters literally _still_ have no idea what they party they are voting for actually stands for.


You may be right, but tbf people can change their minds in the light of subsequent events (non-events). Would be very surprising to see complete 100% convergence of these numbers.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2017)

brogdale said:


> You may be right, but tbf people can change their minds in the light of subsequent events (non-events). Would be very surprising to see complete 100% convergence of these numbers.


It's voting intention though, isn't it?  Not historic voting.  So 3% of people that _intend to vote _for UKIP don't think it's a good idea for the UK to leave the EU.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2017)

kabbes said:


> It's voting intention though, isn't it?  Not historic voting.  So 3% of people that _intend to vote _for UKIP don't think it's a good idea for the UK to leave the EU.


True, I suppose there will always be a % who might be confused/not fully understand or just outright blurt something/anything out in response to questioning. Wouldn't read too much into those small numbers tbh.
That graph is all about the Red/Green proportions.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 7, 2017)




----------



## mather (Jan 8, 2017)

ferrelhadley said:


>




I am surprised that the percentage of those who think it's a failure is not higher, to be honest.


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 8, 2017)

mather said:


> I am surprised that the percentage of those who think it's a failure is not higher, to be honest.



Failure would conjure up images of fewer lines, fewer services, fewer passengers, a lack of station renovation, frequent accidents etc, none of which are currently in evidence.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 8, 2017)

kabbes said:


> It's voting intention though, isn't it?  Not historic voting.  So 3% of people that _intend to vote _for UKIP don't think it's a good idea for the UK to leave the EU.



Maybe they liked the UKIP policy requiring that all taxi drivers wear a shirt and tie.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 22, 2017)

Dare we go there?

OK...here goes (dons kevlar flak jacket)...

Here's the 'baseline' polling for the 2017 GE:-



> The Times’s first YouGov poll since the election was called has topline figures of:-
> * CON 48%(+4), LAB 24%(+1), LDEM 12%(nc), UKIP 7%(-3)*.



Anyone else got the stomach for this? 


​


----------



## kebabking (Apr 22, 2017)

brogdale said:


> ...Anyone else got the stomach for this?...



Yeah, i have.

Firstly i think that the polling will be interesting for us wonks to watch - i think the election campaign is going to be choppy waters, and it'll be interesting to see how that translates in the polling.

Secondly, while i know what i _think_ will happen - based on what i can see in the polls and what I've heard on the doorsteps - i have a gut feeling (see what i did there..?) that things will go rather differently, and that it will all be a lot closer than the polling and commentary suggests.

(I hope no one noticed my two-bites-at-the-cherry election prediction there, I'm hoping to improve my record of political forecasting...)


----------



## J Ed (Apr 22, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Yeah, i have.
> 
> Firstly i think that the polling will be interesting for us wonks to watch - i think the election campaign is going to be choppy waters, and it'll be interesting to see how that translates in the polling.
> 
> ...



Personally I hope that I'm as wrong as I was about 2015, Brexit and Trump...


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 22, 2017)

Before the 2015 election I said on here that the Tories would win as they were being understated in the polls. 

I've yet to be convinced that any of the pollsters have implemented methodology changes to fully account for the simple fact, observable over decades of general elections, that Tory voters don't like doing surveys as much as Labour supporters do.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Apr 22, 2017)

I don't think the Tories will do as well as everybody thinks. Corbyn & co need to go at this hammer & tongs every day until polling day though & make the tories look like the anti-christ.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 22, 2017)

OK, so maybe this will have to be the start of campaign benchmark...now that they've actually got to 50%?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 22, 2017)

brogdale said:


> OK, so maybe this will have to be the start of campaign benchmark...now that they've actually got to 50%?




I don't really know what to say to that, that is horrifying.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 22, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I don't really know what to say to that, that is horrifying.


Cheer up, they're past peak already!


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 22, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I don't think the Tories will do as well as everybody thinks. Corbyn & co need to go at this hammer & tongs every day until polling day though & make the tories look like the anti-christ.



That won't work though, because he needs to do much better than Milliband, and some people who voted for Milliband don't want to vote for Corbyn. Meanwhile the Tories are hoovering up plenty of UKIP votes.

Presumably some Milliband voters will go Lib, and others will stay at home.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 22, 2017)

Looks like Tories to be around 30% in Scotland.  Will win them around 12 seats,with labour wiped out.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 22, 2017)

The Boy said:


> Looks like Tories to be around 30% in Scotland.  Will win them around 12 seats,with labour wiped out.


Well, that might be what the polling suggests.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 22, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Well, that might be what the polling suggests.



Well, yes.  

Panelbase poll, BTW.  Numbers to be published.  The seat guestimates from prof curtice.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 22, 2017)

The Boy said:


> Well, yes.
> 
> Panelbase poll, BTW.  Numbers to be published.  The seat guestimates from prof curtice.


There's been no phone-based polling yet with IpsosMORI not due till next week; that might show some difference? I'd have thought that the threat to the pensions triple-lock might also have some impact...but who knows? Even within the online polling there appears to be quite some varience:-



I assume it's because they've all tweaked their methodologies slightly differently following the 2015 failures.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 22, 2017)

'kinnel,



danny la rouge wtf


----------



## Santino (Apr 22, 2017)

Scottish kippers.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 22, 2017)

brogdale said:


> 'kinnel,
> 
> 
> 
> danny la rouge wtf



Unionists travelling to the Tories.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 22, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Unionists travelling to the Tories.



Reminds me of GE2015 when you got people in Scotland saying 'I'm voting Labour because I'm a Tory' by which they meant that voting Labour made sense as they were the main unionist party.


----------



## magneze (Apr 22, 2017)

Mail on Sunday: Tories poll lead halved
Observer: Tories poll lead doubled 

They haven't a fucking clue.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 22, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Unionists travelling to the Tories.



And the Tory vote-share moving back to something like what it actually is in Scotland (28% tho!)


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 22, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> And the Tory vote-share moving back to something like what it actually is in Scotland (28% tho!)


Yes, the Tories were always there. 

And the Scottish Tories have cleverly positioned themselves as the Unionist party. Even before the GE was called, they were fighting the local government elections on an anti-independence ticket (despite it being nothing to do with local government). It seems to have worked: even the Labour Unionists are leaving Labour for the Tories now that Labour is seen as an irrelevance in Scotland.

And, yes, a small Unionist contingent  who voted SNP (but not Yes) also seem to have left the SNP.

So, if this poll is accurate, the SNP may lose a handful of seats, which will go to the Tories. But the SNP will still have the large majority of Scottish Westminster seats. (And the fact that Holyrood voted for a second referendum will not be affected by that in any case).


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 23, 2017)

brogdale said:


> 'kinnel,
> 
> 
> 
> danny la rouge wtf




Obviously tactical voting by nationalists - a massive unrestrained Tory gov in Westminster would make independence more attractive, right?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 23, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Obviously tactical voting by nationalists - a massive unrestrained Tory gov in Westminster would make independence more attractive, right?


What?


----------



## Old Spark (Apr 23, 2017)

At the moment the election in england and wales is about brexit -ukips vote amd the labour leave vote is going to mummy.(sunday murdoch says thats what tory mps call mrs may).

In scotland its about independence and labour and libdem unionists are switching to the tories.

Dont you know theres a war on.

Only Seven weeks to go and in a couple of weeks we have various locals inc full elections for welsh and scottish local government.

Its a reverse 1997 mixed up with 1983.

Normal bread and butter politics is suspended.

Blair could do no wrong in the voters eyes in 1997 and 2001 but didnt know what to do and fluffed it.

What will Mummy do ?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Apr 23, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> That won't work though, because he needs to do much better than Milliband, and some people who voted for Milliband don't want to vote for Corbyn. Meanwhile the Tories are hoovering up plenty of UKIP votes.
> 
> Presumably some Milliband voters will go Lib, and others will stay at home.


The important thing is Corbyn & co have got to avoid saying the stupid things like Milliband did. Ie the pure foot in mouth moments inviting ridicule from the popular press. So Corbyn appears to be taking the line that Tories will tax the poor & Labour will go after the tax avoiders/evaders at the top. If Labour can go in the direction of offering a brexit for working people while pushing the angle that Tories will be doing brexit for the rich by allowing US medical companies access to the NHS & pointing out trade deals with India will swap free movement from Europe with free movement from Indian sub continent etc it should be a go'er. It did not help when the other day some Labour politician ranting about tax avoidance mentioned both Starbucks & Costa Coffee unaware that Costa is a UK company owned by Whitbread & pays it's taxes. If Labour is going to get anywhere then they really, really need to engage brain before opening mouth.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Unionists travelling to the Tories.



That's some travel....


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 23, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> The important thing is Corbyn & co have got to avoid saying the stupid things like Milliband did. Ie the pure foot in mouth moments inviting ridicule from the popular press.


It doesn't really matter what Corbyn says: it'll still be presented by the press as a "foot in mouth moment". Everything to the left of Ghengis Khan is "loony". Even if Corbyn was polished on TV and effective in debate (neither of which he is), he'd still be up against an establishment that wants us all to regard social democracy as old fashioned, backward, unrealistic, unsuitable for modern demands, ill-thought-out, and for cranks and crazies.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 23, 2017)

brogdale said:


> That's some travel....
> 
> View attachment 105065


It's a worry if that's the true picture. But if we really are polarising the electorate into Unionists and pro-independence voters, then the Tories are presumably underperforming: they should be at 55%.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Apr 23, 2017)

magneze said:


> Mail on Sunday: Tories poll lead halved
> Observer: Tories poll lead doubled
> 
> They haven't a fucking clue.



It's totally nuts isn't it?


----------



## JTG (Apr 23, 2017)

Clutching at straws: if there's a movement to the Tories in Scotland, might there be a smaller movement to the SNP when people sense the danger? Or is the SNP vote maxed out/Labour vote at its absolute floor?


----------



## inva (Apr 23, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Even if Corbyn was polished on TV and effective in debate (neither of which he is), he'd still be up against an establishment that wants us all to regard social democracy as old fashioned, backward, unrealistic, unsuitable for modern demands, ill-thought-out, and for cranks and crazies.


well they're right about social democracy, if for the wrong reasons

I agree though in how he will be presented and in any case it's impossible to avoid saying stupid stuff. literally every politician does it. somehow Corbyn has to create a narrative against that - his campaign is trying to use him being 'unpolished' in that way aren't they, that he's real in a way the others are not. But then the issues feeding into his perceived ineffectualness are much deeper than his personal manner.


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 23, 2017)

Although I don't see Corbyn winning, I also am not sure Labour will lose many, if any, seats at this time. Other than the situations we've already had, due to Blairites like Tristram Hunt leaving his seat, I can't see that on a local level Labour voters voting out their MP's en masse, even though they all seem to despise Jeremy.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 23, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Although I don't see Corbyn winning, I also am not sure Labour will lose many, if any, seats at this time. Other than the situations we've already had, due to Blairites like Tristram Hunt leaving his seat, I can't see that on a local level Labour voters voting out their MP's en masse, even though they all seem to despise Jeremy.



It's not about voting out MPs though, it's about voting them in.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 23, 2017)

JTG said:


> Clutching at straws: if there's a movement to the Tories in Scotland, might there be a smaller movement to the SNP when people sense the danger? Or is the SNP vote maxed out/Labour vote at its absolute floor?


I think the SNP vote in 2015 was the outlier. So it's not really a story about the SNP vote dropping - taken over a longer period, it's risen remarkably. 

I think what happened in 2015 is that the Labour anti-Tory vote went to the SNP. In that election, the indyref1 was only just behind us, and most of the public thought independence was now off the table for the foreseeable. 

Things have changed. Brexit meant that the Better Together promise of "vote No to stay in Europe" had been shown to be shoddy. Put together with the big Remain majority in Scotland, independence is back on the table. 

The Scottish Tories played a very single-minded campaign from that point. They became about the Union and nothing else. Even when the SNP weren't talking about independence, the Tories were.  I was away for a few days last week, on my return I had four Tory leaflets through my door ostensibly about the local government elections, but devoted entirely to the indyref2. 

It appears to be paying off. 

So, yes, the polarisation might push the SNP vote up a little, but I don't think the Labour vote has far to fall from here. And those still clinging to Labour at this point are going to be very anti-SNP.

It's going to be a story of voters weighing up whether they're more anti-Tory than pro-Union. And what kind of Union they're willing to defend.


----------



## Old Spark (Apr 23, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> It's totally nuts isn't it?



But thats because the MoS is being dishonest -comparing their poll with that of another pollster,Clearly the MoS editor hates Dacre with a passion taking a contrary position to the Daily Mail on everything.

Survation,the MoS pollster, have always exaggerated ukip support and continue to do so which is why they have the Tories on 40.

All other polls taken since Mummy called the election have the Tories going thru the roof because ukip is collapsing.


----------



## bimble (Apr 23, 2017)

This is the mail on Sunday, using results from 2 different polls to fashion an urgent call to actions for its readership, get out there and vote for May she needs you etc.


----------



## Sue (Apr 23, 2017)

Old Spark, that's a couple of times you've referred to Theresa May as 'Mummy'. Why?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 23, 2017)

Sue said:


> Old Spark, that's a couple of times you've referred to Theresa May as 'Mummy'. Why?


----------



## Sue (Apr 23, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> View attachment 105080


Ah, so Old Spark is actually an old school Tory MP..?


----------



## Wilf (Apr 23, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Today's YouGov:-
> 
> CON 29% (31), LAB 42% (40), LD 11% (12), UKIP 12% (12); Govt app -40
> .


I mistakenly opened this thread at page 1 rather than 97. This came as quite a surprise.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I mistakenly opened this thread at page 1 rather than 97. This came as quite a surprise.


4 years; a long time in politics?


----------



## Beetlebum (Apr 23, 2017)

bimble said:


> This is the mail on Sunday, using results from 2 different polls to fashion an urgent call to actions for its readership, get out there and vote for May she needs you etc.
> View attachment 105076



You can't compare polls from different pollsters like that. This is a better poll for Labour but don't get carried away. ..


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 23, 2017)

Sue said:


> Ah, so Old Spark is actually an old school Tory MP..?


You may say that; I couldn't possibly comment.


----------



## Old Spark (Apr 23, 2017)

Sue said:


> Old Spark, that's a couple of times you've referred to Theresa May as 'Mummy'. Why?



According to Tim Shipman in todays Sunday Times -its what tory mps call the Maybot.

I prefer Mrs Hiding in the Toilet.


----------



## killer b (Apr 23, 2017)

brogdale said:


> 4 years; a long time in politics?


The lib dems seem to have held steady all that time.


----------



## bemused (Apr 23, 2017)

UKIP sliding down, sweet.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 24, 2017)

Oh, FFS...


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 24, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Oh, FFS...
> 
> View attachment 105148


Was just coming here to tell you all this: Shock poll puts Tories ahead in Wales for historic win


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 24, 2017)

So, no Labour MPs in Scotland (and possibly up to 12 Tory MPs from Scotland), and 21 Tory MPs from Wales (and 10 of those taken from Labour).  

Not looking like the Celtic fringe is much help this time.


----------



## chilango (Apr 24, 2017)

This is going to be bad, really bad. Isn't it?


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Apr 24, 2017)

Have any more Welsh only polls been taken?

Just had a look at my parent´s constituency of Newport West, and indeed looks possible to turn Tory if you lazily transfer the UKIP vote over to the vermin. My Dad is going to be pleased.


----------



## Beetlebum (Apr 24, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Oh, FFS...
> 
> View attachment 105148


Whatever you think of the Tories going from no seats in 1997 to first place is quite an achievement.  But it's just an opinion poll.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 24, 2017)

Beetlebum said:


> Whatever you think of the Tories


That they're the enemy. Just so's we're clear.


----------



## bendeus (Apr 24, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Oh, FFS...
> 
> View attachment 105148


Jesus. That's utterly horrendous.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 24, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> So, no Labour MPs in Scotland (and possibly up to 12 Tory MPs from Scotland), and 21 Tory MPs from Wales (and 10 of those taken from Labour).
> 
> Not looking like the Celtic fringe is much help this time.



I'm in Wales. My gut instinct is to say that poll has  to be rogue/exaggerating.

What do you think brogdale bendeus  ?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 24, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> I'm in Wales. My gut instinct is to say that poll has  to be rogue/exaggerating.
> 
> What do you think brogdale bendeus  ?


Well...the tories tend to score about 10% lower in Wales than UK as a whole (2015 GE 27% Wales; 36% UK)...so _*if *_the current UK polling of the tories on 48-50% = correct...then this poll could be credible.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 24, 2017)

Link

Edit it seems to be mostly the death of UKIP switching straight to the Torys but Labour has been leaking votes there over the past couple of years.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 24, 2017)

I wouldn't be surprised if the Wales polling is broadly correct - and that William of Walworth is also correct at the same time - the politics of the south Wales industrial areas is very different to the politics of the rural, eastern counties/towns in places like Radnorshire, Brecknockshire, Montgomeryshire, Monmouthshire, Denbighshire etc..

Too often Wales - like Scotland, or 'the North' gets lumped into one homogeneous blob where it's assumed that everyone fits into a single, easily defined pigeon hole - and it ain't.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 24, 2017)

Spot on kebabking -- I'm in Swansea, which is very much not the same as the rural Welsh areas you mention.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 24, 2017)

Still a horrendously depressing poll though


----------



## bemused (Apr 24, 2017)

Nice to see UKIP shitting the bed.


----------



## killer b (Apr 24, 2017)

The lib dems must be getting nervous - there's an assumption that there's going to be a revival of their fortunes next month, but the dial has barely twitched.


----------



## bemused (Apr 24, 2017)

killer b said:


> The lib dems must be getting nervous - there's an assumption that there's going to be a revival of their fortunes next month, but the dial has barely twitched.



If the Greens weren't so nice they could bump off the LibDems.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 24, 2017)

killer b said:


> The lib dems must be getting nervous - there's an assumption that there's going to be a revival of their fortunes next month, but the dial has barely twitched.



Entirely anecdotally, but i can back that up -particularly with regards to the Welsh polling - i was in rural, farming Powys with a load of tenant farmers on Sunday, and political conversation was lively and open. 10 years ago the non-Labour, non-PC vote would have overwhelmingly gone to the LibDems with a handful full of Tory votes.

Last weekend it was overwhelmingly Tory, a couple of very reluctant Labour, some PC and a very small handful of LibDems. Total change.


----------



## bendeus (Apr 24, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> I'm in Wales. My gut instinct is to say that poll has  to be rogue/exaggerating.
> 
> What do you think brogdale bendeus  ?


I really don't know. If there's anything the last year or so has taught me it's that the nice little political echo chamber I inhabit is in no way reflective of anything but the opinions of a relative handful of people whose views chime with mine. 

I fear that brogdale and kebabking are probably right.


----------



## JTG (Apr 24, 2017)

killer b said:


> The lib dems must be getting nervous - there's an assumption that there's going to be a revival of their fortunes next month, but the dial has barely twitched.


Yet I know a fair few Labourites who are bandying the Lib Dems' name around as a possibility. Either my social circle is entirely unrepresentative (yeah it could be true...) or they're not showing up yet, aren't entirely serious, are 'don't knows' or the Lib Dems are losing a similar number to the Tories as they're gaining from Labour.


----------



## CNT36 (Apr 24, 2017)

I've talked to several people who voted tory last time or have always voted tory who are seriously considering Labour and prefer Corbyn to May.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 25, 2017)

bendeus said:


> I really don't know. If there's anything the last year or so has taught me it's that the nice little political echo chamber I inhabit is in no way reflective of anything but the opinions of a relative handful of people whose views chime with mine.



Same! 



> I fear that brogdale and kebabking are probably right.



So do I


----------



## cupid_stunt (Apr 25, 2017)

CNT36 said:


> I've talked to several people who voted tory last time or have always voted tory who are seriously considering Labour and prefer Corbyn to May.



Seriously?

I am hearing the exact opposite, a hell of a lot of my mates are planning to vote Tory for the first time in their lives, others are just not going to vote at all.

Electoral Calculus is now showing a Tory majority of 170, last week it was around 130.

The whole situation is very depressing.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Same!
> 
> 
> 
> So do I


YG's Anthony Well's take...



> These are, it’s fair to say, fairly startling figures. A twelve point increase for a party over a relatively short length of time is extremely unusual, but the direction of travel is the same as Britain as a whole. GB polls had the Tories around forty percent at the start of the year, and have them pushing towards fifty percent now. As in Britain as a whole, the reason seems to be largely the UKIP vote collapsing decisely towards the Tories.


----------



## Plumdaff (Apr 25, 2017)

kebabking said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if the Wales polling is broadly correct - and that William of Walworth is also correct at the same time - the politics of the south Wales industrial areas is very different to the politics of the rural, eastern counties/towns in places like Radnorshire, Brecknockshire, Montgomeryshire, Monmouthshire, Denbighshire etc..
> 
> Too often Wales - like Scotland, or 'the North' gets lumped into one homogeneous blob where it's assumed that everyone fits into a single, easily defined pigeon hole - and it ain't.



That's also why I don't think the Tories will win that many seats in Wales even if this is broadly correct -  I can see a lot of these UKIP to Tory voters being in places that are already blue or in the hyper marginals - I can't see the Tories winning in Remain voting South Wales somehow, apart from Bridgend which I think will go Tory. 

I may be clutching at straws of hope. Wales, Tory, it'd be a fucking tragedy.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2017)

Plumdaff said:


> That's also why I don't think the Tories will win that many seats in Wales even if this is broadly correct -  I can see a lot of these UKIP to Tory voters being in places that are already blue or in the hyper marginals - I can't see the Tories winning in Remain voting South Wales somehow, apart from Bridgend which I think will go Tory.
> 
> I may be clutching at straws of hope. Wales, Tory, it'd be a fucking tragedy.


Perhaps the best straw to clutch at is the exceptionalism of this particular vote. The tories have skilfully posited/equated support for May very specifically as a vote _against _the EU/Brussels. Polling currently suggests that is working like a dream for them, but it is a trick that will only work this once.


----------



## CNT36 (Apr 25, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> Seriously?
> 
> I am hearing the exact opposite, a hell of a lot of my mates are planning to vote Tory for the first time in their lives, others are just not going to vote at all.
> 
> ...


It's going to be pretty horrible. Just that one very faint glimmer of hope.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 25, 2017)

I have one crumb of comfort I can offer -- a slight glimmer of straw-clutching.

Where I live, people I know see Corbyn as nothing more than a total joke.  They would never vote for him in a million years.

Why is this a crumb of comfort?  Because a lot of these people voted Blair and then voted Lib Dem but are now considering voting Tory.

Still doesn't sound comfortable?  Ah, but our constituency always returned a Tory MP with about 50% of the vote _anyway_.  So swing voters to the Tory are basically worthless in this constituency.

I wouldn't be surprised to see my constituency be something like 65% Tory this time.  It's still only one MP though.

The moral of the story is that the key weakness with all this polling is that it never considers the _distribution_ of the vote, only the overall total.  So the headline might be for 45% Tory but if all the extra supporters are all in the heartland that was always Tory in any case, the swing is worthless.

Of course, this hope is undermined by what is apparently happening in Wales.  But you never know...


----------



## cupid_stunt (Apr 25, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Of course, this hope is undermined by what is apparently happening in Wales.  But you never know...



And, Scotland.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 25, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> And, Scotland.


In what way?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Apr 25, 2017)

From twitter, but seems legit:

(Class does still seem to be an indicator of LibDem/UKIP vote though?)


----------



## Wilf (Apr 25, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> From twitter, but seems legit:
> 
> (Class does still seem to be an indicator of LibDem/UKIP vote though?)
> 
> View attachment 105226


I was just about to make a parallel point that Labour might be behind the Tories in every significant demographic - Cons ahead across all occupational groups and also male or female.  As an example, this poll:
https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017_peston_campaign_poll2.pdf
(Lab still have a lead by ethnicity - which might, as a random thought, be one of the few areas where Labour's stance on brexit might be helping them hold onto voters who were already Labour leaning).
Edit: Labour look to also be behind in _every_ region, which is astonishing.  [I say_ look to be_, eyesight not great today, can't read this stuff very well].  Usual caveat about polls and all that... but Labour look to be heading for something worse than 1983.  May well got about the same % of the vote, but to have lost all of the major demographics would be astonishing.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Apr 25, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> In what way?



By way of the bloody Tory recovery, the suggestion being they could get 12 MPs north of the border.

The Tories winning in Wales, and recovering in Scotland, would indicate a bloodbath ahead.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 25, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> By way of the bloody Tory recovery, the suggestion being they could get 12 MPs north of the border.
> 
> The Tories winning in Wales, and recovering in Scotland, would indicate a bloodbath ahead.


I think people have been under a weird misconception. There has always  been a Tory percentage in Scotland. The FPTP electoral system (that they support) has worked against them. But people should remember that in 1983, the height of Thatcherism, the Tories had 21 MPs in Scotland. We're talking now about them possibly getting ten fewer than that. 

The anomaly has been that they've had so few MPs in recent years.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 25, 2017)

it occurred to me with the 5 mill/40 mill difference that scotland makes for an excellent test study populace to see what you can get away with. Hence the poll tax being rolled out there first


----------



## Wilf (Apr 25, 2017)

Apols if somebody has already mused on this:

Even though this election is on the old boundaries, it is on the new system of individual registration.  That's usually seen as harmful to Labour, particularly in areas with more transient populations. But it also affects university halls of residence, the effect of which is harder to predict.  Kind of doesn't matter if every fucker is voting tory anyway, but a silver lining would be if clegg was pried out of Sheffield Hallam.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 25, 2017)

My mum (mostly Tory voter in the past) has come out for Corbyn maybe it's the pensioner 3 way lock thing 

She asked me to put a bet on him  I put a tenner on Labour being the biggest party at 14/1 and another £3 on Labour to get over 251 seats at 28/1   the bookies have been wrong before. I doubt they will be that wrong but I can't see the Tories really increasing their vote by taking from Labour or Lib Dems - only from UKIP.


----------



## bimble (Apr 26, 2017)

This is quite something. Does it mean that things will improve once the old people die or that everyone turns into a Tory? 


YouGov |  The demographics dividing Britain


----------



## kabbes (Apr 26, 2017)

bimble said:


> This is quite something. Does it mean that things will improve once the old people die or that everyone turns into a Tory?
> 
> View attachment 105285
> YouGov |  The demographics dividing Britain


Well, the idea that you become more conservative as you get older is a cliche as old as the hills.  I don't think we should discount the idea of generational shifts in political ideas though.

ETA: also, given that the polling is only on about 12000 people, I doubt they really have the statistical significance they need to make the definitive claims about the gradient of those curves.  A few data points will end up being hugely influential.


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 26, 2017)

bimble said:


> This is quite something. Does it mean that things will improve once the old people die or that everyone turns into a Tory?
> 
> View attachment 105285
> YouGov |  The demographics dividing Britain



That's a depressing chart, I would have guessed the age of Tory crossover to be a lot closer to 50.

Also seems a little weird that the trend continues steadily even when people reach their 80s - you'd think that by the time people were in their 70s, they'd be hesitant about voting for the party most likely to destroy the NHS.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 26, 2017)

Of YouGov's polling, I find one of the most interesting contrasts is nothing to do with voting intention at all, but what it says about how demographic lines are shifting.

Contrast this:



To these:




So ABC1 and C2DE have the same voting intentions.  And yet voting intention by both qualification and pay -- two classically related factors to socioeconomic group -- both show wide divergence.

Is one conclusion from this that socioeconomic group is now pretty much independent to both qualification and pay?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 26, 2017)

Yossarian said:


> That's a depressing chart, I would have guessed the age of Tory crossover to be a lot closer to 50.
> 
> Also seems a little weird that the trend continues steadily even when people reach their 80s - you'd think that by the time people were in their 70s, they'd be hesitant about voting for the party most likely to destroy the NHS.


I think they must be smoothing the data, plus by the time you get to 80 the errors are going to getting pretty large.

EDIT: Here's what it actually looks like if you take the data (weighted by likelihood to vote) from their document


I'm not sure what they've done to get their chart looking like it does, maybe fit a trendline to each set?


----------



## bimble (Apr 26, 2017)

The age chart might have a lot to do with the qualifications correlation (young people much more likely to have degrees)


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 26, 2017)

It's hard to tell from YouGov's definitions - do well-off, middle-class retired people get classed as the ABC1s they were when they were employed, or as "economically inactive" C2DEs?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 26, 2017)

Yeah fitting a linear trendline to data reproduces their chart.


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 26, 2017)

ska invita said:


> i know a couple of people who have connections up in the labour party and supposedly theres a lot of talk at westminster over the last month about a spring election - and its source is tory mps. we've been through why its not possible etc, but nonetheless that seems to be real gossip. who knows. maybe the tories are spreading rumours to fuck with labour mps heads



What else have these sources been predicting?


----------



## ska invita (Apr 26, 2017)

Yossarian said:


> What else have these sources been predicting?


just that the shadow cabinet were prepared for this election and ready to grab it by the horns. Which means what you are witnessing is The Plan In Action.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 26, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Yeah fitting a linear trendline to data reproduces their chart.


... which is a terrible thing to do to this data, for all kinds of reasons.  It makes my statistical senses itch.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 26, 2017)

Yossarian said:


> It's hard to tell from YouGov's definitions - do well-off, middle-class retired people get classed as the ABC1s they were when they were employed, or as "economically inactive" C2DEs?



When i did phone surveys for a living (while ago now and diff org), it depended in pension:  state pension only, you're an E; pension from your job then based on the job.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 26, 2017)

kabbes said:


> ... which is a terrible thing to do to this data, for all kinds of reasons.  It makes my statistical senses itch.


Yep, I had the same itch.


----------



## Old Spark (Apr 26, 2017)

Ipsos Mori  latest 

Tory 49 
Lab 26
Libdem 13
Ukip 4
Green 1

On Uns tory majority 182 -80 odd losses for labour.

Ironically may help Corbyn a bit to pass the baton as most of his supporters are in the safest seats.


----------



## belboid (Apr 26, 2017)

Dunno what the problem with a sample of 12000 is. That's more than ten times the usual poll size so will get reasonable results for each age bracket. Okay, it's obviously dodgy to say the crossover is '34' rather than mid thirties, and the figures for 70 year olds voting ukip/libscum will be a bit dodgy, but it is likely to be pretty much right. 

Three reasons come to mind. The getting more conservative (small c) thing is undoubtedly true, insofar as it just means you don't want anything to change. Which has, in the past, been okay for Labour (defend the NHS, council housing, pensions), but now means stopping more immigration, so it's much much better for the tories. 

Add in to that - who is more likely to live longer? The better off, who are more likely to be Tory in the first place. 

Also, the rise in home ownership, getting a more and more significant part of your income/wealth from property not labour is bound to play a role in making one more conservative, less wanting to take risks, etc. 

Quite what we can actually do about those things...fuck knows.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 26, 2017)

belboid said:


> Quite what we can actually do about those things...fuck knows.



Resist being/voting Tory however far into our 50s and beyond we age? But that's always going to be a minority plan ...


----------



## bemused (Apr 26, 2017)

Looks like UKIP are going to lose over 100 council seats next week. That'll be comedy gold.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 26, 2017)

Are the latest polls showing Labour on 30 points and the Conservatives on 40? 

That's not really as catastrophic as all this "Jeremy Corbyn is so terrible" stuff would have you believe.

Theresa May has had an easy ride, she's been parachuted in on the back of a referendum result that I'm assuming went down pretty well with 50% of the electorate and she hasn't had to pass any major pieces of unpopular legislation to my memory. She's very popular for some reason and apart from some Brexit carping she's had a lot of backing from her party. Remember the last time you read anything from a Conservative briefing hard against her?  Me neither.  Let me know if I'm wrong.


----------



## bemused (Apr 26, 2017)

8115 said:


> She's very popular for some reason [..]



I vote Tory and I don't get the appeal to be honest. She won the leadership election because she was the most normal one on offer. But, in terms of personal appeal during the election she's really very very VERY dull. I enjoy watching Corbyn talk way more because he's animated.

This is the first election I can think of where the least likeable candidate is going to win.


----------



## Old Spark (Apr 26, 2017)

8115 said:


> Are the latest polls showing Labour on 30 points and the Conservatives on 40?
> 
> That's not really as catastrophic as all this "Jeremy Corbyn is so terrible" stuff would have you believe.
> 
> Theresa May has had an easy ride, she's been parachuted in on the back of a referendum result that I'm assuming went down pretty well with 50% of the electorate and she hasn't had to pass any major pieces of unpopular legislation to my memory. She's very popular for some reason and apart from some Brexit carping she's had a lot of backing from her party. Remember the last time you read anything from a Conservative briefing hard against her?  Me neither.  Let me know if I'm wrong.




Well no  the poll out today(the first telephone poll had Tory on 49,lab on 26,libdem 13,ukip 4 and green 1.

Green defo looks low and the elderly wont answer the phone so health warning.And six weeks to go.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 26, 2017)

bemused said:


> I vote Tory and I don't get the appeal to be honest. She won the leadership election because she was the most normal one on offer. But, in terms of personal appeal during the election she's really very very VERY dull. I enjoy watching Corbyn talk way more because he's animated.
> 
> This is the first election I can think of where the least likeable candidate is going to win.


Yeah maybe that's why she's going with the "strong and stable" theme, it plays to her strengths.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 26, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Well no  the poll out today(the first telephone poll had Tory on 48,lab on 24 ,libdem 13,ukip 4 and green 1.
> 
> Green defo looks low and the elderly wont answer the phone so health warning.


That *is* a shame.

"the elderly wont answer the phone"


----------



## bemused (Apr 26, 2017)

8115 said:


> Yeah maybe that's why she's going with the "strong and stable" theme, it plays to her strengths.



I'm hoping to see some top quality memes with that awful line.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 26, 2017)

8115 said:


> Are the latest polls showing Labour on 30 points and the Conservatives on 40?


No it's closer to 25 and 45, look at the posts above.


----------



## Old Spark (Apr 26, 2017)

8115 said:


> That *is* a shame.
> 
> "the elderly wont answer the phone"



Its why phone polls cost more and take longer than internet polls-tricky getting representative sample.

Tho phone polls were more accurate than internet in the referendum-like they got the result correct.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 26, 2017)

It's the hope that will kill 'em...


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 26, 2017)

8115 said:


> Theresa May has had an easy ride, she's been parachuted in on the back of a referendum result that I'm assuming went down pretty well with 50% of the electorate and she hasn't had to pass any major pieces of unpopular legislation to my memory. She's very popular for some reason and apart from some Brexit carping she's had a lot of backing from her party. Remember the last time you read anything from a Conservative briefing hard against her?  Me neither.  Let me know if I'm wrong.



There's also an absense of spin, Cameron/Osborne were so blatantly full of shit that it might have turned off some of the trad tories and other voters. I think this comes across as straight/honest, even though she's anything but.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 26, 2017)

Also May did a long old stint as Home Secretary (6 years) and I think it's standing her in good stead.


----------



## bimble (Apr 27, 2017)

i can't find the source of these numbers (person who put it on twitter says its from yougov) but this is kind of interesting- people who define themselves as Christians are far more likely to vote tory. Jesus would not be impressed.


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 27, 2017)

bemused said:


> I vote Tory and I don't get the appeal to be honest. She won the leadership election because she was the most normal one on offer. But, in terms of personal appeal during the election she's really very very VERY dull. I enjoy watching Corbyn talk way more because he's animated.
> 
> This is the first election I can think of where the least likeable candidate is going to win.


Why do you vote Tory? :O


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 27, 2017)

bimble said:


> i can't find the source of these numbers (person who put it on twitter says its from yougov) but this is kind of interesting- people who define themselves as Christians are far more likely to vote tory. Jesus would not be impressed.
> 
> View attachment 105381



I guess it's not too surprising, what with May being a vicar's daughter who has pretty much said she thinks Brexit is the Lord's will, while it would be a big surprise to see Corbyn anywhere near a church. I bet a lot of those Christian Tories believe "Charity begins at home" and "The good Lord helps those who help themselves" are quotes from the Bible.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 27, 2017)

Charity begins at home is the most misquoted and misused off the cuff phrase in history. FACT


----------



## bemused (Apr 27, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Why do you vote Tory? :O



I like my local MP, I stopped voting for them for two elections when the local MP was a twat. This one has been very helpful.


----------



## Greasy Boiler (Apr 27, 2017)

Whilst I can understand the reticence regarding the likes of Corbyn and Farron, I just cannot understand all this May love.

IMO, she comes across as a pompous control freak with very little in the way of tangible success policy-wise.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 27, 2017)

Is there lots of May love?


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 27, 2017)

She comes across dreadfully, and the Tories know it. Unfortunately there is no compulsion amongst our supine media to compel a debate - and now Corbyn hands her another victory by stepping aside. 

FFS.


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 27, 2017)

bemused said:


> I like my local MP, I stopped voting for them for two elections when the local MP was a twat. This one has been very helpful.


What's his/her voting record like? If you don't mind me asking.

I understand your position. It's just very depressing

EDIT: nevermind. it doesn't matter. this isn't productive. Somone delete this post


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2017)

brogdale said:


> 'kinnel,
> 
> 
> 
> danny la rouge wtf



I wasn't sure where to append this, but it probably sits best in this thread. It's a Tory analysis of the GE in Scotland. Makes interesting reading, and is, I think, realistic in its predictions:

http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2017/04/battleground-seats-2-scotland.html

Several points to pick out: Labour, while dead in the water, could wake up with anything from 3 to zero seats on 9th June. Top end wouldn't be a recovery, it's just the way votes clump under FPTP.

Edinburgh South (Labour's only seat currently) could go any of three ways. Conservative Home predicts a "Unionist hold". But they countenance an SNP gain as a possibility.

According to recent polling, the Tories could wake up with anything from 8 to 12 seats on 9th June. Local Tory sources apparently see 7 as more realistic. I wouldn't be surprised. The calculus is harsh on the Tories, and their popular vote in Scotland doesn't start bearing fruit until it pushes up to current polling levels. Only one win last time was a bit of a fluke. I expected three. I can easily see 6 or 7 in June.


----------



## Ungrateful (Apr 27, 2017)

Labour are dead in Scotland thanks to a myriad of factors, but which came to a head in the IndyRef.

1) The New labour cabal that operated across the UK, but especially effectively in Scotland, did not allow any dissension from the UK-Party for decades: whether it be on Iraq war or Student fees (initially introduced in England by Blair with the support of Scottish Labour MPs). Critical thinkers were excluded from positions of influence in the UK party but especially in the Scottish parliament (like Elaine Murray), so they had no one ready with new policy ideas when the old ones had failed or seemed stale.
2) Assuming that they were the perpetual party of government in Scottish parliament and major Scottish councils, they were arrogant and corrupt. And shat all over their own constituents assuming they had nowhere else to go.
3) SNP adopted many of the more social democratic policies abandoned by New Labour, and became electorally success.
4) UK and Scottish Labour were utterly complacent about the Scottish Labour, they assumed it would always provide them a majority, and were shocked in 2007 when SNP became majority party and had no idea how to counter. The elite institutions (media, industrialists, bankers) who helped support new Labour in Scotland for self-interested reasons, now had no reason to do so.
5) Teaming up the Tories for the Bitter Together campaign, made Labour the 'Red Tories' as against the 'Tartan Tories' a phrase used successfully in the past to insult the SNP.
6) Labour justifying the protection of the Union as more important than any social or economic policy, enabled former unionist Labour voters jump to the Tories as a principled position - as the Tories are stricter Unionists than Labour.

Scottish Labour are effectively as dead as the Tory Party were here for the last 25 years. They lack anyone with the wit, skill, imagination or charisma to save them. If Keiza Dugdale is the best person to lead your party - a person with the intellect and warmth  of an empty bottom deck of an Aberdeen bus at 1am in the morning -then it shows the depths of the problem. I cannot imagine Labour achieving 33% of the vote in a national election again in Scotland for a decade or if there is independence (and all the Parties will then undergo a shake up).

As someone who was, in his youth, a longstanding member of the Labour Party, I have some emotional regret about this situation. But as someone who has seen the long term damage the Labour Party has done in Scotland and elsewhere because of its corruption, neoliberal and militarist policies, I can only take pleasure at its demise. It's just a shame that it is leading to a slight rise in the Scottish Tories rather than a more sustained anti-capitalist set of social movements.​


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2017)

This is v interesting from the BES

Has Brexit Broken British Voting?



> Third, a sizeable chunk of UKIP voters have defected to the Conservatives. Since leaving Europe is now official Conservative party policy, some voters may being seeing less of a need for a separate party devoted just to that issues.





> Fourth, 2015 Labour voters have been defecting in high numbers on both the Remain and Leave sides. Labour’s best move here is tricky. While Labour leave supporters have been more likely to leave Labour than Remain supporters, Labour also started with more Remain voters to begin with. The net result is that Labour is losing a fairly similar absolute number of Remain and Leave voters.





> Fifth, the scale of a Liberal Democrat revival from Remain voters is fairly small at the time of wave 10,  only 10% of Labour Remain voters and 8% of Conservative Remain voters had defected to the Liberal Democrats.





> Finally, there are also some indications that the SNP vote may be splitting along EU referendum lines. They only managed to retain 55% of their 2015 voters who supported Leave compared with 83% of their voters who supported Remain



The REMAIN/LEAVE charts are side by side here. (Nicked from a reddit poster)


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> This is v interesting from the BES
> 
> Has Brexit Broken British Voting?
> The REMAIN/LEAVE charts are side by side here. (Nicked from a reddit poster)



Interesting article.

On a separate note: I've seen a lot of that type of graphic representation of late. Am I the only person who doesn't find them in the least bit helpful? They seem to offer no visualisation aid at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2017)

First time i've seen one of them. I liked it and i am terrible with graphs/charts figures, really struggle to understand what they're showing. That one just made sense to me.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 27, 2017)




----------



## discokermit (Apr 27, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Interesting article.
> 
> On a separate note: I've seen a lot of that type of graphic representation of late. Am I the only person who doesn't find them in the least bit helpful? They seem to offer no visualisation aid at all.


i've seen one on the french election the other day and i'm sure i've seen it before that as well. i like them. it's a bit harder to compare the overall figures but that's more than made up for by showing the movement within them.


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 27, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Interesting article.
> 
> On a separate note: I've seen a lot of that type of graphic representation of late. Am I the only person who doesn't find them in the least bit helpful? They seem to offer no visualisation aid at all.


I had to enlarge it the first time I saw one of these to make out the different dates on the left and right sides of the chart. Then it all made sense.  #oldage


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2017)

discokermit said:


> i've seen one on the french election the other day and i'm sure i've seen it before that as well. i like them. it's a bit harder to compare the overall figures but that's more than made up for by showing the movement within them.


This is going to be like those magic eye  "3D" posters all over again, isn't it?


----------



## discokermit (Apr 27, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> This is going to be like those magic eye  "3D" posters all over again, isn't it?


it is. and exactly the same as last time i will tell everyone i can see them when i can't.


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 27, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> This is going to be like those magic eye  "3D" posters all over again, isn't it?


I guess it would be harder if you were colour blind.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 27, 2017)

The real question is why the Tories are in gold...


----------



## discokermit (Apr 27, 2017)

[spandau ballet]gold![/spandau ballet]


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2017)

discokermit said:


> it is. and exactly the same as last time i will tell everyone i can see them when i can't.


Actual chuckle here. Well done.


----------



## Plumdaff (Apr 27, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> I think people have been under a weird misconception. There has always  been a Tory percentage in Scotland. The FPTP electoral system (that they support) has worked against them. But people should remember that in 1983, the height of Thatcherism, the Tories had 21 MPs in Scotland. We're talking now about them possibly getting ten fewer than that.
> 
> The anomaly has been that they've had so few MPs in recent years.



In contrast, Labour haven't lost a GE in Wales since 1918. It really would be seismic.


----------



## Plumdaff (Apr 27, 2017)

Yossarian said:


> That's a depressing chart, I would have guessed the age of Tory crossover to be a lot closer to 50.
> 
> Also seems a little weird that the trend continues steadily even when people reach their 80s - you'd think that by the time people were in their 70s, they'd be hesitant about voting for the party most likely to destroy the NHS.



Having a fair amount of equity in property. For anyone ten years plus into a mortgage or owner occupying the last ten years just haven't been anything like as painful as for everyone else.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 27, 2017)




----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


>


I had another Tory leaflet today. I've had loads. I wish I'd started counting but I was half a dozen in before it registered just how many I was getting.  And remember, this is still for the local government elections. I've honestly never had so much attention from all the parties put together for a local as I've had for the Tories alone this time.

They're _very_ keen to attract the Unionist vote. (This is No territory). And none of the Tory material is about local government. It's _all_ about independence and stopping the SNP.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 27, 2017)

Plumdaff said:


> In contrast, Labour haven't lost a GE in Wales since 1918. It really would be seismic.


If they do take a 25% share of the vote, as the polls currently indicate, then that would be their lowest share since 1918. 

I guess once piece of good news for them is that looking at those charts, a lot of their vote, indeed a significant number of voters in general, are undecided. So you might think that some of those Labour voters might come back to the fold for an ABT vote.


----------



## Greasy Boiler (Apr 27, 2017)

Fuck political polling. Fight the election and see what happens on June 8th. That's all that counts.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2017)

Greasy Boiler said:


> Fuck political polling. Fight the election and see what happens on June 8th. That's all that counts.


Fair enough; though some would contest that last sentence.


----------



## Greasy Boiler (Apr 27, 2017)

Oh yeah, I forgot that revolution coming.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2017)

Greasy Boiler said:


> Oh yeah, I forgot that revolution coming.


Yeah, best not to forget.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 28, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> I had another Tory leaflet today. I've had loads. I wish I'd started counting but I was half a dozen in before it registered just how many I was getting.  And remember, this is still for the local government elections. I've honestly never had so much attention from all the parties put together for a local as I've had for the Tories alone this time.
> 
> They're _very_ keen to attract the Unionist vote. (This is No territory). And none of the Tory material is about local government. It's _all_ about independence and stopping the SNP.



Are the slippery bastards using the local election spending budget to essentially campaign for the general? Sounds a bit dodgy, but there probably aren't rules for these circumstances.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 29, 2017)

> Westminster voting intention:
> 
> CON: 47% (+2)
> LAB: 30% (+4)
> ...


Opinium, no single poll and all that. Still.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 30, 2017)

ferrelhadley said:


> Opinium, no single poll and all that. Still.





Seems to be a trend

Still awful of course, but would be a bit less catastrophic


----------



## brogdale (Apr 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Seems to be a trend
> 
> Still awful of course, but would be a bit less catastrophic



The more people don't see of May, the less they like her.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Seems to be a trend



It's not that easy. Different pollsters and margins of error. 

If I roll a dice twice and get a 3 then a 4 is that a trend?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 30, 2017)

brogdale said:


> The more people don't see of May, the less they like her.



Well perhaps but in 2015 Cameron did basically the same thing as May is doing - avoiding the public and repetition of banal empty lsogans, perhaps not to the same extent, and it worked well for him.


----------



## bemused (May 3, 2017)

brogdale said:


> The more people don't see of May, the less they like her.



I think they are playing a 'do just enough' strategy to avoid any gaffs.


----------



## brogdale (May 3, 2017)

The weekly Panelbase GB poll has topline figures of:-

*CON 47%(-2), LAB 30%(+3), LDEM 10%(nc), UKIP 5%(nc), GRN 2%(-1).* 
Changes are from a week ago. The Conservative lead is down five points from last week, but remains at a healthy seventeen points.

With this commentary...


> Polls do all seem to be agreeing that the huge Conservative lead we saw at the beginning of the campaign has faltered a bit – the difference appears to be how much it has shrunk: YouGov suggested a sharp narrowing, ICM only a tiny one, Panelbase somewhere inbetween. The best rule of thumb, as ever, remains to look at the broad trend in the polls, not read too much into any individual set of figures.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 9, 2017)

I'm not going to open this link because of Mailscum (I've added a gap to the URL)
www.  dailymail.co.uk/news/.../Tories-open-RECORD-22-point-lead-Labour-poll.html

But the DM seemed to have a poll yesterday (or today?) showing a 22% Tory lead 

Reliable or not? No doubt the expert poll trackers (including brogdale  ) will have a view but I've got to go to bed now


----------



## redsquirrel (May 10, 2017)

It's actually a ICM/Guardian poll and so reliable as these things go. 22% is at the larger end of the leads but it's not out of whack

9/7/17
*Kantar:* CON 44%(-4), LAB 28%(+4), LDEM 11%(nc), UKIP 8%(+1).
*Survation: *CON 47%, LAB 30%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 4%, GRN 3%

8/5/17
*ICM:* CON 49%, LAB 27%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 6%, GRN 3%

7/5/17
*YouGov: *CON 47%(-1), LAB 28%(-1), LDEM 11%(+1), UKIP 6%(+1)
*ORB: *CON 46%(+4), LAB 31%(nc), LDEM 9%(-1), UKIP 8%(nc) 
*Opinium:* CON 46%(-1), LAB 30%(nc), LDEM 9%(+1), UKIP 7%(nc) 
*ICM:* CON 46%(-1), LAB 28%(nc), LDEM 10%(+2), UKIP 8%(nc)


----------



## brogdale (May 11, 2017)

From yesterday...
The Evening Standard has a new YouGov poll of *voting intentions in London*, the first London poll we’ve seen since the election was called. Topline voting intention figures are:-

*CON 36%(+2), LAB 41%(+4), LDEM 14%(nc), UKIP 6%(-3).* 
(Changes are from the last YouGov London poll, conducted back in March)

Compared to the general election this represents *an increase of one for the Conservatives*, *a decrease of three for Labour and an increase of six points for the Lib Dems.* A two point swing from Lab to Con is significantly less than polls are indicating for Britain as a whole (currently around about a six point swing).


----------



## redsquirrel (May 11, 2017)

brogdale said:


> * an increase of six points for the Lib Dems.*


London's shame


----------



## brogdale (May 11, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> London's shame


Flown from MP's property last June...


----------



## bemused (May 11, 2017)

brogdale said:


> *UKIP 6%(-3)*



Heading in the right direction/


----------



## William of Walworth (May 11, 2017)

UKIP have never performed well in (most of) London.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 11, 2017)

I'd be surprised if the Tory lead** was 22% on June 9th, but very surprised indeed if it was less than 10%  

**Over Labour. Not over UKIP. That'll be over 35% to 40%


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2017)

From Tom Crewe's LRB piece _"What will be left?"..._not actual polling, but some useful context for those interested in the psephology...



> Polls can be wrong, but they’ve never been this wrong (and when they have been wrong before, it has always been in overestimating the Labour vote). The national polls in any case obscure a more fundamental problem: Labour’s terminal collapse in Scotland, combined with the distortions of the first-past-the-post system, have created structural conditions that make it impossible for Labour to win a majority without a swing of dramatic proportions. *In 2015 it needed a swing of 4.6 per cent to win a majority of one; now, in order to achieve the same feat, it needs a swing of 8.7 per cent, equivalent to a national poll lead of 11 per cent or three million votes.* Having lost so much ground in 2015, it has many more seats to win, but is competitive in fewer of them, because the Tories entrenched themselves in English and Welsh marginals while the SNP piled up unassailable majorities in much of Scotland. *According to the Fabian Society, what’s required is something like the vote share Labour achieved in 2001, when, starting from a much stronger position, it won 413 seats to the Conservatives’ 166. And all this, remember, to win a majority of one.* If Labour loses badly in June, it will be even harder next time.



So, from 15 to 20% behind to 11% ahead; that is Corbyn's "mountain".


----------



## tim (May 13, 2017)

Greasy Boiler said:


> Oh yeah, I forgot that revolution coming.



So did Louis the Sixteenth.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 18, 2017)

Latest Yougov poll

Con 45
Lab 32
LD 8
UKP 6

As with other polls - labour creeping up.


----------



## kabbes (May 18, 2017)

Apologies for asking this here rather than doing my own bloody research, but what the hey: when the pollsters do their polling, do they return to the same people or do they resample each time?  Because if the former then I can see obvious sampling pitfalls but if the latter then the stability sure does bear out their claimed sampling error, but it's quite surprising.


----------



## The Boy (May 18, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Apologies for asking this here rather than doing my own bloody research, but what the hey: when the pollsters do their polling, do they return to the same people or do they resample each time?  Because if the former then I can see obvious sampling pitfalls but if the latter then the stability sure does bear out their claimed sampling error, but it's quite surprising.



The latter, afaiu. Probably depends on the pollster tho, and online polls obviously rely on a pool of willing monkeys.


----------



## chilango (May 18, 2017)

Disappointingly I've only been polled once so far this election


----------



## kabbes (May 18, 2017)

The Boy said:


> The latter, afaiu. Probably depends on the pollster tho, and online polls obviously rely on a pool of willing monkeys.


I have a suspicion, then, that the stability derives more from their adjustments to the data from the results of the polling.  So it creates an impression of stability, but this could be misleading.  Hence the consistent mispolling of recent years.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 18, 2017)

Ipsos MORI

Con 49 (nc) 
Lab 34 (+8) 
LD 7 (-7) 
Greens 3 (+2) 
UKIP 2 (-2)

(brackets are from last ipsos mori poll). 

Labour hoovering up the lib dem vote. 

I would love it if labours'  final vote share was bigger than what Blair got in 2005 (35.2%).


----------



## Dogsauce (May 18, 2017)

UKIP vanishing to nothing there! Fully cannibalised by May, the 2% rump is probably just those still angry about the gays causing bad weather.

I wish these polls would routinely include whether respondents had changed opinion recently, or who they voted for in the last election, as I'm massively curious as to where people are moving from - too often we get simplistic narratives about swings from one to the other based on numbers alone, but it wouldn't pick up say two percent of people moving from UKIP to Labour and a separate two percent going from Labour to the Tories, it would just presume a direct UKIP to Tory pathway. Also data on intention to vote and previous abstention.


----------



## Rimbaud (May 18, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> Ipsos MORI
> 
> Con 49 (nc)
> Lab 34 (+8)
> ...



I think it will be, you know. If Labour use their manpower to speak to people about the manifesto their vote will continue to increase a little further until the election. Also, Registration has surged among students who are overwhelmingly backing Corbyn - I think a high turnout from young people will mean that the actual Labour vote will be higher than the polls predict.

As I said on another thread - there were changes made to the way polling data is weighted after 2015, and as far as I can tell these changes are designed to account for young Labour voters being less likely to actually register on time/turn out on the day. I think the Labour vote is a lot more motivated this election, so it could turn out that the changes to polling data are an over-correction, and in fact understate Labour's support. 

I'm going to predict Labour's final vote share will be in the region of 35%-40%.


----------



## Rimbaud (May 18, 2017)

Are there any up to date polls carried out in Scotland only? Any sign of a Labour recovery there? The last one on the wikipedia page for 2017 Opinion Polling is from over a month ago. Would be nice if they knock the Tories back into third place.


----------



## JTG (May 18, 2017)

So, Labour definitely seem to be on an upward tick just now. Still three weeks out, anything could happen good or bad.

We know that Labour's so called in built advantage - whereby they could win an election on 35% of the vote so long as the Tories didn't get more than a few points ahead of them - could well be getting blown out of the water if those 40+% Tory figures hold. Also, Scotland.

But how close does it need to get before it starts going back in Labour's favour? Any thoughts/links/guesses?


----------



## JTG (May 18, 2017)

Based on current polls, I'm more convinced that the Greens won't get close in Bristol West now. Every time I go down there I see more and more Labour posters/signs and not as many Greens as two years ago. Reckon left leaning Lib Dems and Greens down there are gonna pile into Labour now.


----------



## hot air baboon (May 18, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Well perhaps but in 2015 Cameron did basically the same thing as May is doing - avoiding the public and repetition of banal empty lsogans, perhaps not to the same extent, and it worked well for him.



its deja-vu all over again - he also tried the personal / party branding thing as "David Cameron's Conservatives" when he was supposedly more popular then the party - which was a total wash-out electorally at the 2007 Ealing by-election & quickly dropped


----------



## Sue (May 18, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> Are there any up to date polls carried out in Scotland only? Any sign of a Labour recovery there? The last one on the wikipedia page for 2017 Opinion Polling is from over a month ago. Would be nice if they knock the Tories back into third place.



No idea about polls but I'd be extremely surprised if their fortunes were to revive -- they really are seen as a complete dead duck by the former Labour voters in know.

The SNP will lose some seats for sure (they did ridiculously well last time let's not forget) and there will be much more tactical voting. Labour may pick up a few in the melee but revival? Nah.


----------



## Wilf (May 18, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Apologies for asking this here rather than doing my own bloody research, but what the hey: when the pollsters do their polling, do they return to the same people or do they resample each time?  Because if the former then I can see obvious sampling pitfalls but if the latter then the stability sure does bear out their claimed sampling error, but it's quite surprising.


I think the distinction is between normal polls and 'panel surveys', the latter being the same people.


----------



## Wilf (May 18, 2017)

JTG said:


> So, Labour definitely seem to be on an upward tick just now. Still three weeks out, anything could happen good or bad.
> 
> We know that Labour's so called in built advantage - whereby they could win an election on 35% of the vote so long as the Tories didn't get more than a few points ahead of them - could well be getting blown out of the water if those 40+% Tory figures hold. Also, Scotland.
> 
> But how close does it need to get before it starts going back in Labour's favour? Any thoughts/links/guesses?


Looks like a bit of a bounce around the manifesto certainly and scope for more gains by pushing the nationalisation message.  However, we'll have to see whether the Tories also get a manifesto boost - parties usually do, though their manifesto does look particularly shit.  Overall though, it seems like a clash of forces to me.  Labour have something to tap into with regard to the idea of decency, state owndership, we don't need to keep going down the same path etc. But they are just too far behind and if they were to get closer in the polls they would undergo some serious 'labour's plans will cost you £x' wailing.  The other thing of course is Corbyn.  I'm not making some crude 'Corbyn is shit' point and the more people see him in the this campaign he probably starts to look better. But the 'Corbyn would be a shit PM' thing is well established and there's just not enough time to challenge it.  Apart from the odd rogue poll I can't see Labour getting within 10% of the Tories. Which of course adds up to a pretty catastrophic outcome.  But you can see what Labour's future might have been like if they'd been united and pushing these policies for the last 18 months.


----------



## Rimbaud (May 18, 2017)

Hypothetical scenario - Lib Dem and Green vote collapses as voters rally to Corbyn to prevent a Tory landslide. There is an unprecedented high turnout due to Corbyn supporters, and the polls turn out to have badly underestimated Labour support. As Labour begin to look more credible, they start winning over Scottish voters again. Some Tories get caught up in the changing winds and decide to back Labour, or some scandal hits May. Corbyn wins a majority with 43.3% of the vote share, narrowly beating Blair's record in 1997, to the Tories 41%.

One can but dream.


----------



## Sue (May 18, 2017)

In Scotland, it's not really about Labour looking more credible; it's about Scottish Labour looking more credible. Which is a bit of a different thing.

I'm not sure Jeremy Corbyn being Labour leader makes any difference there at all.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 18, 2017)

Sue said:


> In Scotland, it's not really about Labour looking more credible; it's about Scottish Labour looking more credible. Which is a bit of a different thing.
> 
> I'm not sure Jeremy Corbyn being Labour leader makes any difference there at all.


on the lab/snp bitterness front I do get the impression from all the down south that labour are furious up their- not with the voters but with the snp. 'you stole OUR proles' or somesuch. Either way its not a good look for them is it. Not even asking themselves _why _they lost. Lot of that about in politics of late


----------



## William of Walworth (May 20, 2017)

No idea how reliable or not this Evolve Politics site is, but there appears to have been an Ipsos Mori poll giving Labour 39% in England. Possible? I'm very sceptical, and I suspect there's inherent issues with that poll, plus surely it's an outlier?? 

brogdale redsquirrel


----------



## ferrelhadley (May 20, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> No idea how reliable or not this Evolve Politics site is, but there appears to have been an Ipsos Mori poll giving Labour 39% in England. Possible? I'm very sceptical, and I suspect there's inherent issues with that poll, plus surely it's an outlier??
> 
> brogdale redsquirrel


It seems to be unweighted cross breaks from this
If it is then they have a PDF with charts on the weighted data.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2017-05/pm-may-2017-charts.pdf

I would really not hang my hat on the weighting models as there may be a bit of a pick up in more people who did not vote last election turning out. No sign of that in the by elections or locals but its still a real possibility.


----------



## JTG (May 20, 2017)

ferrelhadley said:


> It seems to be unweighted cross breaks from this
> If it is then they have a PDF with charts on the weighted data.
> https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2017-05/pm-may-2017-charts.pdf
> 
> I would really not hang my hat on the weighting models as there may be a bit of a pick up in more people who did not vote last election turning out. No sign of that in the by elections or locals but its still a real possibility.


Tend to agree with that - and wouldn't be happy venturing a guess as to where these voters may turn out either


----------



## JTG (May 20, 2017)

New poll out:



Looks like most of the fieldwork done before Tory manifesto launch


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2017)

JTG said:


> New poll out:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like most of the fieldwork done before Tory manifesto launch



Will be interesting to keep an eye on the older cohorts in post tory manifesto polling.


----------



## agricola (May 20, 2017)

JTG said:


> New poll out:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like most of the fieldwork done before Tory manifesto launch




The UKIP share of the vote in a lot of these polls does really give me a great deal of doubt about how accurate they are - almost all of them have them between 4% and 7%, despite the Varian nature of their campaign to date.


----------



## JTG (May 20, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Will be interesting to keep an eye on the older cohorts in post tory manifesto polling.


Not only them but the next gen down - them that'll be seeing their bricks and mortar inheritance disappearing should their parents need care


----------



## JTG (May 20, 2017)

agricola said:


> The UKIP share of the vote in a lot of these polls does really give me a great deal of doubt about how accurate they are - almost all of them have them between 4% and 7%, despite the Varian nature of their campaign to date.


I think a lot of polling assumptions are there to be proved wrong - UKIP have been around long enough for people to have voted for them a few times in a row but not long enough for them to be out of passing fad territory. Their support could be overstated in other words


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2017)

JTG said:


> Not only them but the next gen down - them that'll be seeing their bricks and mortar inheritance disappearing should their parents need care


Indeed.


----------



## JTG (May 20, 2017)

Before manifesto launch


----------



## Rimbaud (May 20, 2017)

JTG said:


> Before manifesto launch




What does it say? I'm obsessing about poll results lately but I am in China so twitter is blocked and my vpn is broken, if you (or anyone else) can type out the contents in text I'd be very appreciative. All I can see is a "Loading tweet..." message.


----------



## JimW (May 20, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> What does it say? I'm obsessing about poll results lately but I am in China so twitter is blocked and my vpn is broken, if you (or anyone else) can type out the contents in text I'd be very appreciative. All I can see is a "Loading tweet..." message.


Westminster voting intention:

CON: 46% (-1)
LAB: 33% (+1)
LDEM: 8% (-)
UKIP: 5% (-)
GRN: 2% (-)

(via @OpiniumResearch / 16 - 17 May)


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 20, 2017)

The polls after this weekend will be interesting, when the dementia tax stuff starts filtering through.

From a small local snapshot, Labour people out door knocking here in Stoke today found every single one on their list who were down during the by-election or previous GE as don't knows, abstains, don't votes, maybes, and even _against_ Labour are saying they're voting Labour, and it's all down to the dementia tax.

I hasten to add, it was a very small snapshot from one team out this morning. But for even the "I am against Labour" people saying it...

I still don't dare to dream.

But what with all the talk about Corbyn's vote share being bigger than both Brown's and Miliband's according to recent polls, and with him only being 2-3 points off Blair... this latest upsetting of the May apple cart could well push him to that magical 36% mark.

Time for a coup, methinks.

The Tories have gone earlier than I expected on the IRA stuff. I wonder what they're keeping back for election week? There can't be anything that's been held back against him during two hotly contested and poisonous leadership elections, so I do wonder what the final week will look like from the Tories and the Labour right. Can't let Corbs get a bigger vote share than Saint Blair.


----------



## Rimbaud (May 20, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> The polls after this weekend will be interesting, when the dementia tax stuff starts filtering through.
> 
> From a small local snapshot, Labour people out door knocking here in Stoke today found every single one on their list who were down during the by-election or previous GE as don't knows, abstains, don't votes, maybes, and even _against_ Labour are saying they're voting Labour, and it's all down to the dementia tax.
> 
> ...



Dare to dream!

It can happen.

And sometimes a belief that it can happen can be self fulfilling. The Blair era of the Labour Party was largely defined by the conviction that it _can't _happen, which itself became self fulfilling.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 20, 2017)

One small thing to add about today's door knocking: one person specifically said he didn't like Corbyn because of the IRA stuff, but the dementia tax was more important and he'd be voting Labour.

When it comes down to it, when there's an actual election on, with actual policies and real consequences, it focuses voters' minds and the wonks and journos and the like don't often catch on to that. I'm sure the IRA stuff and other negative Corbyn campaigning will still have an effect for some, and it's difficult to undo two years of drip-fed insecurity and animosity, but thanks to firstly the Labour Manifesto leak and now this dementia tax, policy is actually important (as it always is when it comes down to it) and hopefully it will mitigate the very worst possible outcomes.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 20, 2017)

If labour start regularly polling over 35% - i wonder if the blairites will start mouthing off again? I saw one online comment saying "Corbyn getting as much as 35% would be a disaster for the labour party - as he would still be in charge". This is their mentality.


----------



## Raheem (May 20, 2017)

JimW said:


> Westminster voting intention:
> 
> CON: 46% (-1)
> LAB: 33% (+1)
> ...



There's also a poll for the Telegraph by ORB:

CON 46%(-)
LAB 34%(+3)
LDEM 7%(-1)
UKIP 7%(+1)

Fieldwork was 15-16 May, so before the Tory manifesto launch.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 20, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> If labour start regularly polling over 35% - i wonder if the blairites will start mouthing off again? I saw one online comment saying "Corbyn getting as much as 35% would be a disaster for the labour party - as he would still be in charge". This is their mentality.



Exactly. They resigned themselves to a loss a long time ago, and decided it would be best if the loss was as great as possible, to show once and for all that the party shouldn't turn left and centrism is our only saviour. The final nail in the coffin of a left wing Labour Party. 

That Labour are inching towards Blair's vote share _despite_ all the negative shit that has been piled on Corbyn and the left in general, that's got to really hurt. 

I predict a lot more acrimony and many more manoeuverings, but should the actual vote have Labour at or around that Blair share it gives the left of the party a damn good foundation to argue from: if the party had been united and everyone been behind the leader and the platform, imagine the vote share we could have got then?

The worst possible outcome for the right of the party is that "Corbyn is unelectable" is proven wrong (and even without Labour winning, getting Blair's vote share show's he's as electable as Blair).


----------



## Sue (May 20, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> If labour start regularly polling over 35% - i wonder if the blairites will start mouthing off again? I saw one online comment saying "Corbyn getting as much as 35% would be a disaster for the labour party - as he would still be in charge". This is their mentality.


Starmer doing his bit. 

Labour's 2015 election result is no yardstick for success, says Starmer


----------



## Raheem (May 20, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> even without Labour winning, getting Blair's vote share show's he's as electable as Blair.



It would be a symbolic threshold, but he's not really as electable as Blair unless Labour wins the election.


----------



## agricola (May 20, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> If labour start regularly polling over 35% - i wonder if the blairites will start mouthing off again? I saw one online comment saying "Corbyn getting as much as 35% would be a disaster for the labour party - as he would still be in charge". This is their mentality.



I suppose it all depends on which Blairites you mean.  The PLP will almost certainly continue to keep quiet during the campaign because its a policy that they can't really lose with - they aren't going to be blamed for the defeat, most of them are in safe(ish) seats, and - if the miracle happens and Corbyn wins - they would be in an really strong position to him given that his government would stay or go on their whim.  The only bad option for them is a narrow / very narrow Tory victory, which would strengthen him immeasurably whilst demonstrating their complete uselessness (which TBH probably means that is whats going to happen). 

Those who aren't MPs can reliably be expected to stick their oars in, though of course given the previous success of such measures it is probably something that would help Corbyn more than harm him.


----------



## Rimbaud (May 20, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Exactly. They resigned themselves to a loss a long time ago, and decided it would be best if the loss was as great as possible, to show once and for all that the party shouldn't turn left and centrism is our only saviour. The final nail in the coffin of a left wing Labour Party.
> 
> That Labour are inching towards Blair's vote share _despite_ all the negative shit that has been piled on Corbyn and the left in general, that's got to really hurt.
> 
> ...



Maybe not, they fear the membership turning on them. They would still have to win a leadership election, and a miraculous recovery in the polls by Labour followed by Blairite sabotage would be way too obvious and they would probably get de-selected.

More likely there will be enough Damascian conversions to the Corbyn gravy train to make any Blairite sabotage isolated, increasing the risk to the individuals involved. By nature, they are pragmatists and careerists who have neither the courage nor conviction to rebel if the risk is high.


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2017)

What is quite intriguing is the % that a Corbyn-led LP can achieve despite the apparent 'lending' of a considerable chunk of their 'core' vote to May because Brexit...


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 20, 2017)

Raheem said:


> It would be a symbolic threshold, but he's not really as electable as Blair unless Labour wins the election.



I knew someone would say that 

Yes, I take that on board absolutely.

My counter-argument would be that the context is wildly different now, and we can't have a full picture of what's going on with Labour without looking at what's going on elsewhere with the Tory vote. Their support is huge, and is benefiting from the collapse of UKIP. UKIP weren't a thing back in 97, and the political landscape looked a lot different to how it looks today. 

UKIP voters aren't a single breed, but rather a collection of interests, some of whom (the largest constituency I think) will have been Tories in the past, some Labour, some non-voters, some floating voters, a handful from BNP and elsewhere. The move of that vote to the Tories, in part thanks to Brexit, and in part thanks to the image of the Labour party, plays a huge part in whether any Labour leader is 'electable' or not. 

So it depends on what terms we're judging it. If it's in terms of straight like-for-like vote share then yes, he's electable because he's very nearly at the threshold Blair reached when he stormed to victory. That's a winning vote share in terms of support needed to win in a specific circumstance. But the circumstances are different at the moment, so the bar is moved - which isn't necessarily the fault of the Labour leader or the Labour platform but rather of wider political realities and the context of the shifting political landscape.

So, certainly it's a truism that if you don't get elected you're not electable in that instance, but that doesn't get to the nitty gritty of what's going on under the hood.


----------



## Fez909 (May 20, 2017)

Is there any individual constituency polling? I haven't looked through the thread (sorry!)

Just curious if we'll see any high profile cunts disappear. Would like to see Clegg lose his seat


----------



## treelover (May 20, 2017)

Lots of Sunday Paper Polls coming very soon.


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Is there any individual constituency polling? I haven't looked through the thread (sorry!)
> 
> Just curious if we'll see any high profile cunts disappear. Would like to see Clegg lose his seat


Not aware of any yet.
Reckon a good number of the disappearing high profile cunts will be LP cunts.


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2017)

treelover said:


> Lots of Sunday Paper Polls coming very soon.


STimes/YG should be first post manifesto one...soon.


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2017)

brogdale said:


> STimes/YG should be first post manifesto one...soon.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 20, 2017)

Someone in the local LP was door knocking in Stafford today, they report the exact same thing. In Stafford!

I still will not dare to dream.


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2017)

A long way from close, but the first poll of the Election period with a single figure lead for the vermin. (Fieldwork post vermin manifesto launch)


----------



## Dogsauce (May 20, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Is there any individual constituency polling? I haven't looked through the thread (sorry!)
> 
> Just curious if we'll see any high profile cunts disappear. Would like to see Clegg lose his seat



I'm wondering if Labour might oust a few Tories in or around London - I'd love to see the back of slime like Barwell, though someone local on here thought it unlikely.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 20, 2017)

treelover said:


> Lots of Sunday Paper Polls coming very soon.


Yeh that's often the case on a saturday


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2017)

Quite consistent...


----------



## binka (May 20, 2017)

Is there any information on how much the uk-wide polls are skewed by scottish voters? if labour are down in scotland and the tories are up, what % of the uk wide poll does that change account for? ie if the tories go from 15% to 30% in scotland does that account for a couple of % on the uk-wide poll?


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2017)

binka said:


> Is there any information on how much the uk-wide polls are skewed by scottish voters? if labour are down in scotland and the tories are up, what % of the uk wide poll does that change account for? ie if the tories go from 15% to 30% in scotland does that account for a couple of % on the uk-wide poll?


Scotland's population = 8.4% of UK total; effective polling with a large enough sample should reflect that proportion.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 20, 2017)

binka said:


> Is there any information on how much the uk-wide polls are skewed by scottish voters? if labour are down in scotland and the tories are up, what % of the uk wide poll does that change account for? ie if the tories go from 15% to 30% in scotland does that account for a couple of % on the uk-wide poll?


I was thinking the same thing, it would be nice to have the 2005/10/15 % of the Labour vote in E&W.


----------



## binka (May 20, 2017)

If the labour vote in scotland collapses any more all they have to lose is 1 seat, if the tories go from an average of 5,000 in a constituency to 9,000 how many seats are they really going to gain? 

If the scottish account for 8.4% of opinion polls and the tories are polling 30% in scotland then that would mean around 2.5% of uk-wide tory poll result is from scotland. redsquirrel is right england and wales figures would be interesting - especially as Labour are actually doing alright at the minute despite being loathed in Scotland then that must mean they are doing better in e&w to make up the deficit


----------



## binka (May 20, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Someone in the local LP was door knocking in Stafford today, they report the exact same thing. In Stafford!


they might have been out with my dad, he's well up for it this time


----------



## redsquirrel (May 20, 2017)

So according to wiki in 2005 the LP share of the vote was
- 42.7 % in Wales 
- 39.5 % in Scotland 
- 35.4 % in England 

so the LP share of the vote for E&W was 35.8%


----------



## ferrelhadley (May 21, 2017)




----------



## Poi E (May 21, 2017)

chilango said:


> Disappointingly I've only been polled once so far this election



Do they ring on your mobile? Or landline only? Or post? Never been polled.


----------



## chilango (May 21, 2017)

Poi E said:


> Do they ring on your mobile? Or landline only? Or post? Never been polled.


Online


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 21, 2017)

I get the "If there was a General Election tomorrow, who would you vote for?" question quite regularly from YouGov. I haven't had a specific one in the past week or so though. I want one now!


----------



## Grandma Death (May 21, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Someone in the local LP was door knocking in Stafford today, they report the exact same thing. In Stafford!
> 
> I still will not dare to dream.



I have become critical of Corbyn for many reasons. I never dreamt in a month of sundays the gap would close this much. But with Corbyn and the party going for broke with policies and the tories gambling on being shrewd-it would appear the gap is narrowing. 

I personally think May has shot herself in the foot by alienating one the tories biggest traditional supporters. Pensioners. The winter fuel allowance, backing down on the triple lock guarantee and the dementia tax I do believe this could be a gamble that may not pay off for may.

If Trump is impeached and we see the back of the tories and Lynton Fucking Crosby 2017 could well be the year to take the edge off 2016 which was frankly a dreadful year.

The tories do appear to be acting like a very rattled party.


----------



## Rimbaud (May 22, 2017)

Second poll released showing a single figure lead. Survation 19-20th May shows Conservatives on 43 and Labour on 34.

This is still before some of the reporting and discussion on the Tory manifesto plans will have sunk in, it would be interesting to see if polls done over the weekend (20-21st) show a further narrowing of the lead.

The big question is how they can respond to the "Corbyn is a terrorist" meme which is going to deployed relentlessly I fear.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 22, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> Second poll released showing a single figure lead. Survation 19-20th May shows Conservatives on 43 and Labour on 34.
> 
> This is still before some of the reporting and discussion on the Tory manifesto plans will have sunk in, it would be interesting to see if polls done over the weekend (20-21st) show a further narrowing of the lead.
> 
> The big question is how they can respond to the "Corbyn is a terrorist" meme which is going to deployed relentlessly I fear.



New Survation Westminster voting intention:

CON: 43% (-5)
LAB: 34% (+4)
LDEM: 8% (-)
UKIP: 4% (-)

(via @Survation / 19 – 20 May)
Phone method.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 22, 2017)

interestingly that polls seems to show labour   taking a bite out of the tories. Most of the polls so far has shown labour's vote benefiting from the lib dems sinking fortunes.


----------



## Wilf (May 22, 2017)

I still don't see anything other than a big tory majority - but there's one lesson here: don't call an election when you've got _really, really _shit policies.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 22, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I still don't see anything other than a big tory majority - but there's one lesson here: don't call an election when you've got _really, really _shit policies.



I dont think they'll get the 3 figure type stonker they were hoping for. I think the tory's brilliant policy called "vote for us  - we will take your granny's house" and subterranean corby mania has put paid to that. 30 -70 I rekon.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 22, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> I dont think they'll get the 3 figure type stonker they were hoping for. I think the tory's brilliant policy called "vote for us  - we will take your granny's house" and subterranean corby mania has put paid to that. 30 -70 I rekon.


Yeah, IMO there are simply too many safe seats for any _huge_ change in numbers. Labour majorities will go down and Tory majorities will go up but in a lot of cases that's not going to cause any change.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 22, 2017)

The biggest concern is the collapse of UKIP.

In my seat and in my mum's seat, the UKIP vote was larger than the Labour majority, and if added to the Tory vote both could go Tory easily.

It depends how much the UKIP vote crumbles by, and where those voters go. Not all will go Tory. Some will stay at home, some go Indy, some Labour. I can't see many going LibDem lol. 

Voters are strange beasts. My father-in-law, mildly racist (though not in polite company - you know the sort), voted UKIP for the last however long they've been popular, but would vote Green because he's an outdoorsy type, cares about conservation, buys into the landed gentry stuff despite being working class. If you asked your average journo or politics wonk if they can imagine a voter who would vote either UKIP or Green depending on which way the wind was blowing they'd laugh in your face. They can't get their head around how people are a tangle of disparate interests that might be seemingly at odds with each other (but that make sense for the person in question).


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I still don't see anything other than a big tory majority - but there's one lesson here: don't call an election when you've got _really, really _shit policies.


unless you think you have it nailed on and can rely on a significant faction of the enemy to turn further on itself once you've won


----------



## JTG (May 22, 2017)

CON: 47% (-1) 
LAB: 33% (+5) 
LDEM: 9% (-1) 
UKIP: 4% (-2) 
GRN: 2% (-1) 

ICM 19-21 May


----------



## Rimbaud (May 22, 2017)

JTG said:


> CON: 47% (-1)
> LAB: 33% (+5)
> LDEM: 9% (-1)
> UKIP: 4% (-2)
> ...



While that is disappointing compared to the single figure gaps in other polls, it is worth bearing in mind that the ICM polling is the most heavily weighted to account for demographics seen as less likely to vote. I think it is wrong, because a lot of those demographics are much more likely to bother voting this time. Also, this poll was reporting a 20 point lead for the Tories only a week ago, so a reduction to a 14 point lead is still a good sign of the direction of travel.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 22, 2017)

I suspect the reputation of pollsters will take another knock in this election. Reports from the doorstep seem to say a fair number of trad labour voters are 'undecided'. Which suggests that what happens in the last 2 weeks will be quite key, and pollsters will find it very hard to track what's happening. First time/young voters are also a bit of a wildcard in terms of turnout. I wouldn't pay good money for polls in this election - they're going to be even less reliable than usual.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 22, 2017)

There's a loud BOINNNNGGG noise emanating from Wales:

Welsh Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 44% (+9)
CON: 34% (-7)
PC: 9% (-2)
LDEM: 6% (-1)
UKIP: 5% (+1)
(via @YouGov / 18 - 21 May)


----------



## JTG (May 22, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> While that is disappointing compared to the single figure gaps in other polls, it is worth bearing in mind that the ICM polling is the most heavily weighted to account for demographics seen as less likely to vote. I think it is wrong, because a lot of those demographics are much more likely to bother voting this time. Also, this poll was reporting a 20 point lead for the Tories only a week ago, so a reduction to a 14 point lead is still a good sign of the direction of travel.



I don't follow the minutiae of how individual polling orgs weight their samples so will take your word for it of course. Absolutely correct to compare like with like - the narrowing of the lead here reflects that of the other polls from the last few days so we know something is going on.



Brainaddict said:


> I suspect the reputation of pollsters will take another knock in this election. Reports from the doorstep seem to say a fair number of trad labour voters are 'undecided'. Which suggests that what happens in the last 2 weeks will be quite key, and pollsters will find it very hard to track what's happening. First time/young voters are also a bit of a wildcard in terms of turnout. I wouldn't pay good money for polls in this election - they're going to be even less reliable than usual.



Tend to agree - doesn't mean that polls aren't useful in determining with very broad brushstrokes the way the electorate is swinging. The margins are decided on turnout and how correct pollsters' assumptions are as you say. It's perhaps best to use them as a guide rather than anything more. Still useful imho


----------



## JTG (May 22, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> There's a loud BOINNNNGGG noise emanating from Wales:
> 
> Welsh Westminster voting intention:
> LAB: 44% (+9)
> ...


And that, assuming it's at all accurate, would be a trad Labour vote returning home. Perhaps more emphatically than in parts of England but...


----------



## killer b (May 22, 2017)

lol I was just coming here to post that. It's all very volatile...


----------



## treelover (May 22, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> The biggest concern is the collapse of UKIP.
> 
> In my seat and in my mum's seat, the UKIP vote was larger than the Labour majority, and if added to the Tory vote both could go Tory easily.
> 
> ...



Bang on, for many(not us on here of course!) voting is a mix of rationality, irrationality, self interest, familial history, etc.


----------



## killer b (May 22, 2017)

here too tbf.


----------



## treelover (May 22, 2017)

Would the student vote have made much more of an impact if they were still at college when the vote happens, instead of largely voting in their home locations, etc?


----------



## Raheem (May 22, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> There's a loud BOINNNNGGG noise emanating from Wales:
> 
> Welsh Westminster voting intention:
> LAB: 44% (+9)
> ...



That's even though the dementia tax thing is an England-only policy.


----------



## JTG (May 22, 2017)

Raheem said:


> That's even though the dementia tax thing is an England-only policy.


Yeah, it's just a mass moment of clarity where everyone goes "oh yeah, they're TORIES ffs"


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 22, 2017)

Raheem said:


> That's even though the dementia tax thing is an England-only policy.



If Wales is anything like Scotland, I'm not sure the detail of what precisely is devolved is all that widely known.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 22, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> There's a loud BOINNNNGGG noise emanating from Wales:
> 
> Welsh Westminster voting intention:
> LAB: 44% (+9)
> ...



I had to do a double take on that. My first reaction was to just assume the 44% was conservative, which puzzled me as to what the fuss was about. I wonder to what extent that turnaround will dribble over the border into England.


----------



## JTG (May 22, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I had to do a double take on that. My first reaction was to just assume the 44% was conservative, which puzzled me as to what the fuss was about. I wonder to what extent that turnaround will dribble over the border into England.


According to the Guardian, defending Labour chap in Wrexham says that suddenly all the elderly folk they lost in 2015 were vowing to vote Labour again on the doorstep. Not such a stretch to imagine the same thing being said in England, at least in vulnerable trad Labour seats


----------



## gawkrodger (May 22, 2017)

edit: wrong thread


----------



## redsquirrel (May 23, 2017)

Is that really all that surprising though? Poll after poll has shown Labour have a big lead with younger voters, the issue is whether when it comes to June 8th they cast their votes


----------



## free spirit (May 23, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Is that really all that surprising though? Poll after poll has shown Labour have a big lead with younger voters, the issue is whether when it comes to June 8th they cast their votes


half a million more under 35s have registered to vote in this period since the election was called than in the same period before the 2015 election, with over 2 million registrations.

This compares with 237,421 registrations of people over 55.

In percentage terms this is a 90% - 10% split, compared to an 83% - 17% split at both the 2015 election and referendum.

And given that virtually all those who registered for the referendum (who're still at the same address) will still be registered, this is a big chunk of extra 18-35s signing up to vote this time around vs 2015.

I get the impression* that turnout in the under 35s and under 25s will be far higher than in 2015, to an level that I think will make the pollsters corrected figures out by a significant margin (I've not calculated how significant, but could easily see it being worth something like a 2% swing maybe a lot more if May manages to put off older voters with her policies).

A spreadsheet that I did when in statto mode last night


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 24, 2017)

Have the pollsters already weighted their methods for the increased registrations this time around or does it happen after the fact? What I mean is, do they regularly re-weight their methods as they get new info about demographics of registrations or do they wait until after an election to see how it played out with demographic info from exit polls and adjust accordingly ready for next time?


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2017)

While half a million more have apparently registered before this election  than before the last, couldn't  this be just because voter registration has changed since then, meaning more people have to?


----------



## newbie (May 24, 2017)

I thought the anticipation was that moving from household to individual voter registration would weed out a lot of people?


----------



## gawkrodger (May 24, 2017)

when are the first polls coming out post-Manchester attack?


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2017)

killer b said:


> While half a million more have apparently registered before this election  than before the last, couldn't  this be just because voter registration has changed since then, meaning more people have to?


I'd imagine that a pretty big chuck of that 0.5m might well be those just too young to have qualified for the EU referendum that now need to register individually.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 24, 2017)

2 million have registered since the election was called - the majority of those (approx 1 million) being the very young, with the numbers dropping off the further up the age ranges you go. 

Some of these will of course be those who fell through the cracks from household > individual registration, but that's also not the whole story: those who were registered as part of a household before weren't necessarily going to vote. Those choosing to register as the election was called are more likely to, since it's a personal, positive act of registration rather than just being registered by default.


----------



## free spirit (May 24, 2017)

killer b said:


> While half a million more have apparently registered before this election  than before the last, couldn't  this be just because voter registration has changed since then, meaning more people have to?


the last election was already changing over to this system, though existing registrations at their parents etc would still have counted (and I think still would now). 

Possibly more people have got used to the system this time around, but one of the recent polls had something like 25% of under 35s who didn't vote in the EU referendum saying they were 10/10 definitely voting this time (IIRC), so all the signs are that the proportion of young people voting is going to be significantly higher than in the EU referendum, which in turn was already significantly higher than the last election.


----------



## free spirit (May 24, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> 2 million have registered since the election was called - the majority of those (approx 1 million) being the very young, with the numbers dropping off the further up the age ranges you go.
> 
> Some of these will of course be those who fell through the cracks from household > individual registration, but that's also not the whole story: those who were registered as part of a household before weren't necessarily going to vote. Those choosing to register as the election was called are more likely to, since it's a personal, positive act of registration rather than just being registered by default.


2,938,269 have registered, over 2 million of those are under 35.

All the increase in registration is from the under 35s, the majority from the under 25s, which is the opposite of what happened in the brexit referendum when the 25-34 registrations went up significantly but the under 25s stayed about the same as in 2015. It looks like a significant number of extra under 25s have cottoned on to how this democracy think works since Brexit and are intending to have their say this time around.

All the figures are here


----------



## William of Walworth (May 24, 2017)

gawkrodger said:


> when are the first polls coming out post-Manchester attack?




Be careful what you wish for


----------



## free spirit (May 24, 2017)

brogdale said:


> I'd imagine that a pretty big chuck of that 0.5m might well be those just too young to have qualified for the EU referendum that now need to register individually.


this are over 300k more new registrations in the 18-25 category than in the referendum, but there was actually a month longer from the may 2015 election to the referendum, so the number who'd turned 18 since the last election would have been higher then than it is now. So if anything there should have been an underlying reduction in the number registering for that reason between this time and the Eu referendum.


----------



## chilango (May 25, 2017)

Finally got YouGov'd. First since the election was called.


----------



## Wilf (May 25, 2017)

gawkrodger said:


> when are the first polls coming out post-Manchester attack?


Probably Sunday (for fieldwork to have been done over the last couple of days), unless someone has intentionally done a quick phone poll to be the first to see how the land lies, post atrocity (yuk).


----------



## Dogsauce (May 25, 2017)

There seemed to be a gap in polling before the Manchester attack, don't think I've seen anything from after the clusterfuck of the Tory manifesto & climbdown. Has any polling been published taken since/around then? Would they hold back, aware that reporting of it would be crowded out of the news?


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2017)

There had been a load of polls for the Sunday papers, the day before?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 25, 2017)

killer b said:


> There had been a load of polls for the Sunday papers, the day before?



Nothing taken on Sunday/Monday that I've seen reported (would they even poll people on a Sunday?), and May's 'team' seemed in complete disarray over the weekend, so wondered if the impact of that had been picked up.


----------



## chilango (May 25, 2017)

No mention of Mcr in the polling I've just done. Brexit, the NHS mostly


----------



## mikey mikey (May 25, 2017)

killer b said:


> There had been a load of polls for the Sunday papers, the day before?


link?


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> link?


a few of them are listed on this useful thread.


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2017)

killer b said:


> a few of them are listed on this useful thread.


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2017)

Back on stream...


----------



## JTG (May 25, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Back on stream...
> 
> View attachment 107714


For them that can't load up embedded tweets:

CON: 42% (-5) 
LAB: 34% (+5) 
LDEM: 9% (+1) 
UKIP: 4% (-2) 
GRN: 4% (-) 
(via @TNS_UK / 18 - 22 May)

All before Manchester

Britain Elects originally tweeted that with Tories at 32%. Hilarity ensued


----------



## JTG (May 25, 2017)

CON: 43% (-1) 
LAB: 38% (+3) 
LDEM: 10% (+1) 
UKIP: 4% (+1)

(via @YouGov / 24 - 25 May)

Bloody hellfire!


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2017)

fucking hell.


----------



## JTG (May 25, 2017)

killer b said:


> fucking hell.


Closer than the margin Miliband lost by two years ago


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 25, 2017)

How is that likely to translate into seats?


----------



## JimW (May 25, 2017)

Just googled to see if this was available:






It'll just make the late swing to the scum even more painful having been resigned


----------



## killer b (May 25, 2017)

worth reading their analysis - looks like it was probably even closer on Monday

YouGov |  Are the Tories losing ground or regaining it?


----------



## redsquirrel (May 25, 2017)

Those last two are really interesting, previously it looked like most the gain for Labour was from other parties/non-voters, but those two suggest that they could be starting to take votes from the Tories.


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> How is that likely to translate into seats?


Best to look at the poll of polls means for that sort of thing tbh.


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Those last two are really interesting, previously it looked like most the gain for Labour was from other parties/non-voters, but those two suggest that they could be starting to take votes from the Tories.


Losing the ability to pass on estate trumps strong and stable negotiator.


----------



## JTG (May 25, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> How is that likely to translate into seats?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 25, 2017)

Also from yougov:



...which sort of explains how stuff is moving. Dementia tax. Shout it loud.


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2017)

killer b said:


> worth reading their analysis - looks like it was probably even closer on Monday
> 
> YouGov |  Are the Tories losing ground or regaining it?


Quite a gender gap evident on that poll...
Men: CON 45 LAB 32 Women: CON 40 LAB 43​


----------



## JTG (May 25, 2017)

killer b said:


> worth reading their analysis - looks like it was probably even closer on Monday
> 
> YouGov |  Are the Tories losing ground or regaining it?


Fair
There seems to be a lot of stuff flying around social media about May's cutting of police numbers etc. Remains to be seen whether this gains traction, whether it hits home outside of the lefty bubble etc


----------



## redsquirrel (May 25, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Also from yougov:
> 
> View attachment 107719
> 
> ...which sort of explains how stuff is moving. Dementia tax. Shout it loud.


Does show that the Tories completely fucked up their manifesto.


----------



## Raheem (May 25, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> How is that likely to translate into seats?



electoralcalculs.co.uk says Tory majority of 28. No idea how reliable that is.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (May 25, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Does show that the Tories completely fucked up their manifesto.



I'd like to fuckin think so!


----------



## JTG (May 25, 2017)

Raheem said:


> electoralcalculs.co.uk says Tory majority of 28. No idea how reliable that is.


Depends on where the votes fall. If there's a high youth turnout, will this be concentrated in uni seats? The increased Tory vote - is that in their safe seats or in marginals? Etc etc etc


----------



## treelover (May 25, 2017)

Corbyn is to put the events in Manchester at the heart of a speech tomorrow, and link it in some way to foreign policy, just when the polls are going his way, he just can't help himself.

On Newsnight now, 

Guardian is now reporting May is going to push a new Prevent style agenda.


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2017)

Raheem said:


> electoralcalculs.co.uk says Tory majority of 28. No idea how reliable that is.


Maybe she'll end up with a majority of 12?


----------



## JTG (May 25, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Maybe she'll end up with a majority of 12?


Much as any Tory majority is awful news, that would be... a tiny little bit amusing


----------



## binka (May 25, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Maybe she'll end up with a majority of 12?


Would be fucking hillarious tbf


----------



## Raheem (May 25, 2017)

JTG said:


> Depends on where the votes fall. If there's a high youth turnout, will this be concentrated in uni seats? The increased Tory vote - is that in their safe seats or in marginals? Etc etc etc



There's also a calculator on ukpollingreport that says Tories 5 short, but that one doesn't allow you to put in a number for UKIP.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 25, 2017)

treelover said:


> Corbyn is to put the events in Manchester at the heart of a speech tomorrow, and link it in some way to foreign policy, just when the polls are going his way, he just can't help himself.



Depends what his analysis is exactly. He's been pretty vocal on our relationship with the Saudis in the past, and the influence they have on the spread of Salafi ideology worldwide. If he drums that one home I reckon it could actually do Labour some good.


----------



## JTG (May 25, 2017)

No idea whether this is accurate but hey ho:


----------



## treelover (May 25, 2017)

Yes, but four days after the bombing, the DM, Sun, etc won't be looking for nuance, Crosby and they will slaughter him, already the Maquis are having a go at him across the media, briefing against him, stick to the domestic agenda JC, we can win then.


----------



## JimW (May 25, 2017)

JTG said:


> No idea whether this is accurate but hey ho:


----------



## newbie (May 25, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Losing the ability to pass on estate trumps strong and stable negotiator.



the overriding impression of May in the last week is far from strong or stable


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2017)

treelover said:


> Yes, but four days after the bombing, the DM, Sun, etc won't be looking for nuance, Crosby and they will slaughter him, already the Maquis are having a go at him across the media, briefing against him, stick to the domestic agenda JC, we can win then.


Newsnight have resorted to Charles Clark to declare that Corbyn is "quite simply wrong".


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 25, 2017)

so any clue as to what the tory filth have lined up as a killer below the belt punch for the last week ?


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 25, 2017)

The cynical and pragmatic campaigners for Labour should go hard on cuts to police numbers and the dementia tax. 

The latter will continue to piss off those it first pissed off, and the former will catch those who care about security and usually turn to the tories to be hard on that sort of thing. 

Interesting times, indeed.

A person on the internet just posted this in response:


----------



## newbie (May 25, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Newsnight have resorted to Charles Clark to declare that Corbyn is "quite simply wrong".


about anything in particular or just in general?  The standard today quoted Glenda Jackson dissing Corbyn and praising May for being a grown-up.  drip drip drip...


----------



## redsquirrel (May 25, 2017)

treelover said:


> Corbyn is to put the events in Manchester at the heart of a speech tomorrow, and link it in some way to foreign policy, just when the polls are going his way, he just can't help himself.
> 
> On Newsnight now,
> 
> Guardian is now reporting May is going to push a new Prevent style agenda.


Are you seriously suggesting that after a major international incident, something that he is bound to the questioned on, something that the Tories will use to their advantage that his first post-incident speech should be about something else?

Utter fucking madness, he'd be crucified. Yes it probably would be to Labour's advantage if the rest of the campaign was focused on domestic stuff but they can't simply bury their head in the ground and pretend this week didn't happen. They might screw it up (though like ItWillNeverWorks say's I don't necessarily think an anti-Trump/anti-Saudi message would play badly) but knowing their weakness on this issue and how the Tories will attack them they have to address the issue.

The best thing for them is to get this over and then move the campaign back to domestic stuff for the last week/week and a half.


----------



## newbie (May 25, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> The cynical and pragmatic campaigners for Labour should go hard on cuts to police numbers and the dementia tax.


purely policy based campigning lets her off the hook.  She's chosen her campaign slogan carefully, let it haunt her. I got phone polled by Populus today, one of the questions was "_which leader can provide strong and stable government_?"  Oh, how I laughed, and got the interviewer to crack up too.  She is so vulnerable to people repeating _strong and stable_ / weak and wobbly.

She's not fit to be prime minister, she's buckled under pressure.

say it loud, say it often.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 25, 2017)

newbie said:


> purely policy based campigning lets her off the hook.  She's chosen her campaign slogan carefully, let it haunt her. I got phone polled by Populus today, one of the questions was "_which leader can provide strong and stable government_?"  Oh, how I laughed, and got the interviewer to crack up too.  She is so vulnerable to people repeating _strong and stable_ / weak and wobbly.
> 
> She's not fit to be prime minister, she's buckled under pressure.
> 
> say it loud, say it often.



Absolutely. I'm sure we can all agree I'm doing my part this evening by using the bbcqt hashtag to repeatedly tell everyone she's not strong and stable but weak and dangerous (focusing on police cuts). I'm certain I'll personally swing at least another couple of points for labour


----------



## redsquirrel (May 25, 2017)

When did you give up any politics beyond Labour?

Perfect example of why people should not join the LP.


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2017)

newbie said:


> about anything in particular or just in general?  The standard today quoted Glenda Jackson dissing Corbyn and praising May for being a grown-up.  drip drip drip...


Pretty much everything, I guess...but specifically to draw any correlation between UK foreign policy and U.K. Based terrorism.


----------



## rutabowa (May 25, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> When did you give up any politics beyond Labour?
> 
> Perfect example of why people should not join the LP.


It's a pretty busy time for the Labour Party specifically right now, to be fair.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 25, 2017)

So that means you have to put Labour before labour, and give up any politics beyond making sure the LP gets into power? 

Again a prefect example of the reason why people should not join the LP.


----------



## free spirit (May 25, 2017)

In the latest Yougov poll taking all responses, labour are only 2% behind the tories on 30% to 32%, with 15% don't knows, and of those don't knows 18% are now most likely to vote labour vs 16% for Tory, whereas last week more were likely to vote Tory than Labour.

There's also a firming up of the Labour vote's determination to vote, with 0% of their voters saying their likelihood to vote is between 0-4, vs 3% of the Tory vote.

Also the under 25s vote is really firming up, now with 63% definitely planning to vote, compared to 55% in the 25 to 49 age range.

Only one poll, but it certainly looks a hell of a lot better than a couple of weeks back, and the momentum definitely seems to be with Labour.


----------



## newbie (May 25, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> So that means you have to put Labour before labour, and give up any politics beyond making sure the LP gets into power?
> 
> Again a prefect example of the reason why people should not join the LP.


do you really fear a Labour government more than a tory one?


----------



## redsquirrel (May 25, 2017)

When did you last stop hitting your wife, newbie?


----------



## newbie (May 25, 2017)

it's a fair question, why not answer it.  you've launched an attack on support for the LP midway through a GE campaign.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 25, 2017)

I've done no such thing. I've criticised putting the Labour party before the working class.

You're as dishonest here as you were about the Glaberman quote.


----------



## Wilf (May 25, 2017)

The monumentally cynical, off the scale thing for labour to do would be to wheel out Andy Burnham alongside Corbyn, in another week or so. Hope they don't, don't think they will, don't think _either_ Corbyn or Burnham would do it.  But it just sits there as a kind of horror scenario. Please don't.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 25, 2017)

Wilf said:


> The monumentally cynical, off the scale thing for labour to do would be to wheel out Andy Burnham alongside Corbyn, in another week or so. Hope they don't, don't think they will, don't think _either_ Corbyn or Burnham would do it.  But it just sits there as a kind of horror scenario. Please don't.



I didn't watch question time but looking at twitter it sounds like Burnham said that tired old line about the Muslim community needing to do more. From what I understand, the bomber was reported on 5 different occasions and no action was taken, so it seems ridiculous not to point that out all things considered.


----------



## newbie (May 26, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I've done no such thing. I've criticised putting the Labour party before the working class.
> 
> You're as dishonest here as you were about the Glaberman quote.


answer the question, preferably without personal insults. Which potential future government do you fear most, Labour or Conservative?


----------



## redsquirrel (May 26, 2017)

Is that all you've got? Pathetic when did you stop hitting your wife bollocks. No actual attempt to deal with the political point I made. 

How about you answer a question, are you a member of the LP?


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> I didn't watch question time but looking at twitter it sounds like Burnham said that tired old line about the Muslim community needing to do more. From what I understand, the bomber was reported on 5 different occasions and no action was taken, so it seems ridiculous not to point that out all things considered.


Maybe the political class weren't so keen for folk to dwell on the question of why nothing was done with the intel.


----------



## newbie (May 26, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Is that all you've got? Pathetic when did you stop hitting your wife bollocks. No actual attempt to deal with the political point I made.
> 
> How about you answer a question, are you a member of the LP?


what, you're not prepared to answer a straight question?  It's pretty simple you know, which government do you fear least?

No.


----------



## JimW (May 26, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> I didn't watch question time but looking at twitter it sounds like Burnham said that tired old line about the Muslim community needing to do more. From what I understand, the bomber was reported on 5 different occasions and no action was taken, so it seems ridiculous not to point that out all things considered.


Just watching on catch-up and a Muslim woman in the audience did make the point that this bomber was reported.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 26, 2017)

When did you stop hitting your wife newbie? It's a straight question.


----------



## Wilf (May 26, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> I didn't watch question time but looking at twitter it sounds like Burnham said that tired old line about the Muslim community needing to do more. From what I understand, the bomber was reported on 5 different occasions and no action was taken, so it seems ridiculous not to point that out all things considered.


That's both a genuine and equally predictable line.  But I just hope that however Corbyn manages to push this election he keeps his principles in tact.  I don't actually agree with a good few of his principles or his overall belief in the British state, but most of all I hope he resists temptation.  There's actually scope for a bit of Corbynising at the moment - and that might be behind the 5% gap, a sense that his quieter clichés are better than May's squawkish clichés.  But then thinking about how any 'message' plays out for votes is a bit yuky.


----------



## newbie (May 26, 2017)

you can't make up your mind?


----------



## redsquirrel (May 26, 2017)

So are you still hitting your wife?


----------



## Fez909 (May 26, 2017)

From Reddit 



> Corbyn will never run
> 
> Corbyn will never get elected by the Labour members
> 
> ...


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 26, 2017)

Wilf said:


> That's both a genuine and equally predictable line.  But I just hope that however Corbyn manages to push this election he keeps his principles in tact.  I don't actually agree with a good few of his principles or his overall belief in the British state, but most of all I hope he resists temptation.  There's actually scope for a bit of Corbynising at the moment - and that might be behind the 5% gap, a sense that his quieter clichés are better than May's squawkish clichés.  But then thinking about how any 'message' plays out for votes is a bit yuky.



Well apparently his speech tomorrow will be focusing on how British foreign policy has gotten us into this mess in the first place. I don't disagree, and it needs stating. I'm a little nervous about what tone it'll take, it's one hell of a decisive subject, but he might as well go for broke now.


----------



## Wilf (May 26, 2017)

Anyway, expect plenty  'is this the actual beret Jeremy Corbyn used to wear when he was IRA Quartermaster...'. articles.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 26, 2017)

If IRA stuff is all they've got now I don't think there's that much of a reason to worry - it's been dragged out time and time again.

I'm still 90% certain someone in CCHQ and/or Progress/Watson is keeping something back for next week. They went too early with the IRA stuff, imo.


----------



## Wilf (May 26, 2017)

Been a weird campaign really. It was planned to be a May's image superimposed on top of Churchill, Thatcher and some unknown resolute anti-Eu negotiator.  Turned out May was hopeless and wooden when finally put in front of the voters - who'd have known it!  Then Corbyn, just doing Corbyn, backed up by only a tiny bit of the parliamentary party, well, what, I don't know - not really doing anything different, but creeping up in the polls for no apparent reason.  Feel a bit tacky extending that into 'post bomb polls', but yes, one unexpected post bomb poll.  Well... still 5 % behind.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 26, 2017)

Considering most of his people were probably preparing to triangulate the heck out of losing 50 odd seats, 5 points in it seems like a remarkable feat in itself. It's not a winning number, but denying May a landslide considering the sheer weight of so much crap against Corbyn and Labour more widely (the anti-Corbyn shit in the LP, the press, the general mood, Overton Window-shifting stuff over the years, etc) - that in itself has got to be seen as an achievement by his team I'd reckon. 

Was it someone on here or elsewhere who said that a near defeat for Labour is probably the worst the Labour right/moderates could hope for? 

A full on landslide for May and it's proof Corbyn is terrible and moving to the left is wrong. A narrow win and it gives those MPs some leverage as Corbyn wants to keep them onside to maintain a slim majority. But a near loss gives them little traction in either direction and proves that he can give a damn good fight and be damn popular _despite_ all the shit that has been flung. 

I'm not certain it's quite so cut and dried as all that, but I can see the logic of the argument.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 26, 2017)

You have to salute Corbyn - the amount of shit and backstabbing and derision he has had to take - and he has just continued exactly as before. And the reason he has endured it all - and refused to resign after the PLP vote of no confidence was not arrogance or ego or meglo-mania - but because he sees it as his role to fight for socialist values within the labour party - and to go would have been a betrayal.
Most people would have said "fuck this" and walked. But he has stuck it and - lo and behold - here we are and he is on course to give labour its highest vote in over 15 years on a genuinely left of centre manifesto, possibly even reducing - maybe even eliminating - the tory majority in an election that was supposed to crush the labour party and give the tories a 150 seat majority.
Amazing.
I have been repeatedly exasperated by some of his - and his team's - bouts of clod hopping rubishness - but fuck it jezza - just keep doing what your doing you fucking beauty.


----------



## free spirit (May 26, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Considering most of his people were probably preparing to triangulate the heck out of losing 50 odd seats, 5 points in it seems like a remarkable feat in itself. It's not a winning number, but denying May a landslide considering the sheer weight of so much crap against Corbyn and Labour more widely (the anti-Corbyn shit in the LP, the press, the general mood, Overton Window-shifting stuff over the years, etc) - that in itself has got to be seen as an achievement by his team I'd reckon.
> 
> Was it someone on here or elsewhere who said that a near defeat for Labour is probably the worst the Labour right/moderates could hope for?
> 
> ...


the worst result for them would be a Corbyn victory of any ilk, as that would completely destroy the argument they've used for the last 3 decades about the need to move Labour to accept the neoliberal consensus to win elections. It would have gone, and they couldn't use it again for at least a generation.

In a narrow corbyn victory they'd have been shown to have been completely wrong about him and his strategy, and Corbyn could mostly rely on support from SNP, Plaid, Greens to push through most issues that the right wingers might rebel on.

A minority Labour government that needs some level of support from those parties on every bill would be more problematic for him, and would still give the right wingers something to cling on to in terms of his electability.


----------



## Raheem (May 26, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> You have to salute Corbyn - the amount of shit and backstabbing and derision he has had to take - and he has just continued exactly as before. And the reason he has endured it all - and refused to resign after the PLP vote of no confidence was not arrogance or ego or meglo-mania - but because he sees it as his role to fight for socialist values within the labour party - and to go would have been a betrayal.
> Most people would have said "fuck this" and walked. But he has stuck it and - lo and behold - here we are and he is on course to give labour its highest vote in over 15 years on a genuinely left of centre manifesto, possibly even reducing - maybe even eliminating - the tory majority in an election that was supposed to crush the labour party and give the tories a 150 seat majority.
> Amazing.
> I have been repeatedly exasperated by some of his - and his team's - bouts of clod hopping rubishness - but fuck it jezza - just keep doing what your doing you fucking beauty.



With you, but don't cheer too loudly before the fat Dimbleby sings.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 26, 2017)

According to Sky:

Jeremy Corbyn will say Government's responsibility is to "ensure foreign policy reduces rather than increases the threat to this country"

That's a good line.

I'm curious to see how the polls look at the end of this week.


----------



## Riklet (May 26, 2017)

Labour must be gearing up to use sthing about May as home secretary before her and failure to effectively deal with people like the Manchester bomber, despite mass surveillance. 

Maybe next week.


----------



## free spirit (May 26, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> You have to salute Corbyn - the amount of shit and backstabbing and derision he has had to take - and he has just continued exactly as before. And the reason he has endured it all - and refused to resign after the PLP vote of no confidence was not arrogance or ego or meglo-mania - but because he sees it as his role to fight for socialist values within the labour party - and to go would have been a betrayal.
> Most people would have said "fuck this" and walked. But he has stuck it and - lo and behold - here we are and he is on course to give labour its highest vote in over 15 years on a genuinely left of centre manifesto, possibly even reducing - maybe even eliminating - the tory majority in an election that was supposed to crush the labour party and give the tories a 150 seat majority.
> Amazing.
> I have been repeatedly exasperated by some of his - and his team's - bouts of clod hopping rubishness - but fuck it jezza - just keep doing what your doing you fucking beauty.


It's a very odd election, i'm finding it far easier to round up volunteers from the Green Party to come and distribute a leaflet in parts of the pudsey constituency where we've stood down in favour of Labour, than I am for either the Green Party candidate in our constituency or the regional target constituency.

Took some doing to get permission to do this leaflet against some firmly dug in heels, but the vast majority of GP members locally are more rooting for a Corbyn victory than they are for any potential Green gains.

Compared to the last election when we were all very happy to fight a tory light labour party from the left and had members joining us in droves.


----------



## JTG (May 26, 2017)

JTG said:


> For them that can't load up embedded tweets:
> 
> CON: 42% (-5)
> LAB: 34% (+5)
> ...


Incidentally, UK Polling Report notes that TNS use a turnout model of weighting that relies heavily on age - so if the under 25s ARE intending to vote more heavily than usual then their polls probably overestimate the Tory lead


----------



## chilango (May 26, 2017)

JTG said:


> CON: 43% (-1)
> LAB: 38% (+3)
> LDEM: 10% (+1)
> UKIP: 4% (+1)
> ...



How big's the sample? I switched from "possible Green" to "probable Labour" in my YouGov polling...I'm probably a chunk of that +3%


----------



## Bingo (May 26, 2017)

I'll come and leaflet in Pudsey for you!


----------



## bemused (May 26, 2017)

chilango said:


> How big's the sample? I switched from "possible Green" to "probable Labour" in my YouGov polling...I'm probably a chunk of that +3%



2052.


----------



## Teaboy (May 26, 2017)

I'm not sure what to think of these polls, after recent experience I have lost a lot of faith in the accuracy of polling.  That being said the tories must be shitting it now and its hilarious.  You can already hear them sharpening their knives for May, an election called so she could have a stronger influence over her party could yet weaken her.

Its been an astonishingly crap campaign so far, the dementia tax, weak and wobbly - what on earth are they paying Crosby for and how much?   Still if they didn't learn the lessons of Goldsmith's terrible mayoral campaign then they've only got themselves to blame.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 26, 2017)

Yeah the main thing to do with these polls is just to sit and enjoy the thought of Theresa May contemplating her place history as the PM who engineered her own downfall after less than a year in power.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 26, 2017)

All corbyn needs to do is the big stadium show on election eve...


----------



## chilango (May 26, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> All corbyn needs to do is the big stadium show on election eve...


----------



## bemused (May 26, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> I'm not sure what to think of these polls, after recent experience I have lost a lot of faith in the accuracy of polling.  That being said the tories must be shitting it now and its hilarious.  You can already hear them sharpening their knives for May, an election called so she could have a stronger influence over her party could yet weaken her.
> 
> Its been an astonishingly crap campaign so far, the dementia tax, weak and wobbly - what on earth are they paying Crosby for and how much?   Still if they didn't learn the lessons of Goldsmith's terrible mayoral campaign then they've only got themselves to blame.



They deserve a kick up the arse.  

May has obviously decided she's getting lots of seats so thought it worth being 'radical'.

Why on Earth is she talking about fox hunting? I've never met anyone who cares about it.

She had a good thing going with the competent middle manager image. Personally, I don't want anyone being radical for the next few years I want some boring Sir Humphry type who can get us through Brexit without leaving everyone jobless.


----------



## newbie (May 26, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> I'm not sure what to think of these polls, after recent experience I have lost a lot of faith in the accuracy of polling.


I find that very hard to believe 


> That being said the tories must be shitting it now and its hilarious.


when I got phoned by Populus yesterday I was rather taken aback, I've never been asked before, so had to make a hasty decision on what to say.  I went with "Labour" as the answer to almost everything, just to feed that hilarity (though baulked at the local candidate question and might have used the word 'twat').  Afterwards I wondered if I should have said "May" everywhere, just to feed their complacency. What the polls say now has little meaning and might just impel shy tories out to vote.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 26, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> According to Sky:
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn will say Government's responsibility is to "ensure foreign policy reduces rather than increases the threat to this country"
> 
> ...


It is a good line. But I heard Radio 4 briefly this morning and a presenter was pressing a reporter to say it was "inappropriate" (not wrong, not unjustified, but inappropriate), which they eventually agreed to say it was. 

It was quite an remarkable piece of broadcasting and reminded me why I stick to Radio 3 these days.


----------



## Teaboy (May 26, 2017)

bemused said:


> Why on Earth is she talking about fox hunting? I've never met anyone who cares about it.



Yeah the only people who will support that are tribalist tories living in true blue constituencies.  I doubt she even believes in it herself it was just something she can throw in for the faithful, get them onside.  Its a bit like the stupid and unachievable immigration targets, just thrown in to appease the more wingnut side of the party.  I read these things as they are about to get shafted on the Brexit negotiations so they've been thrown a sop.


----------



## chilango (May 26, 2017)

newbie said:


> I find that very hard to believe
> 
> when I got phoned by Populus yesterday I was rather taken aback, I've never been asked before, so had to make a hasty decision on what to say.  I went with "Labour" as the answer to almost everything, just to feed that hilarity (though baulked at the local candidate question and might have used the word 'twat').  Afterwards I wondered if I should have said "May" everywhere, just to feed their complacency. What the polls say now has little meaning and might just impel shy tories out to vote.



Dunno, it's tricky.


I want the Tory vote to remain smug and complacent
I want the Tories themselves to panic and and fuck up in response
I want the non-tories to see that actually, y'know what?, Labour could win this
I want Corbyn to remain the plucky underdog
I want a Labour win to remain a shock that appeals to those of us looking to cause a shock
Not sure what polling could best fulfill all of that.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 26, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah the only people who will support that are tribalist tories living in true blue constituencies.  I doubt she even believes in it herself it was just something she can throw in for the faithful, get them onside.  Its a bit like the stupid and unachievable immigration targets, just thrown in to appease the more wingnut side of the party.  I read these things as they are about to get shafted on the Brexit negotiations so they've been thrown a sop.


_Kill elephants! If God hadn't wanted us to hunt elephants he wouldn't have put  a precious commodity on their faces._

I'm not sure there was much planning in it. They thought they could say anything and still win.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 26, 2017)

(They will, incidentally, still win. The UKIP vote is all going to the Tories and the Lib Dems are still nowhere).


----------



## Dogsauce (May 26, 2017)

bemused said:


> Why on Earth is she talking about fox hunting? I've never met anyone who cares about it.



I know plenty that give a fuck about it, but not in a way that will help May.

We already had a vote on fox hunting with dogs last decade and it was decided to ban it. I thought it had been decided that you can't just keep voting on stuff until you get the result you want?


----------



## bemused (May 26, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> I thought it had been decided that you can't just keep voting on stuff until you get the result you want?



That is how politics works.


----------



## hot air baboon (May 26, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah the only people who will support that are tribalist tories living in true blue constituencies.



I think its a broader town vs country constituency than that it will play to - I don't think foxes are hugely popular in farming communities


----------



## Teaboy (May 26, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> I think its a broader town vs country constituency than that it will play to - I don't think foxes are hugely popular in farming communities



They're not very popular with me either at the moment, little fuckers have worked out how to unlock and get into the small green organic waste recycling bins.  I'm not yet, however, tempted to dress up in red velvet and smear blood down my 12 year old daughter's face.

I just can't see this winning any new votes.


----------



## chilango (May 26, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> They're not very popular with me either at the moment, little fuckers have worked out how to unlock and get into the small green organic waste recycling bins.  I'm not yet, however, tempted to dress up in red velvet and smear blood down my 12 year old daughter's face.
> 
> I just can't see this winning any new votes.



I don;t think its about winning new votes. If anything stands out about the Tory campaign its that it really doesn't seem to be aiming at that. It's taken it for granted that that they'll pile on the votes 'cos y'know? Corbyn and UKIP and that.

It's a display of power. We've won. You can't touch us. Type of thing.


----------



## newbie (May 26, 2017)

chilango said:


> Dunno, it's tricky.
> 
> 
> I want the Tory vote to remain smug and complacent
> ...



well I'd certainly prefer not to live under another Conservative government, that's for sure. My suspicion is that this is peaking too soon, just as Cleggmania did at almost the same point in 2010


----------



## kabbes (May 26, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> (They will, incidentally, still win. The UKIP vote is all going to the Tories and the Lib Dems are still nowhere).


That cross-break is quite incredible reading though.  Labour now the most popular party for the under-50s, let alone the under-40s of previous polling.  And as many 2015 Tories are now going Labour as vice versa, which we had been asked to believe would be an impossibility under Corbyn.

It's the UKIP move to the Tories remains the killer breakout at the moment, no doubt.  But the change in all other trends in recent weeks is remarkable.

I think it justifies what a lot of us have been saying about Corbyn -- who can say that a man who already won two elections is unelectable?  Let's see what happens in reality instead of all this theorycrafting.


----------



## chilango (May 26, 2017)

newbie said:


> well I'd certainly prefer not to live under another Conservative government, that's for sure. My suspicion is that this is peaking too soon, just as Cleggmania did at almost the same point in 2010
> View attachment 107747



That yellow line disgusts me.


----------



## kabbes (May 26, 2017)

newbie said:


> well I'd certainly prefer not to live under another Conservative government, that's for sure. My suspicion is that this is peaking too soon, just as Cleggmania did at almost the same point in 2010
> View attachment 107747


But for Labour to win, it needs to have not yet peaked.  That should be the goal.


----------



## newbie (May 26, 2017)

kabbes said:


> But for Labour to win, it needs to have not yet peaked.  That should be the goal.


quite so, which is why I'm slightly concerned that using my starring performance in an opinion poll to boost the LP might have been wrongly pitched.


----------



## chilango (May 26, 2017)

Just got YouGov'd again  Moved to an "almost certain" Labour vote.


----------



## JimW (May 26, 2017)

chilango said:


> Just got YouGov'd again  Moved to an "almost certain" Labour vote.


I've finally met one of they fabled floating voters


----------



## chilango (May 26, 2017)

JimW said:


> I've finally met one of they fabled floating voters



Carefully constructed to squeeze as many pennies as possible out of YouGov.


----------



## chilango (May 26, 2017)

chilango said:


> Carefully constructed to squeeze as many pennies as possible out of YouGov.




I've gone 2015: Might or not vote, don't know who for > possible Green > probable Green > actually voted Green > 2016: Possible Green > Might or might not vote > slight chance of Green > 2017: possible Green > slight chance of Green, might not vote > possible Labour > almost certain Labour.

Kerching!


----------



## newbie (May 26, 2017)

chilango said:


> Carefully constructed to squeeze as many pennies as possible out of YouGov.


you get paid for fake views?


----------



## chilango (May 26, 2017)

newbie said:


> you get paid for fake views?



I prefer to describe them as "curated".


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 26, 2017)

bemused said:


> Why on Earth is she talking about fox hunting? I've never met anyone who cares about it.



Even in rural areas most people hate hunting and hunters. It's not a vote winner at all. Theresa May doesn't know that though, because she wouldn't know public opinion if you smacked her in the shins with it. Which in itself is not unusual, but she seems to have nobody working for her who can come up with anything remotely popular either. 

And I bet whoever is doing her PR/communications is being paid stupid money. To make a less charming Thatcher look like, well, a less charming Thatcher.


----------



## BigTom (May 26, 2017)

chilango said:


> I've gone 2015: Might or not vote, don't know who for > possible Green > probable Green > actually voted Green > 2016: Possible Green > Might or might not vote > slight chance of Green > 2017: possible Green > slight chance of Green, might not vote > possible Labour > almost certain Labour.
> 
> Kerching!



lol, looks familiar  I'm currently telling yougov I will definitely vote but don't know who for. Previously (as in over the last 5 years) I've said probably vote, probably green but didn't actually vote in 2010/2015, now definite vote and probably labour. I'm hoping for lots of polls over the next two weeks.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> All corbyn needs to do is the big stadium show on election eve...


now I'm imagining him cycling around london 'getting the band back together' in one of those pathe brit films funded with film4 money


----------



## chilango (May 26, 2017)

BigTom said:


> lol, looks familiar  I'm currently telling yougov I will definitely vote but don't know who for. Previously (as in over the last 5 years) I've said probably vote, probably green but didn't actually vote in 2010/2015, now definite vote and probably labour. I'm hoping for lots of polls over the next two weeks.


----------



## The Pale King (May 26, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> now I'm imagining him cycling around london 'getting the band back together' in one of those pathe brit films funded with film4 money



Played by Bill Nighy presumably


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2017)

The Pale King said:


> Played by Bill Nighy presumably


we'll get Robbie Coltrane in for Tom Watson


----------



## The Pale King (May 26, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> we'll get Robbie Coltrane in for Tom Watson



Ken Stott if he's unavailable


----------



## alsoknownas (May 26, 2017)

chilango said:


>


I had a dream about one of those the other day, but it was full of baked beans.  There were kids with their hands out trying to scoop up the scraps.  Sure there's a political metaphor in there somewhere.


----------



## Fez909 (May 26, 2017)

Ashcroft's polling suggest Tory majority of 142 is possible (even after the dementia tax fallout)

http://www.conservativehome.com/pla...a-potential-conservative-majority-of-142.html


----------



## bi0boy (May 26, 2017)

Nick Clegg’s bounce changes everything


----------



## Bingo (May 26, 2017)

I dunno about that. I was expecting the polls to start to go back in May's direction again after the Manchester bomb, but the opposite is happening...


----------



## redsquirrel (May 26, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Ashcroft's polling suggest Tory majority of 142 is possible (even after the dementia tax fallout)
> 
> http://www.conservativehome.com/pla...a-potential-conservative-majority-of-142.html


Piece in the Guardian arguing that there could be a even bigger Troy majority (though pleasingly also that Farron might lose his seat). It's a little handwavium TBH, but the general thrust, that the increase is the Labour vote may be in seats that aren't really in play isn't totally daft.


----------



## JTG (May 26, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Piece in the Guardian arguing that there could be a even bigger Troy majority (though pleasingly also that Farron might lose his seat). It's a little handwavium TBH, but the general thrust, that the increase is the Labour vote may be in seats that aren't really in play isn't totally daft.


This assumption that the UKIP vote is transferring wholesale to the Tories - I'm not buying. I reckon around 15-20% is going Labour, some is gonna stay home. 
Overall that article seems very keen to believe what it's saying. I don't think things are nearly that bad for Labour right now


----------



## Fez909 (May 26, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Piece in the Guardian arguing that there could be a even bigger Troy majority (though pleasingly also that Farron might lose his seat). It's a little handwavium TBH, but the general thrust, that the increase is the Labour vote may be in seats that aren't really in play isn't totally daft.


Isn't it as likely that the Labour gains are in Tory stongholds? The evidence for the Guardian theory is flimsy, I reckon.

I don't think any of the polling data is good enough to show either way.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 26, 2017)

JTG said:


> This assumption that the UKIP vote is transferring wholesale to the Tories - I'm not buying. I reckon around 15-20% is going Labour, some is gonna stay home.
> Overall that article seems very keen to believe what it's saying. I don't think things are nearly that bad for Labour right now


Oh I agree, I don't believe a 200+ majority is on cards (unless Labour do something mental in the next 10 days). I mean for a start if you go with that chart then you're predicting the UKIP vote will be higher in London than the rest of the country, which is clearly batshit. The relative errors for Lab/Con will be less but they will still be very significant, and while they are attempting to account for regional effects they are total neglecting constituency effects. 

But even with all those qualifications I think the underlying point - the the increase in the share of the vote needs to be in the 'correct' seats is true. If this increase in Labour's vote is from former voters in safe seats coming back to them, or young people energised by Corbyn in safe Tory seats (not bizarre hypotheses) then that doesn't really help them in terms of seats.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 26, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Isn't it as likely that the Labour gains are in Tory stongholds? The evidence for the Guardian theory is flimsy, I reckon.


That's what that piece is saying, that Labour will (or could) do better in the SE and SW than their national share but that they are starting from such a low base in those places it will mean fuck all. While a below average performance in places like the Midlands could hurt them badly.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 26, 2017)

If polls have shifted significantly it could be problematic for the Tory campaign. Although they have much more money they have less people on the streets (due to most people not being assholes) so tend to be very targeted in their campaigning, they might be fighting the wrong battles now. Labour seems to have more boots on the ground, so are getting better coverage, so for them it might be less of a problem if different constituencies are now in play.


----------



## squirrelp (May 26, 2017)

I think this could be a monumental upset. A possible Labour landslide.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 26, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> I think this could be a monumental upset. A possible Labour landslide.



I wouldn't put too much money on that.


----------



## Raheem (May 26, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Piece in the Guardian arguing that there could be a even bigger Troy majority (though pleasingly also that Farron might lose his seat). It's a little handwavium TBH, but the general thrust, that the increase is the Labour vote may be in seats that aren't really in play isn't totally daft.



The general point that geographic distribution is true, of course. A couple of things, though. The article seems to be based on a YouGov poll from a fortnight ago which had Labour on 31%. The latest YouGov poll has Labour on 38%. So the data they are using is stale, including the regional variances. Also, it would surely cut both ways. For example, the article points to a startling 7% variance in the Tory vote in the North East, with the implication that this means they're going to be picking up seats left right and centre. But most of the NE constituencies are solidly Labour, so they are surely actually going to be piling on votes in places where they can't win, in just the same way as Labour might do down south.


----------



## Rimbaud (May 27, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> I think this could be a monumental upset. A possible Labour landslide.



If Corbyn ends up beating Blair's 1997 43％ vote share I think I would actually die from laughing.


----------



## chilango (May 27, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Piece in the Guardian arguing that there could be a even bigger Troy majority (though pleasingly also that Farron might lose his seat). It's a little handwavium TBH, but the general thrust, that the increase is the Labour vote may be in seats that aren't really in play isn't totally daft.



It's just a sneaky voting reform / progressive alliance plea.


----------



## chilango (May 27, 2017)

I think, as I've said all along*, that not many seats will actually change hands, so it will be about how the % share of the vote can be spun. 


*I should remind everyone that I confidently predicted wins for Miliband in 2015 and Remain, so treat my predictions with the scorn they deserve!


----------



## Wilf (May 27, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> If Corbyn ends up beating Blair's 1997 43％ vote share I think I would actually die from laughing.


Or, more likely, Blair's 35% in 2005.


----------



## Wilf (May 27, 2017)

Latest poll has 8% gap:
Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2017 - Wikipedia
It's a very large sample (6,000), but done by Survey Monkey for the Sun.  I'm not minded to click through for the details.


----------



## newbie (May 27, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Latest poll has 8% gap:
> Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2017 - Wikipedia
> It's a very large sample (6,000), but done by Survey Monkey for the Sun.  I'm not minded to click through for the details.


the Sun attributes the rather startling 9% support the Greens attract in Wiki to 'others' but doesn't produce any analysis.


----------



## Wilf (May 27, 2017)

newbie said:


> the Sun attributes the rather startling 9% support the Greens attract in Wiki to 'others' but doesn't produce any analysis.


I think that's actually green, nats and others, but yeah, not sure why it isn't disaggregated.  Adds to the idea there was  a slightly dodgy methodology in play here, even if the 8% gap was consistent with the direction of travel in the polls more generally.


----------



## bi0boy (May 27, 2017)

A whole bunch of polls tonight, should be interesting.


----------



## Wilf (May 27, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> A whole bunch of polls tonight, should be interesting.


Go on then, I'll make a pointless prediction: they will show Tory leads of 10 - 17%.


----------



## Raheem (May 27, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Latest poll has 8% gap:
> Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2017 - Wikipedia
> It's a very large sample (6,000), but done by Survey Monkey for the Sun.  I'm not minded to click through for the details.



There doesn't seem to be any published data or methodology for this apart from what is in the article, so i think it can probably be considered junk. AFAICT, SurveyMonkey will find you people to complete your online survey by attaching it to competitions and things like that. Maybe it's possible that you can get a decent poll that way, but if they won't tell us how they did it, we have no way of knowing.


----------



## Wilf (May 27, 2017)

Raheem said:


> There doesn't seem to be any published data or methodology for this apart from what is in the article, so i think it can probably be considered junk. AFAICT, SurveyMonkey will find you people to complete your online survey by attaching it to competitions and things like that. Maybe it's possible that you can get a decent poll that way, but if they won't tell us how they did it, we have no way of knowing.


Yeah, survey monkey is usually just a quick and dirty commercial tool for doing surveys. Not sure whether survey monkey themselves have set something up with all the normal methodological safety nets in place for this survey. The fact that they had all the 'smaller' parties bundled under one figure suggests not.


----------



## free spirit (May 27, 2017)

Interesting analysis of the changes to the weighting given since the last election by the different polling companies. This confirms what I'd been thinking, and means that IMO they're going to have swung too far the other way and are going to be over predicting the Tory vote and under predicting the Labour vote in their headline figures because the youth vote is so much more engaged this time around, and will almost certainly vote in much higher numbers than in 2015.


> *ComRes* have changed their turnout model, so it is based more on respondents’ demographics rather than how likely they claim they are to vote. The effect of this is essentially to downweight people who are younger and more working class on the assumption that the pattern of turnout that we’ve seen at past elections remains pretty steady. *ICM* have a method that seems very similar in its aim (I’m not sure of the technicalities) – weighting the data so that the pattern of turnout by age & social grade is the same as in 2015.
> *Kantar* (TNS) have a turnout model that is partially based on respondents age (so again, assuming that younger people are less likely to vote) and partially on their self-reported likelihood.
> *ORB* weight their data by education and age so that it matches not the electorate as a whole, but the profile of people who the 2015 British Election Study who actually voted (they also use the usual self-reported likelihood to vote weighting on top of this).
> *Opinium*, *MORI* and *YouGov* still base their turnout models on people’s answers rather than their demographics, but they have all made changes. YouGov and MORI now weight down people who didn’t vote in the past, *Opinium* downweight people who say they will vote for a party but disapprove of its leader.



So for example Yougov are weighting down people who didn't vote in 2015, but there's something like 25% of the younger age range who didn't vote in the referendum who're saying they will definitely (10/10) vote this time, and they're mostly voting for Labour.

Without the weighting the last Yougov polling only had labour 2% behind with 15% don't knows still to play for that includes 11% of those who voted Labour in 2015.


----------



## bi0boy (May 27, 2017)

Given that they have been overstating the Tories since forever, I don't see why this election should suddenly be the one in which their methodology changes actually work. They'll just have more excuses like "oops Tory voters were even more shy this time than previously so 90% of the DKs went blue, oh well maybe next time we can fix that"


----------



## Wilf (May 27, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Go on then, I'll make a pointless prediction: they will show Tory leads of 10 - 17%.


A 10 and a 12 so far:
Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2017 - Wikipedia


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 27, 2017)

I've been reading quite a few interesting pieces from NumbrCrunchrPolitics (@NCPoliticsUK) on Twitter today. They predicted that the 2015 polls were wrong, iirc.

My feeling is their general gist seems to be that the Tories will still win by a decent margin and that most polling atm is likely incorrect to at least some degree because of changes of weighting and just how febrile and uncertain everything is.


----------



## bi0boy (May 27, 2017)

free spirit said:


> Interesting analysis of the changes to the weighting given since the last election by the different polling companies. This confirms what I'd been thinking, and means that IMO they're going to have swung too far the other way and are going to be over predicting the Tory vote and under predicting the Labour vote in their headline figures because the youth vote is so much more engaged this time around, and will almost certainly vote in much higher numbers than in 2015.
> 
> 
> So for example Yougov are weighting down people who didn't vote in 2015, but there's something like 25% of the younger age range who didn't vote in the referendum who're saying they will definitely (10/10) vote this time, and they're mostly voting for Labour.
> ...



Young people never turn out on the day as much as they say they will, and I don't see that being any different this year. I reckon only 7 in 10 of the 10/10 definitely will vote under 25s will bother.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 27, 2017)

Some Mirror tactics to counter the awful LibDem tactics (but still lol): How just 639 people could stop a Tory election majority


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 27, 2017)

On who is most likely to protect the interests of older people dependent on the social care system: T. May: 20% J. Corbyn: 43%

ComRes.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 27, 2017)

Full list:


----------



## marty21 (May 27, 2017)

The bookies are getting worried , I put a tenner on Labour getting the most seats at 15/1 , (my mum asked me to put a tenner on ) they are offering me a cash out option of about £12. And my £3 at 28/1 on Labour getting over 251 seats ,cash out is currently £6.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 27, 2017)

Westminster voting intention: 

CON: 46% (-2) 
LAB: 34% (+4) 
LDEM: 8% (-2) 
UKIP: 5% (-) 
GRN: 2% (-1) 
(via @ComRes / 24 - 26 May)


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 27, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Westminster voting intention:
> 
> CON: 46% (-2)
> LAB: 34% (+4)
> ...



Not so inspiring, that one.


----------



## chilango (May 27, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Not so inspiring, that one.



Still trending in the right directions


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 27, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Not so inspiring, that one.





chilango said:


> Still trending in the right directions



That's the thing. It's about movement in each poll. The ComRes one had Labour lower than the YouGov one to begin with, so while YouGov showed a smaller margin the movement in both directions are largely consistent between each poll. If anyone was expecting all the other polls to show a 5 point margin they were deluding themselves. It's the movement that matters when showing what's happening - and the final numbers will differ from poll to poll.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 27, 2017)

I just did a little anticipatory wee with excitement.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> That's the thing. It's about movement in each poll. The ComRes one had Labour lower than the YouGov one to begin with, so while YouGov showed a smaller margin the movement in both directions are largely consistent between each poll. If anyone was expecting all the other polls to show a 5 point margin they were deluding themselves. It's the movement that matters when showing what's happening - and the final numbers will differ from poll to poll.


Some interesting findings in that ComRes..


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2017)

Latest one...


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2017)

Latest, latest one...


----------



## redsquirrel (May 27, 2017)

Raheem said:


> But most of the NE constituencies are solidly Labour, so they are surely actually going to be piling on votes in places where they can't win, in just the same way as Labour might do down south.


At the height of the Tory peak, some of those seats in the NE looked, if not vulnerable, possible - Hartlepool for instance.


----------



## Raheem (May 27, 2017)

ICM:

CON: 46% (-1)
LAB: 32% (-1)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
UKIP: 5% (+1)
GRN: 2% (-)

Fieldwork 24-26 May.

Not looking so cheery.


----------



## Rimbaud (May 28, 2017)

Raheem said:


> ICM:
> 
> CON: 46% (-1)
> LAB: 32% (-1)
> ...



The ICM polls have been outliers from the beginning, giving the Tories a much bigger lead than other polls. As others have said, it is the direction of travel which matters - based on recent polls however, it does seem that Labour's support may have reached it's peak, or maybe Corbyn's terrorism speech hasn't gone down well.


----------



## chilango (May 28, 2017)

...or simply that the momentum he was building up got interrupted and hasn't managed to get going again.


----------



## bi0boy (May 28, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> The ICM polls have been outliers from the beginning, giving the Tories a much bigger lead than other polls. As others have said, it is the direction of travel which matters - based on recent polls however, it does seem that Labour's support may have reached it's peak, or maybe Corbyn's terrorism speech hasn't gone down well.



Because the polls are so methodologically flawed, it generally turns out that one of the 'outliers' is closest to the actual result. Which side of the polling average that will be this time round is of course a matter of speculation.


----------



## free spirit (May 28, 2017)

Some further analysis on the rise of the youth vote...

In the IPSO mori polls, comparing the latest poll with the last poll before the 2015 election...

In the under 25s category there's been a jump to 90% saying they're between 8-10 our of 10 like ly to vote vs 77% in 2015.

In the 25-35 category that's now at 87% between 8-10 out of 10 likely to vote vs 83% last time.

Interestingly the 35-44 age range likelihood to vote has fallen from 81% to 73%, and the upper age ranges have also fallen slightly (though may not be statistically significant)

One factor that is going to skew the polls is that 29% of 18-24s have picked 8 out of 10 as their likelihood to vote, which is a far higher level than any other age range (no others are in double figures), but the headline voting figures for Ipso come only from those who answered 9 or 10/10 likely to vote.

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default...ssets/Docs/Polls/polmon_april15_vi_tables.pdf
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2017-05/pm-may-2017-tables.pdf


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 29, 2017)

chilango said:


> ...or simply that the momentum he was building up got interrupted and hasn't managed to get going again.



yeah - prior to manchester Teresa  may was on the ropes and labour had the momentum. My feeling is that the polls wont change much now.


----------



## magneze (May 29, 2017)

Is there any Scotland specific polling? Is there movement?


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 29, 2017)

Latest poll from Survation 

CON: 43% (-) 
LAB: 37% (+3) 
LDEM: 8% (-) 
UKIP: 4% (-) (26-27 May)

looks like labour is gaining from the "dont knows" rather than the tories - and probably cant squeeze much more out of the lib dems/UKIP/greens. 
All We need is a UKIP revival to take 5% of the tories and its the red flag over downing street!


----------



## free spirit (May 29, 2017)

What we need is more of the former UKIP vote to end up balking at the thought of voting Tory when it comes to it and either staying home, switching back to Labour or voting UKIP, but there/s no option for voting UKIP in 200 of the key seats so it's mainly down to the first 2 options.

Though some of the polling is showing a bit of a swing from UKIP to Green, presumably as an anti-establishment vote.

Looks like the Greens are going to take a battering in most places, but hopefully can do enough on a local level in a couple of places to end up with an extra MP or 2.


----------



## treelover (May 29, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> Latest poll from Survation
> 
> CON: 43% (-)
> LAB: 37% (+3)
> ...



UKIP are offering a national Dementia Strategy/Service, as well as some other policies that may seem attractive to certain cohorts.


----------



## JTG (May 29, 2017)

free spirit said:


> What we need is more of the former UKIP vote to end up balking at the thought of voting Tory when it comes to it and either staying home, switching back to Labour or voting UKIP, but there/s no option for voting UKIP in 200 of the key seats so it's mainly down to the first 2 options.
> 
> Though some of the polling is showing a bit of a swing from UKIP to Green, presumably as an anti-establishment vote.
> 
> Looks like the Greens are going to take a battering in most places, but hopefully can do enough on a local level in a couple of places to end up with an extra MP or 2.


I do wonder whether some of those extra % points for the Tories are very soft indeed and won't turn out for them - last minute stay at homes or switching to older habits in the booth.

Really can't see the Greens winning Bristol West despite them trying to hype it. West feels like an increased Labour vote going by friends there and looking at the poster game - this is one constituency where people aren't shy about putting up posters and stakeboards for their choices. The students will seal it for Labour.

I do also wonder whether there's some kind of 'deny May a landslide' effect that could end up denying them even more than that - people who aren't wildly opposed to the Tories but don't want them to have carte blanche. If enough people in the right places think this way then they lose their majority entirely. Just thinking out loud really


----------



## Bingo (May 29, 2017)

I agree, a lot of people my Dad's generation are lifelong Tory voters but I don't think they will be able to stomach a vote for May this time... I reckon quite a few will stay at home.


----------



## J Ed (May 29, 2017)

Is this really possible?


----------



## mikey mikey (May 29, 2017)

An attempt to get the Tory vote out using fear?


----------



## newbie (May 29, 2017)

omg JTG 's soft tory non-vote will only stay soft and non if the devil incarnate doesn't have a hope of winning.  If anyone polls me again I've suddenly seen the light and am now 100% certain to vote for May.


----------



## free spirit (May 29, 2017)

newbie said:


> omg JTG 's soft tory non-vote will only stay soft and non if the devil incarnate doesn't have a hope of winning.  If anyone polls me again I've suddenly seen the light and am now 100% certain to vote for May.


unfortunately it works the other way with labour voters who've been convinced that corbyn can't win, so there's no point voting.


----------



## JTG (May 29, 2017)

Bingo said:


> I agree, a lot of people my Dad's generation are lifelong Tory voters but I don't think they will be able to stomach a vote for May this time... I reckon quite a few will stay at home.





newbie said:


> omg JTG 's soft tory non-vote will only stay soft and non if the devil incarnate doesn't have a hope of winning.  If anyone polls me again I've suddenly seen the light and am now 100% certain to vote for May.



My dad is lifelong Tory but is long past his auto-Toryism. Has voted Lib Dem in the past but is seriously considering a Labour vote in order to unseat Charlotte Leslie over Europe amongst other things. He seems very unimpressed by May & co and has warmed to JC as the campaign has gone on - at least seeing the irrelevance of decades old actions and the transparency of the campaign against him.

I do think newbie has a point though! It's very hard to vote for a hung parliament or small majority under fptp and a couple of % points can swing the result into solid win/landslide territory.


----------



## newbie (May 29, 2017)

free spirit said:


> unfortunately it works the other way with labour voters who've been convinced that corbyn can't win, so there's no point voting.


I'm desperate to keep the bearded terrorist out of No10
-v-
I'm desperate for a Labour government but can't be arsed to vote


----------



## JTG (May 29, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Is this really possible?



Dunno but it stinks of expectation management and trying to firm up the wobbly periphery of the Tory vote


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 29, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> Latest poll from Survation
> 
> CON: 43% (-)
> LAB: 37% (+3)
> ...



Polling/voting of 40% Tory and 41% Labour won't put Labour in power. Thanks to FPTP and Scotland, Labour need a considerable swing and to be several points ahead of the Tories to get a majority of 1.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 29, 2017)

JTG said:


> Dunno but it stinks of expectation management and trying to firm up the wobbly periphery of the Tory vote



Yep, that's exactly what it is. Got to mobilise the Tory base to ensure they definitely vote, panic those on the margins, and make it seem like the Tories have overcome a big hurdle through sheer excellence when they don't actually lose big.


----------



## JTG (May 29, 2017)

Labour 57 points ahead of Tories amongst under 25s


----------



## free spirit (May 29, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Polling/voting of 40% Tory and 41% Labour won't put Labour in power. Thanks to FPTP and Scotland, Labour need a considerable swing and to be several points ahead of the Tories to get a majority of 1.


indeed, which is why Labour really need to get their heads around the idea of how to make a minority Labour government work with support from SNP, Plaid, Greens and erm well maybe not lib dems who seem intent on sitting on the fence no matter what


----------



## Raheem (May 29, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Polling/voting of 40% Tory and 41% Labour won't put Labour in power. Thanks to FPTP and Scotland, Labour need a considerable swing and to be several points ahead of the Tories to get a majority of 1.



Actually, 41%-40% could just about do it, I reckon. It would probably take a little more if the swing is uniform across the country, but you would only need the distribution to be slightly favourable to Labour to make it work.


----------



## Knotted (May 29, 2017)

Assuming that this is correct. The polling companies were underestimated the Labour vote and overestimated the Conservative vote in 2015 because of unrepresentative samples - they interviewed too many Labour supporters and not enough Conservative supporters. Shy Tories (who don't want to admit they vote Tory) and lazy Labour supporters (who say they will vote Labour but don't) appear to be myths.

My thinking is that the same problems exist now as they did two years ago so the polls will still be overestimating the Labour vote and underestimating the Conservative vote. The problem is now compounded with polling companies adding in various fudge factors to counter the Labour bias ie. a lot of tweeking of turnout models.

At present I trust Survation the most because their data is the least processed (looking at it as outsider looking in). With YouGov, MORI and Panelbase being the next best bets (but who knows how to assess these fudge factors?). However remember that Survation are likely to be overestimating Labour and underestimating the Tories because of the underlying problems of polling. So take a couple of percent off Labour's Survation polling and add it to the Tories. That's my rule of thumb. It's a fudge and a crude fudge at that, but at least it's my own and I know about it.

Anyway if I was in charge of a polling company this is more or less how I would do it:
http://survation.com/methodology/
Ie. Weight your sample to make it match the population by all means but don't mess with the turnout model which could well be more fluid than you think. Go by what people tell you.

Take that as a recommendation or a disrecommendation as you please.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 29, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Actually, 41%-40% could just about do it, I reckon. It would probably take a little more if the swing is uniform across the country, but you would only need the distribution to be slightly favourable to Labour to make it work.



It's because of FTPT and the fact that distribution matters that means a straight up % majority isn't enough to do it. To win a majority of just one, Labour needs a swing akin to that of Blair's in 1997. That's not going to happen unless something remarkable is around the corner.

Here's a thing on regional issues: The polls could be right about Labour's gains - but also misleading

For some perspective, here's a list of Labour targets and the numbers involved (although it doesn't show vote share of other parties, so any UKIP votes going to the Tories are still going to muddy the waters): Labour Target Seats 2017 - Election Polling

I reiterate my recommendation of following NumbrCrunchrPolitics (@NCPoliticsUK) on Twitter - they've got lots of useful data.


----------



## free spirit (May 30, 2017)

one thing's seeming increasingly clear - turnout will be far higher than at any recent election.

The latest Survation poll (which puts labour 6% behind) now has 48.5% of people who didn't vote in 2015 saying they're 10/10 likely to vote this time.

They also put 64% of those who're currently undecided as being 10/10 definitely going to vote.

Labours vote is also solidifying, with 89.1% now 10/10 likely to vote vs 87.9% of the tory vote, whereas in the last poll it was  only 79% and lower than the tories.


----------



## bi0boy (May 30, 2017)

free spirit said:


> one thing's seeming increasingly clear - turnout will be far higher than at any recent election.
> 
> The latest Survation poll (which puts labour 6% behind) now has 48.5% of people who didn't vote in 2015 saying they're 10/10 likely to vote this time.



That just shows how much people lie or how unrepresentative the sample is. The 10/10 certainty to vote numbers imply turnout will be greater than 80%, which it won't be.


----------



## Rimbaud (May 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> That just shows how much people lie or how unrepresentative the sample is. The 10/10 certainty to vote numbers imply turnout will be greater than 80%, which it won't be.



I can't find information about what percentage of eligible voters are registered this time, but there are reports that voter registration is up significantly and I don't think 80% turnout would be particularly surprising. 2015 was 66%, and this time registration is higher because of the EU referendum and because of a huge registration drive amongst young people, who are far more motivated this time as there is a meaningful difference between the parties. Turnout in this election will be significantly higher than in 2015, not just by a couple of percentage points. It may not be as high as 80%, but I would be surprised if it is less than 75%.


----------



## Rimbaud (May 30, 2017)

Anecdotally, speaking as a 20 something, there is a huge surge of enthusiasm for Corbyn amongst my peer group - something that is also backed up by opinion polls and voter registration. It is not difficult to see why - in my case, I am preparing to do a PGCE in September and a Corbyn victory would instantly save me £9,000 in debt. (well, including interest, probably more like £13,000 or something) I also trust him to do something about the housing market which means if I become a teacher in future I may actually be able to live a decent life, rather than spending all my money on student loan repayments (which already total £40,000, but will be £50,000 if Corbyn doesn't win - and that's not including interest) and rent. Corbyn is offering very practical direct benefit to people who are not home owners with long established careers or retired, which is the vast majority of people under 35 - lower rents, secure tenancies, affordable housing, no tuition fees, better wages. The youth turnout in this election is going to be huge, and because of this the polls are badly underestimating Labour's vote. Labour will win, I feel almost sure of it.


----------



## Rimbaud (May 30, 2017)

My sister managed to get a cushy job with Siemens and is making £35,000 a year or something like that. Still stuck living in shitty rented accommodation though because of her student debt - she has already spent thousands of pounds repaying it but hardly made a dent in it because of the interest, and the cost of rent keeps going up. Even on an above average wage, living in Newcastle which has a relatively low cost of living she cannot save because of debt payments which don't seem to go down and constantly increasing rents, a situation she cannot escape because she can't save for a deposit on a house. This same story is repeated millions of times over across the country, and Corbyn has offered a ray of hope to get out of this quandary. I think the psychological effect this has is being severely underestimated by people who aren't in that situation, and it will be enough to win Labour the election.


----------



## magneze (May 30, 2017)

I hope you're right.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 30, 2017)

I can see turnout being higher than 2015 but 80%, no fucking way. You do realise that there's only been two post-war elections with that level of turnout? (1950 and 1951)


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I can see turnout being higher than 2015 but 80%, no fucking way. You do realise that there's only been two post-war elections with that level of turnout? (1950 and 1951)


Yeah and voter rolls were more reliable then - more static population etc

It's a fairly low bar anyway - highest in the last 40 years was 1992 when 77.7% showed up to the polls and saved John Major's backside. I believe that was numerically the highest Labour vote ever and it was still seen as a failure.

1997-2005 Labour victories were all achieved on the back of plunging turnouts - Labour's w/c base disappearing along with demotivated Tory supporters.

If Labour manage to score in the high 30s this time around then I suspect it would outweigh all of Blair's victories in terms of numbers of votes. And could end up being seen by some as a failure in the Kinnock range.


----------



## newbie (May 30, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> Anecdotally, speaking as a 20 something, there is a huge surge of enthusiasm for Corbyn amongst my peer group - something that is also backed up by opinion polls and voter registration.


so now your peers need to be harassing their parents and grandparents, the age-groups most likely to vote tory, to stop being so selfish and think about what they (we) are leaving for your generation.

I had a street argument with some tory canvassers the other day in which someone in their 60s claimed they're the party of intergenerational fairness, as justification for the dementia tax. The effrontery, not to mention dishonesty, of that is staggering.   If this election really is going to revolve around age then (imo) there are plenty of fairness arguments that favour the young. My generation has been selfishly voting tory since 1979 and it's about time they stopped and started thinking about someone other than themselves. Their children and grandchildren can personalise this election in a way no politician can.


----------



## Rimbaud (May 30, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I can see turnout being higher than 2015 but 80%, no fucking way. You do realise that there's only been two post-war elections with that level of turnout? (1950 and 1951)



Just because it hasn't happened recently doesn't mean it won't happen, and a turnout similar to 1992 doesn't seem far-fetched. Maybe I'm getting carried away by optimism and wishful thinking, part of my reason for thinking Labour can win is an intuitive sense of a huge gulf which has been stretched open to breaking point - it seems nobody in the media has been talking about dealing with landlords, rents, debts, and low wages but Corbyn. Toryland still even celebrates increasing house prices. I just have a gut feeling that a tipping point has been reached, and the growing generational and social gulf has led to an increasingly out of touch establishment who aren't able to see the monumental upset which is coming.

This is just my gut feeling though, I'm not going to bet a large amount of money on it or anything.


----------



## kabbes (May 30, 2017)

I'm not sure that 8/10 respondants saying 10/10 chance of voting does correspond to an 80% turnout.  I suspect that the electoral roll includes a certain proportion that won't be able to vote because they are ill or dead or have moved or should have been taken off the list but weren't due to an oversight.  If somebody asked my chance of voting, I would say 10/10, but that chance implicitly recognises it it is conditional on my having the capability on the day of doing so.  My wild-ass guess is that the absolutely maximum possible on the day is more in the range of 90-95% and that an 80% intention to vote thus translates into more like a 75% actual turnout.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 30, 2017)

Open question - of the 50+ age group - baby boomers and earlier - have they always been as vocal/politicised  in an election ? I cannot recall earlier ones having the same volume of older voters opinions  being displayed ...........


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 30, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> My sister managed to get a cushy job with Siemens and is making £35,000 a year or something like that. Still stuck living in shitty rented accommodation though because of her student debt - she has already spent thousands of pounds repaying it but hardly made a dent in it because of the interest, and the cost of rent keeps going up. Even on an above average wage, living in Newcastle which has a relatively low cost of living she cannot save because of debt payments which don't seem to go down and constantly increasing rents, a situation she cannot escape because she can't save for a deposit on a house. This same story is repeated millions of times over across the country, and Corbyn has offered a ray of hope to get out of this quandary. I think the psychological effect this has is being severely underestimated by people who aren't in that situation, and it will be enough to win Labour the election.


 

If she cannot get an OK place in newcastle on £35K a year, then the country is fucked


----------



## newbie (May 30, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Open question - of the 50+ age group - baby boomers and earlier - have they always been as vocal/politicised  in an election ? I cannot recall earlier ones having the same volume of older voters opinions  being displayed ...........


Just the opposite, I don't ever remember young people being so engaged on their own behalf, as a cohort.

Pensions/pensioners have always been a big factor, hence triple lock, TV licenses, winterfuel allowances, bus passes etc: bribes at election time.  It's the concept "intergenerational fairness" that's new and potentially disruptive.


----------



## gawkrodger (May 30, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> If she cannot get an OK place in newcastle on £35K a year, then the country is fucked



I've previously earned a couple of grand less than this is in the Brum/Black Country - I could rent a nice place but fucked if I could buy somewhere. Of all my mates same age/younger who live here I can think of two who have mortgages - one down to bank of mum and dad and the other from a parental death


----------



## newbie (May 30, 2017)

gawkrodger said:


> I've previously earned a couple of grand less than this is in the Brum/Black Country - I could rent a nice place but fucked if I could buy somewhere. Of all my mates same age/younger who live here I can think of two who have mortgages - one down to bank of mum and dad and the other from a parental death


illustrates how my generation have stolen all the pies and need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that as well as individual or family responses to the crisis- that's what the bank of m & d is all about- there also has to be a political response.


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I'm not sure that 8/10 respondants saying 10/10 chance of voting does correspond to an 80% turnout.  I suspect that the electoral roll includes a certain proportion that won't be able to vote because they are ill or dead or have moved or should have been taken off the list but weren't due to an oversight.  If somebody asked my chance of voting, I would say 10/10, but that chance implicitly recognises it it is conditional on my having the capability on the day of doing so.  My wild-ass guess is that the absolutely maximum possible on the day is more in the range of 90-95% and that an 80% intention to vote thus translates into more like a 75% actual turnout.


I'd consider myself certain to vote. Just discovered today that the council never received my postal vote application so am running around trying to sort a proxy vote before tomorrow's deadline. This kind of thing affects stuff as well: unforeseen circs, thinking you're registered when you're not etc etc


----------



## redsquirrel (May 30, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> Just because it hasn't happened recently doesn't mean it won't happen, and a turnout similar to 1992 doesn't seem far-fetched. Maybe I'm getting carried away by optimism and wishful thinking, part of my reason for thinking Labour can win is an intuitive sense of a huge gulf which has been stretched open to breaking point - it seems nobody in the media has been talking about dealing with landlords, rents, debts, and low wages but Corbyn. Toryland still even celebrates increasing house prices. I just have a gut feeling that a tipping point has been reached, and the growing generational and social gulf has led to an increasingly out of touch establishment who aren't able to see the monumental upset which is coming.
> 
> This is just my gut feeling though, I'm not going to bet a large amount of money on it or anything.


I'm sorry but it is totally fantasy land. The fact that it hasn't happened for 60+ years doesn't mean that it can't happen in 2017 but it damn well supports the idea that it is exceptionally unlikely. A turnout of 70+%, not unrealistic, but 80+% no way.


----------



## killer b (May 30, 2017)

JTG said:


> thinking you're registered when you're not


This won't have an impact on turnout though, will it?


----------



## kabbes (May 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> This won't have an impact on turnout though, will it?


It will have an impact on whether 80% at 10/10 translates to 80% on the day, if somebody in that boat is one of the 10/10s.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I'm sorry but it is totally fantasy land. The fact that it hasn't happened for 60+ years doesn't mean that it can't happen in 2017 but it damn well supports the idea that it is exceptionally unlikely. A turnout of 70+%, not unrealistic, but 80+% no way.


It all but happened as recently as 1992, though. 77.7 is 80 rounded to the nearest 5.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 30, 2017)

But why would you round to the nearest 5? That's just daft, there's a significant difference between 78 and 80%.

If we round it to the nearest five then the Tories would be talking 50% of the vote share a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## bi0boy (May 30, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> But why would you round to the nearest 5? That's just daft, there's a significant difference between 78 and 80%.



A million people.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 30, 2017)

fuckin hell. I am probably a decade out of touch with prices then


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> But why would you round to the nearest 5? That's just daft, there's a significant difference between 78 and 80%.
> 
> If we round it to the nearest five then the Tories would be talking 50% of the vote share a couple of weeks ago.


A jump back to high 70s from the mid-60s of recent years would be very significant, so we would be talking about whether or not the jump is 12 percentage points or 14. 14 is of course significantly bigger than 12, but not such a huge amount more.


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

kabbes said:


> It will have an impact on whether 80% at 10/10 translates to 80% on the day, if somebody in that boat is one of the 10/10s.


Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. Obv doesn't affect the turnout figure itself


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It all but happened as recently as 1992, though. 77.7 is 80 rounded to the nearest 5.


First 1974 election was 78/79% as well I believe


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2017)

I wouldn't put any £ on a record turnout what with a campaign so uninspiring for the tory core and elderly concerns over their estates.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2017)

This may be of some interest:

Fact Check: if 30% more people under 25 vote, could the Conservatives lose the election?



> But the impact of increasing turnout for those under 25 depends on what proportion of the electorate they make up – my final question. According to the 2011 census, 18 to 24-year-olds make up less than 12% of the electorate.
> 
> Imagine that turnout did increase for this group by 30 percentage points, and imagine that only 16% of those previous non-voters voted as they said they would after 2015 and opted for the Conservatives. The Conservatives would get a lower share of the vote, but this effect would be fairly small: the party’s overall share of the vote would fall by slightly over one per cent. This is because anything that affects only 3.6% of the electorate (30% of the 12% of the electorate under 25) can never lead to large shifts in aggregate vote shares.



I've just finished the  author's joint work The New Politics of Class: The political exclusion of the British working class - very useful and full of classic old school sociological class analysis rather than the wafty crap from mike savage and the like.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2017)

brogdale said:


> I wouldn't put any £ on a record turnout what with a campaign so uninspiring for the tory core and elderly concerns over their estates.


Interesting looking at historical turnouts that there is no correlation between high turnouts and Labour winning.


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

brogdale said:


> I wouldn't put any £ on a record turnout what with a campaign so uninspiring for the tory core and elderly concerns over their estates.


Well yes, I'm hoping for an underenthused Tory base


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Interesting looking at historical turnouts that there is no correlation between high turnouts and Labour winning.


Indeed. Try telling a Blairite that TB's historic hat-trick was because loads of Tories couldn't be arsed to show up


----------



## free spirit (May 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> That just shows how much people lie or how unrepresentative the sample is. The 10/10 certainty to vote numbers imply turnout will be greater than 80%, which it won't be.


turnout was 84.6% in the scottish referendum. It's possible for it to be that high if people really think the stakes are big enough.

I suspect it will end up a bit lower because of the constituencies where it's perceived as making little difference, but there's so much churn going on in the electorate this time around and so many new voters on the register that I couldn't say that even seats with pretty high majorities are definitely safe - the Lib Dems showed what is possible in Richmond Park albeit at a byelection.


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

free spirit said:


> turnout was 84.6% in the scottish referendum. It's possible for it to be that high if people really think the stakes are big enough.
> 
> I suspect it will end up a bit lower because of the constituencies where it's perceived as making little difference, but there's so much churn going on in the electorate this time around and so many new voters on the register that I couldn't say that even seats with pretty high majorities are definitely safe - the Lib Dems showed what is possible in Richmond Park albeit at a byelection.


Lib Dems lost Bristol West two years ago, Labour turning an 11,000 vote deficit into a 5,500 majority over the Greens. Huge turnarounds can happen, especially when there's a large number of young, motivated, new voters with a grudge in the constituency


----------



## free spirit (May 30, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I'm sorry but it is totally fantasy land. The fact that it hasn't happened for 60+ years doesn't mean that it can't happen in 2017 but it damn well supports the idea that it is exceptionally unlikely. A turnout of 70+%, not unrealistic, but 80+% no way.


happened in scotland in the last 5 years, and there are now far more people on the electoral roll than there have been for a long time there and in the rest of the country.

So in comparison, Survation asked the same question a week before the 2015 election and the 10/10 figure for 18-34 age range was 33.6%, for Lab as a whole it was 62.2%, and for people who'd not voted the time before it was 22.7% vs 48.5% now.

So it's not like people were lying last time and just didn't bother to turn up after saying they would. This time the figure for under 24s is a full 48% higher than it was in 2015, the figure for labour votes definitely intending to vote is nearly 30% higher.

These are not small differences, and if half the people who didn't vote last time do actually vote this time as they've indicated they definitely intend to, then this would push the turnout over 80%.

These figures are reasonably consistent with other polls as well.

I hope it doesn't go over 80% though, because I think Labours best hope now is for a chunk of the tory vote to balk at the prospect of actually voting for this shambles when it comes down to it, and sitting on their hands instead. That could be previous remain supporting tories or UKIP voters previously from a labour background, hopefully both. Hopefully the tories lack of membership will also prove crucial on the day in terms of not being able to mobilise the vote in anything like the numbers Labour can with 5 times as many members.


----------



## free spirit (May 30, 2017)

JTG said:


> Lib Dems lost Bristol West two years ago, Labour turning an 11,000 vote deficit into a 5,500 majority over the Greens. Huge turnarounds can happen, especially when there's a large number of young, motivated, new voters with a grudge in the constituency


yep.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> This may be of some interest:
> 
> 
> I've just finished the  author's joint work The New Politics of Class: The political exclusion of the British working class - very useful and full of classic old school sociological class analysis rather than the wafty crap from mike savage and the like.



I've just started Savage's book on social class, haven't come across much waft yet  

This looks excellent however, if a bit pricey in hardback.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2017)

Hang on and I'll upload a copy.

edited to sort link.

Here


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2017)

Not sure if that worked, posting on phone. Will do better link later when home if needed.


----------



## alsoknownas (May 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure if that worked, posting on phone. Will do better link later when home if needed.


Seems to have worked .


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

free spirit said:


> yep.


Looked up the last few results in Bristol West actually. Had been Tory at every single election ever until 1997. That year William Waldegrave's vote only dropped by around 2,000; the Lib Dems thought they could take it but only increased their vote by around 1,000. It was Labour who leaped from third place to storm home by increasing their vote by 10,000 from five years previously. That was the student vote getting organised and motivated to turn up in a way they hadn't done before.


----------



## Rimbaud (May 30, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> If she cannot get an OK place in newcastle on £35K a year, then the country is fucked



It's because of the privatisation of the Student Loans Company, the interest rates they are giving her are really high now, higher than a regular bank loan, and once you get in the higher wage bracket they take a huge amount of your monthly income. On top of monthly rent and council tax, it means that unless you live with your parents or something it will still take more time than it is worth to save up for a housing deposit. 

The house my sister rents is ok, and her landlord isn't the worst, but tenants do not have enough rights to make it a desirable permanent option. You could always end up having to move home against your will, which is pretty common.


----------



## free spirit (May 30, 2017)

JTG said:


> Looked up the last few results in Bristol West actually. Had been Tory at every single election ever until 1997. That year William Waldegrave's vote only dropped by around 2,000; the Lib Dems thought they could take it but only increased their vote by around 1,000. It was Labour who leaped from third place to storm home by increasing their vote by 10,000 from five years previously. That was the student vote getting organised and motivated to turn up in a way they hadn't done before.


leeds NW did exactly the same thing for the same reasons, I expect it to swing to Labour this time if the students have sorted postal votes out. If not then they'll have mostly gone home by election day which would make the constituency very different.


----------



## emanymton (May 30, 2017)

alsoknownas said:


> Seems to have worked .


Yep, I've got it.


----------



## gawkrodger (May 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I've just finished the  author's joint work The New Politics of Class: The political exclusion of the British working class - very useful and full of classic old school sociological class analysis rather than the wafty crap from mike savage and the like.



I've just downloaded this if anyone wants a pdf copy

edit: ignore me - BA's upload is much better than mine which is split by chapters


----------



## binka (May 30, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> It's because of the privatisation of the Student Loans Company, the interest rates they are giving her are really high now, higher than a regular bank loan, and once you get in the higher wage bracket they take a huge amount of your monthly income. On top of monthly rent and council tax, it means that unless you live with your parents or something it will still take more time than it is worth to save up for a housing deposit.
> 
> The house my sister rents is ok, and her landlord isn't the worst, but tenants do not have enough rights to make it a desirable permanent option. You could always end up having to move home against your will, which is pretty common.


I know we don't really want to get bogged down in it but £35k a year is £2k per month take home after paye, ni and student loan. I really couldn't see it take much more than a year-18 months to save a pretty decent sized deposit from that


----------



## free spirit (May 30, 2017)

binka said:


> I know we don't really want to get bogged down in it but £35k a year is £2k per month take home after paye, ni and student loan. I really couldn't see it take much more than a year-18 months to save a pretty decent sized deposit from that


£1000 / month rent council tax, bills
£700 / month car loan repayments, car tax, mot, maintenance, petrol
£300 / month living costs

It's the car bit on top of rent, fuel bills etc that would be the killer, assuming the car is needed for work. If they could walk to work and didn't feel the need to own a car then saving for a deposit would be possible, but as a lot of jobs pretty much require a car to get to them then I can well see that someone on £2k a month take home pay living alone could well struggle to save any money. This shouldn't be the case, but with the high costs of renting houses it's easy to see how even that salary level can mean only just making ends meet still and the student loan repayment is basically taking the chunk that would have been available to save towards a deposit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2017)

binka said:


> I know we don't really want to get bogged down in it but £35k a year is £2k per month take home after paye, ni and student loan. I really couldn't see it take much more than a year-18 months to save a pretty decent sized deposit from that


Really? Rent plus bills will take care of half of that. If you run a car, those costs, train fare if you're commuting that way. Food, clothes, etc.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 30, 2017)

free spirit said:


> £1000 / month rent council tax, bills
> £700 / month car loan repayments, car tax, mot, maintenance, petrol
> £300 / month living costs
> 
> It's the car bit on top of rent, fuel bills etc that would be the killer, assuming the car is needed for work.



That sounds high, about eight and a half grand a year for a car? You could buy one outright for less. Can get something pretty tidy for about three grand, or just not bother having one. Insurance about a grand typically?

 If you want a deposit & house you do have to make some sacrifices, people nearly always have. When my folks bought their first house they were eating their dinner off a second-hand refrigerator until they could afford a table. Prices are ridiculous, but at the same time expect to wind in a few of life's luxuries if you're getting started.


----------



## free spirit (May 30, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> That sounds high, about eight and a half grand a year for a car? You could buy one outright for less. Can get something pretty tidy for about three grand, or just not bother having one. Insurance about a grand typically?


Unless you just want to stand the car on the drive doing nothing then that's not £8.5 a year for the car itself. Someone driving to work every day is going to have a few hundred a month in petrol, and maintenance costs. Plus there's the interest costs on the loan to buy the car, which turns a £8k car into an £11k car. I suppose it probably could be anywhere from £500-800 a month, but it's likely to be of that sort of order, and it;s not a luxury if you have to have it to get to work because there's no public transport to where you work.



Dogsauce said:


> If you want a deposit & house you do have to make some sacrifices, people nearly always have. When my folks bought their first house they were eating their dinner off a second-hand refrigerator until they could afford a table. Prices are ridiculous, but at the same time expect to wind in a few of life's luxuries if you're getting started.


 and now they'd not be able to have bought a house at all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2017)

Average deposits for first time buyers have doubled in the last 10 years to 30k. I wonder what %age of those have borrowed from the bank of mum and dad. If they don't have access to that particular bank, many people can basically forget it.


----------



## bi0boy (May 30, 2017)

There are plenty of decent houses in Newcastle for £90k or less, so a £4.5K deposit shouldn't be hard to come by for someone on £35k. But if you can have your student loan written off why not?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> There are plenty of decent houses in Newcastle for £90k or less,


----------



## bi0boy (May 30, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


>



Do I have to crack open rightmove?


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2017)

Meanwhile some polling...


----------



## bi0boy (May 30, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Meanwhile some polling...
> 
> View attachment 108000



Any similar polls from the Milliband era?


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Any similar polls from the Milliband era?


68 : 22


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Meanwhile some polling...
> 
> View attachment 108000


Could be bad news in Ilford North


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2017)

JTG said:


> Could be bad news in Ilford North


dunno how it's distributed but comparing the Corbyn to Milliband numbers, I reckon that's around 20,000 people switching Labour to Tory overall. It's not huge.


----------



## Rimbaud (May 30, 2017)

binka said:


> I know we don't really want to get bogged down in it but £35k a year is £2k per month take home after paye, ni and student loan. I really couldn't see it take much more than a year-18 months to save a pretty decent sized deposit from that



Well I don't know her exact financial situation so I don't want to get into it too much either, but you are underestimating how fucked up the housing situation is. Typical first time buyer housing deposit was £33k as of 2015, probably significantly higher now. So that is an entire annual wage - certainly not possible in 18 months, 5-10 years is more realistic.

UK house prices: First-time buyer deposits rocket 88% in less than a decade



> The average deposit paid by first-time buyers to secure a mortgage in the UK is a whopping 88% higher than in 2007 before the financial crisis tore through the economy, according to Halifax building society.
> 
> It shot up 13% in 2015 alone to reach nearly £33,000, the data shows in Halifax's annual review of the first-time buyer market. Moreover, the average house price paid by first-time buyers is rising faster than for everyone else.



E2A: I may be overestimating her wage, 35k was just a guess, but it is a fairly decent wage anyway.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 30, 2017)

Average deposit paid is not the same as average required - that'll include bank of mum and dad deposits which can be huge, and as ever distorted by London prices. You'd need less than ten grand to get you started somewhere like Leeds, some areas around five grand will get you something OK.

The bigger problem where I lived was getting estate agents to offer you a chance of buying something at the affordable end of the market rather than them immediately ringing up their landlord mates and sealing the deal, some very cosy relationships (including estate properties deliberately sold under value).


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> dunno how it's distributed but comparing the Corbyn to Milliband numbers, I reckon that's around 20,000 people switching Labour to Tory overall. It's not huge.


No not huge. But still potentially crucial in Ilford. Bury as well


----------



## bemused (May 30, 2017)

I've looked through the thread but probably can't see the wood for the trees. Why do the ICM polls seem to be the only ones giving May a double digit lead?


----------



## kabbes (May 30, 2017)

bemused said:


> I've looked through the thread but probably can't see the wood for the trees. Why do the ICM polls seem to be the only ones giving May a double digit lead?


Methodology.  Stronger weighting to older respondents and those who voted in 2015


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 30, 2017)

bemused said:


> I've looked through the thread but probably can't see the wood for the trees. Why do the ICM polls seem to be the only ones giving May a double digit lead?



Different companies use different weighting methods, and also sample demographics in different numbers.

Some weight more in favour of those who have historically been known to vote more consistently, which tends to be old people. Old people vote Tory by a considerable margin. 

There are loads of things that go into weighting algorithms, including likelihood to vote, past voting record, age, etc. The best thing you can do is look at lots of polls, look at the poll of polls (which aggregates them all), and then disregard the whole lot to a large extent as you remember that FPTP renders polling percentages an almost impossible gauge of final seat outcome without doing further maths beyond most of us.


----------



## bemused (May 30, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Different companies use different weighting methods, and also sample demographics in different numbers.
> 
> Some weight more in favour of those who have historically been known to vote more consistently, which tends to be old people. Old people vote Tory by a considerable margin.
> 
> There are loads of things that go into weighting algorithms, including likelihood to vote, past voting record, age, etc. The best thing you can do is look at lots of polls, look at the poll of polls (which aggregates them all), and then disregard the whole lot to a large extent as you remember that FPTP renders polling percentages an almost impossible gauge of final seat outcome without doing further maths beyond most of us.



So given we use a constituency based do these polls actually reflect the real result?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 30, 2017)

The FT have a poll of polls running. This one was updated today. _If _the current trend continues, and _if _the number of young people expected to vote is being underestimated, and _if _the number of old people expected to vote is being overestimated, and _if _there is a sudden surge of people switching from Tory to UKIP, and _if_ there is a sudden surge of LibDem wankers switching to Labour, then _maybe _Labour will get ahead in the percentage game. Whether that would then translate into seats is another question. 

Lots of ifs there.


----------



## bi0boy (May 30, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Methodology.  Stronger weighting to older respondents and those who voted in 2015



It's bollocks that's what it is. They may as well give more weight to people who like to go for a stroll in the evenings, and less to those who can't successfully describe the pen or pencil typically used to mark ballot papers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> It's bollocks that's what it is. They may as well give more weight to people who like to go for a stroll in the evenings, and less to those who can't successfully describe the pen or pencil typically used to mark ballot papers.


they attempt to model it on how likely various groups are to actually vote. If you don't at least try to do that, your poll really will be worthless. It's all based on past performance, which gives the unknown quantity - dynamics change, and different groups become disillusioned and don't turn out at different times.


----------



## bi0boy (May 30, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> they attempt to model it on how likely various groups are to actually vote. If you don't at least try to do that, your poll really will be worthless. It's all based on past performance, which gives the unknown quantity - dynamics change, and different groups become disillusioned and don't turn out at different times.



It's just guessing. And it's not even based on past performance because it's a secret ballot so no one knows whether people who said they would vote in the last election actually did or who they voted for.

Just ask a properly selected sample who they are going to vote for if any, and leave it at that. I bet the trend from multiple such polls would be just as useful, of not more so, since each poll wouldn't have been differently affected by the application of a turnout model which is highly likely to be inaccurate.


----------



## treelover (May 30, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> Just because it hasn't happened recently doesn't mean it won't happen, and a turnout similar to 1992 doesn't seem far-fetched. Maybe I'm getting carried away by optimism and wishful thinking, part of my reason for thinking Labour can win is an intuitive sense of a huge gulf which has been stretched open to breaking point - it seems nobody in the media has been talking about dealing with landlords, rents, debts, and low wages but Corbyn. Toryland still even celebrates increasing house prices. I just have a gut feeling that a tipping point has been reached, and the growing generational and social gulf has led to an increasingly out of touch establishment who aren't able to see the monumental upset which is coming.
> 
> This is just my gut feeling though, I'm not going to bet a large amount of money on it or anything.




Either Ch4 news or Newsnight has a major debate between the generations tonight, sorry don't know which.


----------



## free spirit (May 30, 2017)

Latest Guardian ICM poll is out now from polling at the weekend, it's an example of how the figures can be skewed significantly by the weighting factors used.

The actual figures are 33% tory, 30% Labour, but the adjusted figures blow that difference up to 45% to 34%.

This is presumably because they've somehow managed to still get the 10/10 likely to vote under 25s at only 44%. 

I suspect the difference in this figure to the survation figures is down to the wording of the question with the ICM poll prefacing the question with a more confusing and suggestive sentence than survation which is clearly about this election.

ICM
"QA. Some people have said they would not vote in a new General Election, while others have said they would vote. How certain is it that you would actually vote in a general election if it were to be held tomorrow? On a ten point scale where 10 means you would be absolutely certain to vote and 1 means you would be certain not to vote, how likely is it that you would cast your vote?"

Survation.
And how likely will you be to vote in an immediate General Election, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 means you would be absolutely certain to vote and 1 that you would be absolutely certain NOT to vote?


----------



## free spirit (May 30, 2017)

One other point in that poll is that it breaks the figures down into what's happening in the marginals.

In the key marginals that ICM poll has Labour winning vs the Tories by 4-5% in both Labour held and Tory held marginals in the unweighted version, but losing in both sets of marginals in the weighted version.

Basically highlighting that it's all to play for and which party can get their vote out the most in the marginals of really going to be the crucial factor.

I can't help thinking that the party with the 600k membership ought to be able to mobilise their vote better on the day than the party with 100k or so membership.


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

From Goodwin


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> From Goodwin



That's interesting.

Labour are going to rely on a decent fraction of that UKIP vote to hold on to quite a few of its seats where in 2015 the Tory & UKIP vote combined was greater than the Labour vote.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 30, 2017)

They really need to target that UKIP vote with a 'On June the 8th, take back control - of your railways, NHS and public services' message. I vaguely recall from previous polling that rail nationalisation was more popular with UKIP voters than Labour ones.

I wonder if the UKIP redistribution is just seeing people going back to old allegiances, so labour gets a boost in safe labour seats and the Tories get back some of the blazer-wearing contingent in their safe southern strongholds.


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> I wonder if the UKIP redistribution is just seeing people going back to old allegiances, so labour gets a boost in safe labour seats and the Tories get back some of the blazer-wearing contingent in their safe southern strongholds.


I think they may well be doing this to an extent. Certainly graphs like the above suggest that Labour will be safer in seats such as Doncaster Central than has been suggested by some


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 30, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> I wonder if the UKIP redistribution is just seeing people going back to old allegiances, so labour gets a boost in safe labour seats and the Tories get back some of the blazer-wearing contingent in their safe southern strongholds.



That does appear to be the case. And if it is the Tories will struggle to win the seats in the midlands and the north they need for a landslide. Their assumption was that the UKIP vote would come over to them as they owned 'Brexit'. It still might of course.


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> That does appear to be the case. And if it is the Tories will struggle to win the seats in the midlands and the north they need for a landslide. Their assumption was that the UKIP vote would come over to them as they owned 'Brexit'. It still might of course.



Would be interesting to see the data on 2010 UKIP voters as well.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2017)

For those who don't like weighting.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2017)

Times have a first overall projection from their YouGov figures and have tories 16 short of majority - labour increase seats from 229 to 257. Tories 310 from 330.


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> That does appear to be the case. And if it is the Tories will struggle to win the seats in the midlands and the north they need for a landslide. Their assumption was that the UKIP vote would come over to them as they owned 'Brexit'. It still might of course.


It may but as Labour have basically accepted it, a lot of the Labour->UKIP voters could well see no problem with returning whence they came


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> For those who don't like weighting.


Silly question: that one just uses the raw data from each, yes?


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2017)

JTG said:


> Silly question: that one just uses the raw data from each, yes?


Yep.


----------



## bi0boy (May 30, 2017)

Weighting for demographics is fine, you want a representive sample.

It's when they start asking what newspaper you read it goes downhill.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 30, 2017)

Here's the headline numbers from the Times/YouGov thing



Any idea what's the score with the NI numbers there?


----------



## redsquirrel (May 30, 2017)

free spirit said:


> happened in scotland in the last 5 years, and there are now far more people on the electoral roll than there have been for a long time there and in the rest of the country.


In a referendum about a single issue that was highly polarising. In contrast the turnout for the 2015 GE in Scotland was 71.1%, the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections 55.6% and the EU referendum turnout 67.2%.


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Times have a first overall projection from their YouGov figures and have tories 16 short of majority - labour increase seats from 229 to 257. Tories 310 from 330.


At this rate I'm assuming that the vermin are putting in considerable efforts to defend the 5k majority in Hastings & Rye.


----------



## Corax (May 30, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Here's the headline numbers from the Times/YouGov thing
> 
> 
> 
> Any idea what's the score with the NI numbers there?



So - assuming the cons will get in - is a minority govt a realistic hope?

If so, should I be happy about this?  I need schooling...


----------



## kabbes (May 30, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Here's the headline numbers from the Times/YouGov thing
> 
> 
> 
> Any idea what's the score with the NI numbers there?



Con = 310
Lab + SNP + PC = 310

Quite the hung parliament that would be!


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Con = 310
> Lab + SNP + PC = 310
> 
> Quite the hung parliament that would be!


Green / SDLP?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 30, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Con = 310
> Lab + SNP + PC = 310
> 
> Quite the hung parliament that would be!



Yeah, but add in the NI seats. Also does anyone have an inkling what the NI seat numbers mean here? Previously 8, now 18?


----------



## lazythursday (May 30, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Yeah, but add in the NI seats. Also does anyone have an inkling what the NI seat numbers mean here? Previously 8, now 18?


It was 18 last time. They've made a mistake.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 30, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Yeah, but add in the NI seats. Also does anyone have an inkling what the NI seat numbers mean here? Previously 8, now 18?


Plane takes off!


----------



## redsquirrel (May 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Times have a first overall projection from their YouGov figures and have tories 16 short of majority - labour increase seats from 229 to 257. Tories 310 from 330.


Do you know what model they're using to get the seats? I couldn't see from the free bit on the Times website.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 30, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> It was 18 last time. They've made a mistake.



Aye, they must have.


----------



## kabbes (May 30, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Yeah, but add in the NI seats. Also does anyone have an inkling what the NI seat numbers mean here? Previously 8, now 18?


Time for posters of May being ordered around by whoever the equivalent of Alex Salmond is in NI?  After all, it worked against Miliband.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Do you know what model they're using to get the seats? I couldn't see from the free bit on the Times website.


Not yet no  - sure we'll know more tmw.


----------



## belboid (May 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> For those who don't like weighting.


[pedant]those are weighted, but according to standard demographics (e.g. Getting the proportion of 20-25 year olds the same in sample ands population), but not including likelihood to vote[\pedant]


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Yep.


Also, guessing that "will not votes" are excluded. Nearly 20% are undecided. That seems like a lot - pollsters tend to allocate them based on who they voted for last time or other methods I think


----------



## Corax (May 30, 2017)

One observation I've got from my current horribly white middle-class geographical demographic:

I've come across a lot of over 60s who have expressed massive affiliation with Corbyn's policies - but when pressed will never ever vote Labour because they believe that _'whenever they get into power they destroy the economy'_.  These beliefs include blame for the last global financial crisis.  The 'global' bit of that appears to go unheard.

Those beliefs also appear to be pretty much untouchable; they're not very keen on examining the issues, as that becomes a very uncomfortable headspace to be in, and these are people that would rather avoid nasty considerations on their doorstep iykwim.  They'll vote for any other party (mainly Con or LD) - but not Labour even if they agree with their policies, because they'll automatically tank the economy (whatever the fuck that means anyway).

FTR I've tried making observations about things like the deficit under Lab and Con, but it's really not to any avail with these voters.  The beliefs are incredibly entrenched, and neither rhetoric, tears nor anger will shift them.  I've chosen not to waste my time upsetting people for no reason.


----------



## belboid (May 30, 2017)

4 Sinn Fein seats, so required majority is down to 324, three SDLP and maybe the alliance bod, unionists will get at least nine, tho they won't all be reliably Tory siding.


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2017)

So confidence & supply from the DUP & Lib Dems, then?


----------



## JimW (May 30, 2017)

brogdale said:


> So confidence & supply from the DUP & Lib Dems, then?


Doesn't come much stronger or more stable than that


----------



## Sue (May 30, 2017)

If the Tories ended up with fewer seats than they started with, I'd laugh like a drain. If they ended up 20 seats down...


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Times have a first overall projection from their YouGov figures and have tories 16 short of majority - labour increase seats from 229 to 257. Tories 310 from 330.



What do you make of all this, BA? I have to say, I am surprised, I never thought it would get to all of this.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 30, 2017)

Sue said:


> If the Tories ended up with fewer seats than they started with, I'd laugh like a drain. If they ended up 20 seats down...


Would be hilarious but I'm pretty skeptical, certainly until we see the seat allocation model they used. I still think a smallish increased Tory majority is the most likely outcome.


----------



## JimW (May 30, 2017)

Sue said:


> If the Tories ended up with fewer seats than they started with, I'd laugh like a drain. If they ended up 20 seats down...


Playing the long game, ensuring a permanent rightwing majority by having anyone left of Attila the Hun die laughing June 9th.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 30, 2017)

belboid said:


> 4 Sinn Fein seats, so required majority is down to 324, three SDLP and maybe the alliance bod, unionists will get at least nine, tho they won't all be reliably Tory siding.



Speaker and deputies too.

Hold on, this is all sounding very familar.


----------



## belboid (May 30, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Speaker and deputies too.
> 
> Hold on, this is all sounding very familar.




Deputies don't matter.


----------



## Raheem (May 30, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Would be hilarious but I'm pretty skeptical, certainly until we see the seat allocation model they used. I still think a smallish increased Tory majority is the most likely outcome.



But, other that pure pessimism, why?


----------



## Sue (May 30, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Would be hilarious but I'm pretty skeptical, certainly until we see the seat allocation model they used. I still think a smallish increased Tory majority is the most likely outcome.



Oh, I think it's very unlikely.  And I'm not a Labour supporter but the whole thing backfiring so massively on the Tories (and on the anti-Corbynites to an extent) would, as you say, be hilarious.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 30, 2017)

Raheem said:


> But, other that pure pessimism, why?



If you get too optimistic about an outcome then the outcome won't happen. It's a law of the universe or something. At least that's what I've observed of the universe. Best to expect the opposite of what you want.


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

Corax said:


> One observation I've got from my current horribly white middle-class geographical demographic:
> 
> I've come across a lot of over 60s who have expressed massive affiliation with Corbyn's policies - but when pressed will never ever vote Labour because they believe that _'whenever they get into power they destroy the economy'_.  These beliefs include blame for the last global financial crisis.  The 'global' bit of that appears to go unheard.
> 
> ...


This is my dad, though he's wobbling towards Labour. He's ignoring national stuff and just looking at the fact that their candidate is very local (grew up on our estate while we were living there), has good coherent leaflets and is all about soft Brexit. He's almost managing to block out the entrenched anti-Labourism. Almost.


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

Sue said:


> If the Tories ended up with fewer seats than they started with, I'd laugh like a drain. If they ended up 20 seats down...


I can certainly see Labour gaining in places. Copeland, Gower, Croydon Central. A few more from higher up the target list too - my own Bristol NW for example.
Question is whether they manage to avoid losing much in other areas


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 30, 2017)

belboid said:


> Deputies don't matter.



It was about 50 pages arguing about arithmetic in 2010


----------



## redsquirrel (May 30, 2017)

Raheem said:


> But, other that pure pessimism, why?


I just can't see that many seats chasing hands. Most seats are too safe to be changed with the current poll numbers, but I can see a number of seats going blue - Clacton, some Scottish seats, etc - I can't see many gains that Labour could make. 

Labour have shored up their vote so that probably helps protect them from loses but I don't see them really eating into the Tory vote or getting swing voters. Also I think some of that increase in the Lab vote is probably in safe Tory seats, if you look back at the LP leadership elections, Corbyn did well in safe Tory seats, which will be meaningless in terms to seat changes.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 30, 2017)

Apparently the model they used is the same one they used for the Brexit ref and it showed Leave ahead.

I could not have imagined in my wildest dreams the Tories losing seats and Labour gaining. (Even if it's not a Labour win, it's still significant.)

I WILL NOT DARE TO DREAM.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> What do you make of all this, BA? I have to say, I am surprised, I never thought it would get to all of this.


I'll try and come back to this tmw. I have a busted up hand right now and can really only do v brief posts atm.


----------



## Corax (May 30, 2017)

Based on absolutely fuck all (seriously, pretty much ZERO knowledge of the voting landscape atm other than national swings) I'll be pleased with anything other than a tory landslide - because that's where (the press told me) we were heading.  I saw articles pondering the significance of the UK becoming a one-party state FFS...

ETA: I'm finding myself increasingly interested in the mechanics, intricacies and impacts tbh.  I've even just un-muted the only poster I had on ignore, as when he's not calling me a cunt he undoubtedly knows his shit.


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I'll try and come back to this tmw. I have a busted up hand right now and can really only do v brief posts atm.



Sorry to hear that, hope it heals sharpish.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I'll try and come back to this tmw. I have a busted up hand right now and can really only do v brief posts atm.


Ouch, hope it's not too serious.


----------



## Corax (May 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Sorry to hear that, hope it heals sharpish.


_*heels*_


----------



## Wilf (May 30, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Here's the headline numbers from the Times/YouGov thing


 Wow!  I presume that is using data from one of the times/yougov polls that gave the Tories a 5 and 7% lead - the most optimistic for Labour?  But still...


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

Corax said:


> Based on absolutely fuck all (seriously, pretty much ZERO knowledge of the voting landscape atm other than national swings) I'll be pleased with anything other than a tory landslide - because that's where (the press told me) we were heading.  I saw articles pondering the significance of the UK becoming a one-party state FFS...
> 
> ETA: I'm finding myself increasingly interested in the mechanics, intricacies and impacts tbh.  I've even just un-muted the only poster I had on ignore, as when he's not calling me a cunt he undoubtedly knows his shit.



It's interesting looking at articles in the graunid circa 2005, worrying about the possibility that the Tories would never ever get back into power.


----------



## Corax (May 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> It's interesting looking at articles in the graunid circa 2005, worrying about the possibility that the Tories would never ever get back into power.


We're a very short-sighted species in *both* temporal directions I think.


----------



## belboid (May 30, 2017)

The Guardian article on their latest poll is surprisingly decent on their assumptions and possible failings - Guardian/ICM poll: Tories' 12-point lead offers Labour crumbs of hope


----------



## Wilf (May 30, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Con = 310
> Lab + SNP + PC = 310
> 
> Quite the hung parliament that would be!


Human lice as they are, the libdems would still have to join in with this (avoiding hard brexit and all that).


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Human lice as they are, the libdems would still have to join in with this (avoiding hard brexit and all that).



You fucking know that they wouldn't do it.


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

Lib Dems would form a coalition with the Tories in this scenario, no questions asked.


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

Interesting aside, I like how Corbynites and the Labour right have switched places on the believability of polling.


----------



## Corax (May 30, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Human lice as they are, the libdems would still have to join in with this (avoiding hard brexit and all that).


They'll cling to whatever coat-tails they can, murmuring themselves to sleep at night with steadfast positions on the reintroduction of free school milk or some such bollocks.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 30, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Wow!  I presume that is using data from one of the times/yougov polls that gave the Tories a 5 and 7% lead - the most optimistic for Labour?  But still...



It's using a large sample of 50k, using the same model they used for the EU Ref.


----------



## belboid (May 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Lib Dems would form a coalition with the Tories in this scenario, no questions asked.


Not sure quite how they could work any version of brexit to satisfy the libscum and the head bangers. the only 'principle' the LS have left is the single market and May can't offer that.


----------



## Raheem (May 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Lib Dems would form a coalition with the Tories in this scenario, no questions asked.



I'm not sure they would, given their recent experience. And, surely, it couldn't happen (even confidence and supply couldn't happen) without some accommodation over Brexit. Would that be possible?


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

belboid said:


> Not sure quite how they could work any version of brexit to satisfy the libscum and the head bangers. the only 'principle' the LS have left is the single market and May can't offer that.



National emergency, national interest, markets are about to tank like Greece etc


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's using a large sample of 50k, using the same model they used for the EU Ref.



Anyone else starting to get a glimmer of hope?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Anyone else starting to get a glimmer of hope?



No! Law of the universe, remember.


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's using a large sample of 50k, using the same model they used for the EU Ref.


Yeah, it has to involve some kind of location analysis When the gap gets to within a few % points it really is all about where those votes are being cast


----------



## belboid (May 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> National emergency, national interest, markets are about to tank like Greece etc


Sorry, which side is giving in there? And on what?


----------



## redsquirrel (May 30, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's using a large sample of 50k, using the same model they used for the EU Ref.


But that doesn't say how they converted the share of the vote to seats, which is the pertinent point. I don't have too many issue with the polling (well not more than any other poll) but the model they use to estimate seats could be critical.


----------



## Wilf (May 30, 2017)

Of course this yougov/times scenario is not good for Labour, or at least the publication of it isn't.  Labour were so far behind that they'd become the recipients of protest votes, people saying they approved of nationalisation and the NHS but didn't actually think Corbyn's top table were an even remotely plausible government.  Anything like this poll/model takes us back into 'labour will be in hock to the snp... break up Britain... do you really want Diane Abbot as Home Secretary... Corbyn may well have planted bombs _himself_...'


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 30, 2017)

belboid said:


> The Guardian article on their latest poll is surprisingly decent on their assumptions and possible failings - Guardian/ICM poll: Tories' 12-point lead offers Labour crumbs of hope



God, it all just underlines how nobody's got any fucking clue how to correctly weight this stuff. The changes in engagement in the last couple of years or more are based on loads of new stuff like the uniqueness of the EU ref, the rise and fall of UKIP, successfully reaching out to younger (non-)voters that will most likely be seen in longer trends that will take some time to be fully realised, and even stuff like Bernie and Trump will have had some sort of impact. 

For my own view, I think we're at the beginning of quite a significant change in all of this, and whatever we find in this election is only the start. It's exciting.


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

belboid said:


> Sorry, which side is giving in there? And on what?



Well, the Lib Dems ran in 2010 on Keynesian economic policy prescriptions to combat the credit crunch, an end to tuition fees etc... and we know how that story ended why couldn't there just be a repeat of all of that?


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Anyone else starting to get a glimmer of hope?



I won't let myself.

I feel for Brenda.

With a minority Tory govt who knows, we could have another GE before the year is out.


----------



## Raheem (May 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Well, the Lib Dems ran in 2010 on Keynesian economic policy prescriptions to combat the credit crunch, an end to tuition fees etc... and we know how that story ended why couldn't there just be a repeat of all of that?



Because their base will happily look either way on economics. Not on the issue of Brexit, though.


----------



## Corax (May 31, 2017)

belboid said:


> Sorry, which side is giving in there? And on what?


Don't be so callous.  If Teh Markets tank then I'll lose my... my income will... my left bollock is going to... erm - someone help me out here.


----------



## Corax (May 31, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> With a minority Tory govt who knows, we could have another GE before the year is out.


Fuck that - I want pitchforks and burning torches.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 31, 2017)

Corax said:


> Fuck that - I want pitchforks and burning torches.



That would, of course, be preferable. Might keep Brenda more entertained, too.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 31, 2017)

Corax said:


> Don't be so callous.  If Teh Markets tank then I'll lose my... my income will... my left bollock is going to... erm - someone help me out here.



If Teh Markets tank then I'll lose my keys, my income will be used for less cocaine, and my left bollock is going to turn up in the punch bowl of a swinger's party in Stoke?


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2017)

From having an actual majority to a hung parliament, the perfect background for strong and fearless negotiations with the EU! 

Even though I don't think this is going to happen, it's funny as fuck.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 31, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> If Teh Markets tank then I'll lose my keys, my income will be used for less cocaine, and my left bollock is going to turn up in the punch bowl of a swinger's party *in Stoke*?



I'll post it back to you if you like.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 31, 2017)

Wasn't it Peter Hitchens who said polls don't exist to reflect public opinion but to sway it?

He's half right. Polls do both of those things. But I am minded that this yougov prediction is likely to shore up that Tory base to a greater extent than it is to enthuse more Labour voters to come out on June 8th.


----------



## Corax (May 31, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> If Teh Markets tank then I'll lose my keys, my income will be used for less cocaine, and my left bollock is going to turn up in the punch bowl of a swinger's party in Stoke?


Swingers' parties? Cocaine? _Keys?
_
One can dream I suppose... 




PS - Intentional or not your apostrophe placement for the Stoke shindig strikes me with an even more depressing affair than otherwise - well done you.   Only one set of keys in a bowl, and _Now 17_ on repeat.


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Wasn't it Peter Hitchens who said polls don't exist to reflect public opinion but to sway it?
> 
> He's half right. Polls do both of those things. But I am minded that this yougov prediction is likely to shore up that Tory base to a greater extent than it is to enthuse more Labour voters to come out on June 8th.


Yep. It might be okay if Labour were banana skin free and had a few sparkling orators who could give a bit of vision and optimism, turn this poll into a bit of, ahem, _momentum_.  But I suspect it works at the level of 'do you really want Jeremy and Diane in charge on the 9th'? It was a ridiculous question 2 weeks ago, but this gives the question credibility.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 31, 2017)

latest you gov poll -


CON 42
LAB 38
LD 9
UKIP 4



But the poll in the gaurdian has the tories still 12 pts ahead - but with labour gaining. It uses different methodology that boosts the tory vote share more than others.
Polls are being distorted by differtnt factor - like higher than usual numbers of young people saying they will vote - and overwhelmingly vote labour. Also vote shares in scotland - tory vote is going up there, whilst labour is not - meaning the gap could be tighter in the rest of the UK. 

fuck knows. exciting. nerve racking. Im still going with - a labour vote share of over 35% and denying the tories a landslide will be a good result - and anything else is a bonus. 

but part of me cant help thinking .... surely not .... no ..... could the vermin actually .... lose?


----------



## Fez909 (May 31, 2017)

This is going to be so disappointing for Vermin-haters on election day. But it's nice to see them squirm in the meantime.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 31, 2017)

false dawn imo


----------



## Dogsauce (May 31, 2017)

Hopefully it'll make them a bit panicked and clumsy, May will look even more knackered, behind closed doors lots of shouting and finger pointing. Realistically they'll just ramp up the fear factor / negative ads even more, get the papers on the case, get the vote out.

I'm too used to being disappointed. I'd love that 1997 feeling again, boozed up and shrieking with a room full of mates, Portillo out on his arse and so on. Most likely to sleep through it this time, wake up with grinning Tories on the telly


----------



## Raheem (May 31, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> false dawn imo



Perhaps it's not possible to recognise a false dawn while it's happening.


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2017)

Labour have had an 18 month civil war, leader with appalling ratings, had no position at the time of brexit and haven't managed to carve one out since.  Their leader and senior figures have done some appalling interviews in the election.  It's impossible that they could be heading up a government - but then it *should be* equally impossible that they are (seemingly) getting so close.  Even the renationalisation policies that seem to have hit the spot were out of the blue with very little groundwork done to overcome the media consensus that such things have been impossible for 30 years.  I really can't see where they are getting this active support from.  Younger people and those being fucked over of all ages have got great incentives to be anti-Tory - but why/how are they attaching that to voting Labour?  Voting for the least bad wasn't the path people took in 2015.

The Tories have been ahead on pretty much everything that should be able to win you an election.  There was great peril for them in the aftermath of brexit, but they not only got through that but somehow turned it into a positive, going off the polls till about 10 days ago.  Even the dementia tax and winter fuel things were launched at the start, with a view of getting them out of the way.  Massively important issues, but essentially the sort of hard medicine everybody thought we'd been persuaded to take nowadays/forever.  Even if this is a false dawn - I think it is - it's all very, very


----------



## redsquirrel (May 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Younger people and those being fucked over of all ages have got great incentives to be anti-Tory - but why/how are they attaching that to voting Labour?  Voting for the least bad wasn't the path people took in 2015.


Where else would they go in England? To the yellow scum? Hardly likely after the coalition gov and broken promise on HE fees. To the Greens? Well maybe, but in addition to not having a chance anywhere bar two/three seats they're backing Labour in plenty of seats. What other options are there? Labour have managed to sew up the anti-Tory vote (at least in England), and the threat of a Tory landslide strengthened the anti-Tory vote.


----------



## BigTom (May 31, 2017)

JTG said:


> Yeah, it has to involve some kind of location analysis When the gap gets to within a few % points it really is all about where those votes are being cast



I was almost certainly included in that yougov poll, sometimes they ask for your postcode, I can't remember if they ever do in the political polling ones or if they did this time, but they certainly have my postcode and could do an exact location analysis.


----------



## squirrelp (May 31, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> But the poll in the gaurdian has the tories still 12 pts ahead - but with labour gaining. It uses different methodology that boosts the tory vote share more than others.


Yes, this poll is weighted to assume, in accordance with previous elections, that young people are less likely to turn up to the polling booth: the raw figures have the Tories just 3 point ahead


----------



## Fez909 (May 31, 2017)

ElectionForecast.co.uk

Predicting huge win for Tories. Losses for everyone else.

Chance of Tory majority 0.99
Change of Tory plurality 1.00


----------



## redsquirrel (May 31, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I was almost certainly included in that yougov poll, sometimes they ask for your postcode, I can't remember if they ever do in the political polling ones or if they did this time, but they certainly have my postcode and could do an exact location analysis.



According to the BBC 


> It uses a new "constituency-by-constituency" model for polling, which the paper says allows for big variations.
> 
> According to the Times, "the estimates were met with scepticism by Tory and Labour figures".
> 
> ...


----------



## kabbes (May 31, 2017)

Even after seeing the incredibly unlikely win Corbyn got within the Labour leadership election -- from basically zero no-hoper also-ran to as much as everybody else combined -- everybody still thought it impossible he could gain hard during a general election campaign.

We overweight the status quo.  Nobody ever sees actual changes coming,


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Younger people and those being fucked over of all ages have got great incentives to be anti-Tory - but why/how are they attaching that to voting Labour?  Voting for the least bad wasn't the path people took in 2015.


Because Labour have managed to position themselves as a positive choice rather than a 'least bad' option this time round. Or rather, I think they might have managed to do both: enthuse a whole load of people as a positive choice, and now they're scooping up the _least bad_ vote.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Even after seeing the incredibly unlikely win Corbyn got within the Labour leadership election -- from basically zero no-hoper also-ran to as much as everybody else combined -- everybody still thought it impossible he could gain hard during a general election campaign.
> 
> We overweight the status quo.  Nobody ever sees actual changes coming,


its a seldon crisis and el corbo is the mule?

nay. I am still calling a bad loss.


----------



## bi0boy (May 31, 2017)

A big difference between YouGov and ICM then. Of course neither of them are correct but one will by chance be closer to the actual result. They will then claim they have cleverly worked out a great methodology, only to get it wrong in the next election because it's different next time.

I think people would be better off having honest conversations with doorstep canvassers from both parties than latching on to one of the polls.


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Anyone else starting to get a glimmer of hope?



No....but I'm getting more tempted to stay up and watch now....


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

chilango said:


> No....but I'm getting more tempted to stay up and watch now....


We're all going to be up now. There's no question.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 31, 2017)

As long as can be managed anyway, gone are the days when I could manage a third or a fourth wind.


----------



## brogdale (May 31, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> As long as can be managed anyway, gone are the days when I could manage a third or a fourth wind.


Till Basildon?


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

I think it depends how things shape up. If it looks like a big Tory win, I'll be in bed by 3. Close or a Labour win, I'll struggle to go to bed at all...


----------



## Dogsauce (May 31, 2017)

The mere fact that it's getting close makes May look foolish, like her judgement is flawed. Not a great look if you're trying to persuade people you're the tactical genius that can take on the task of Brexit.


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

The astonishment and bewilderment on Tory faces that I know is a real treat ATM.


----------



## bemused (May 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> I think it depends how things shape up. If it looks like a big Tory win, I'll be in bed by 3. Close or a Labour win, I'll struggle to go to bed at all...



The exit polls will be nice and early, if they call it for May with double digit seats time for coco and bed.


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> We're all going to be up now. There's no question.


I'll be at Download festival. Can see an all nighter in steward control with plenty of people interested


----------



## bi0boy (May 31, 2017)

bemused said:


> The exit polls will be nice and early, if they call it for May with double digit seats time for coco and bed.



The exit polls are usually at 10pm. Sometimes it's nice to wake up to a surprise. I went to sleep at 9:50pm on EU referendum night, woke up at 4am to pee and thought I'd check my phone so I could see the remain win and go back to sleep without thinking about it. Then I was like omgz and turned the telly on


----------



## danny la rouge (May 31, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I was almost certainly included in that yougov poll, sometimes they ask for your postcode, I can't remember if they ever do in the political polling ones or if they did this time, but they certainly have my postcode and could do an exact location analysis.


I was polled by YouGov at the right time for this one. They asked my postcode and then asked a secondary question about specific candidates in my constitutency even though they'd already asked about general party voting intentions (in several ways to see if I'd crack).


----------



## danny la rouge (May 31, 2017)

chilango said:


> The astonishment and bewilderment on Tory faces that I know is a real treat ATM.


But to be fair it's all down to you skewing the poll with fake answers. I hope you're proud of yourself.


----------



## Lucy Fur (May 31, 2017)

Maybe this has been the plan all along, 18 months of bitter infighting was all a smokescreen, whilst Labour busily got their manifesto together and lured the Scum into thinking they could walk an election without even trying .....yeah, I know, who am I trying to kid. We can hope for a while tho.


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> Because Labour have managed to position themselves as a positive choice rather than a 'least bad' option this time round. Or rather, I think they might have managed to do both: enthuse a whole load of people as a positive choice, and now they're scooping up the _least bad_ vote.


I suppose my wet blanket reply is that they probably _haven't_ done that i.e. that this poll isn't correct or at least doesn't represent what will happen on the day (and what happens on the day will of course have an element of voter suppression). But running with the scenario of this poll, I still don't quite see what the connection has been between, specifically, young voters and Labour. Labour have been a shambles since 2015 with regard to the basics of being a functioning machine, getting any kind of message out. Yes, there's certainly been a message in Labour's policies and manifesto that _should have_ appealed to working class voters - but let's be clear, until 2 weeks ago Labour were still seen as a shambles. 

I think ultimately all the things we know about are still in play, people feeling abandoned by politicians, everything feeling adrift, a dreadfully uninspiring Tory leader, class mapping onto electoral politics in quite indirect ways. All of the leading to greater volatility, even to the point where answering a poll is no longer about actually stating how you intend to vote. AKA I don't know what the fuck is happening.


----------



## newbie (May 31, 2017)

just as a tiny reality intrusion, let's recognise we'll all be on a (metaphorical) protest march within the next few months, whoever gets in. 

All we're going to get out of this is another government


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Where else would they go in England? To the yellow scum? Hardly likely after the coalition gov and broken promise on HE fees. To the Greens? Well maybe, but in addition to not having a chance anywhere bar two/three seats they're backing Labour in plenty of seats. What other options are there? Labour have managed to sew up the anti-Tory vote (at least in England), and the threat of a Tory landslide strengthened the anti-Tory vote.


Yeah, I get that, but it's more a question of why now.  2010 was understandable, Labour were barely the 'left option' (to say the least) and had been running an economy in crisis. But why did Labour not get those votes in 2015, right after the economic stagnation and cuts? I'm no fan of Miliband, Labour or social democracy, but on some kind of spectrum they could make some kind of claim to being the least bad of the big parties.  _But my real question is why not a month ago or even 2 weeks ago?  Labour were positioned exactly where they are now, but were polling in the high 20s._


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

Less people than you imagine pay that much attention to party politics between elections I guess. It's still a very surprising turnaround, mind.


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

Also the Tory campaign has been a disaster. No such issue in 2015.


----------



## BigTom (May 31, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> I was polled by YouGov at the right time for this one. They asked my postcode and then asked a secondary question about specific candidates in my constitutency even though they'd already asked about general party voting intentions (in several ways to see if I'd crack).



yes, you're right, I had the same, I assumed it was just to see if people who said they'd eg vote labour in the general question also said the same for their constituency.


----------



## brogdale (May 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> Also the Tory campaign has been a disaster. No such issue in 2015.


Rongest suicide note in history?


----------



## Rimbaud (May 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, I get that, but it's more a question of why now.  2010 was understandable, Labour were barely the 'left option' (to say the least) and had been running an economy in crisis. But why did Labour not get those votes in 2015, right after the economic stagnation and cuts? I'm no fan of Miliband, Labour or social democracy, but on some kind of spectrum they could make some kind of claim to being the least bad of the big parties.  _But my real question is why not a month ago or even 2 weeks ago?  Labour were positioned exactly where they are now, but were polling in the high 20s._



I reckon the sudden change is because the anti-Corbyn sentiment was actually not very deep-rooted. People were repeating what they see in the news but not necessarily believing it very deeply - and come election time people have started to engage more seriously. The manifesto is a big part of it too, beforehand most people weren't really sure of what Corbyn stood for, and now that they do know they can judge him on that rather than whatever nonsense the Tory press throws on him.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 31, 2017)

BigTom said:


> yes, you're right, I had the same, I assumed it was just to see if people who said they'd eg vote labour in the general question also said the same for their constituency.


I did too, but it wasn't their usual format so I noticed. Then when I saw the seat prediction I put the two together.


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Rongest suicide note in history?


It may prove to be a document of the purest hubris.


----------



## brogdale (May 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> It may prove to be a document of the purest hubris.


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, I get that, but it's more a question of why now.  2010 was understandable, Labour were barely the 'left option' (to say the least) and had been running an economy in crisis. But why did Labour not get those votes in 2015, right after the economic stagnation and cuts? I'm no fan of Miliband, Labour or social democracy, but on some kind of spectrum they could make some kind of claim to being the least bad of the big parties.  _But my real question is why not a month ago or even 2 weeks ago?  Labour were positioned exactly where they are now, but were polling in the high 20s._


Greater exposure to policies, manifestos and personalities


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> Also the Tory campaign has been a disaster. No such issue in 2015.


That gets to what I'm asking really.  Politics is often thought of as a process of spin, manipulation and impression management - right through to left arguments around ideological manipulation and false consciousness.  My take is that it's always ultimately about material interests and they way people relate their own experiences to the realm of politics (Brexit of course).  But then how to see this (apparent) turnaround in the polls.  Is it a logical, almost _Enlightenment_ notion of younger voters looking at what's on offer and relating it to their own lack of jobs and housing - or is it just more messy churn and the Tories fucking up and _looking_ bad?


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

BigTom said:


> yes, you're right, I had the same, I assumed it was just to see if people who said they'd eg vote labour in the general question also said the same for their constituency.


It could be used both ways. Just deeper analysis/more number crunching


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

Telegraph and Mail running with stories designed to stem the tide of UKIP voters from the Tories, associating Labour with immigration. This has to be a gamble to an extent, doesn't it? Surely if the Tories run on nativism hard enough they will depress the turnout of some of their socially liberal voters and ethnic minority voters.


----------



## newbie (May 31, 2017)

BigTom said:


> yes, you're right, I had the same, I assumed it was just to see if people who said they'd eg vote labour in the general question also said the same for their constituency.


yes, I also was explicitly asked that when I was polled.  But that was by Populus and it hasn't been published and I'm afraid I was too innocent to ask who'd commissioned it.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 31, 2017)

Do those socially liberal tories read the Mail and Telegraph? There might be a different tone they push through other outlets, e.g. BBC news.


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Do those socially liberal tories read the Mail and Telegraph? There might be a different tone they push through other outlets, e.g. BBC news.


Its the guardian wot won it.


----------



## hot air baboon (May 31, 2017)

can someone post the Adolf Hitler bunker rant meme as & when it appears ?


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 31, 2017)

more i think about it, the more i think that the you gov seat projection is a deliberate part of the latest tory strategy. Its on the front page of a murdoch rag for starters. I guess its cos they want to focus on "coalition of chaos" "nicola sturgeon will steal your brexit" etc. (the pitch that may have won them the 2015 election). 

I suspect that you gov poll showing the tories only 4pts ahead may be off as well - I agree with Wilf to an extent. Fundamentals like best leader and economic competence still favour the tories. 
Corbyn has played a bit of a blinder and May has been fucking awful - but for him to go from Citizen Bean to elder statesman in four weeks in the eyes of the electorate is a bit much to swallow. 

I still think tory majority of 40-60. Labour 35% vote share. A pretty decent result for corbyn in the circumstances - and May damaged - possibly fatally.


----------



## newbie (May 31, 2017)

Have any polls been published recently showing which issues motivate voting intention?


----------



## rutabowa (May 31, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> I guess its cos they want to focus on "coalition of chaos" "nicola sturgeon will steal your brexit" etc. (the pitch that may have won them the 2015 election).


Yep stand by for this in the next week.


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Even after seeing the incredibly unlikely win Corbyn got within the Labour leadership election -- from basically zero no-hoper also-ran to as much as everybody else combined -- everybody still thought it impossible he could gain hard during a general election campaign.
> 
> We overweight the status quo.  Nobody ever sees actual changes coming,


I always suspected this could be on the cards - 600,000 members can make a big difference during an election period in the crucial marginal seats as can the exposure given to corbyn.

The Tories made the mistake of viewing May as their biggest asset and Corbyn as Labours biggest weakness, but they got that arse about tit. Corbyn is a big net asset to the Labour campaign when he's actually given the chance to speak directly to the people, May is the opposite.

Labour were also better prepared for a snap election than the tories after starting to prepare for one in the Autumn.


----------



## kabbes (May 31, 2017)

free spirit said:


> Labour were also better prepared for a snap election than the tories after starting to prepare for one in the Autumn.


Something which, to give him credit, was a Corbyn initiative and which he did in spite of many of us saying it was pointless because of fixed term governments.


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> A big difference between YouGov and ICM then. Of course neither of them are correct but one will by chance be closer to the actual result. They will then claim they have cleverly worked out a great methodology, only to get it wrong in the next election because it's different next time.
> 
> I think people would be better off having honest conversations with doorstep canvassers from both parties than latching on to one of the polls.


ICM are more wrong IMO, they're massively underestimating the likely turnout of the under 25s because their questioning isn't based on this election coming up but on a generic election and is prefaced with a leading bit of text about many people not voting.

Why would so many extra young people be registering to vote if they still had no intention of voting?


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

I have no doubt the tories have been preparing since the autumn too.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 31, 2017)

In a few days we'll get a different poll with a 15% Tory lead again, and we can all calm down.


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

free spirit said:


> ICM are more wrong IMO, they're massively underestimating the likely turnout of the under 25s because their questioning isn't based on this election coming up but on a generic election and is prefaced with a leading bit of text about many people not voting.
> 
> Why would so many extra young people be registering to vote if they still had no intention of voting?


I do wonder if the enthusiasm of younger people may be rubbing off on their parents and/or enabling them to see it through their eyes - bringing housing, student fees etc into sharp focus


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Something which, to give him credit, was a Corbyn initiative and which he did in spite of many of us saying it was pointless because of fixed term governments.


indeed.

IMO his leadership in preparing for this election has been excellent, he and his team been getting on and preparing the ground behind the scenes even while the new labour dickheads have been publicly attacking him and keeping the poll ratings down. 

The social media campaign as well is many times more effective than their piss poor efforts in 2015, they're hitting millions of supporters and likely supports multiple times a day from the various corbyn supporting pages as well as the main official Labour and Corbyn pages.


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

free spirit said:


> indeed.
> 
> IMO his leadership in preparing for this election has been excellent, he and his team been getting on and preparing the ground behind the scenes even while the new labour dickheads have been publicly attacking him and keeping the poll ratings down.
> 
> The social media campaign as well is many times more effective than their piss poor efforts in 2015, they're hitting millions of supporters and likely supports multiple times a day from the various corbyn supporting pages as well as the main official Labour and Corbyn pages.



Lab is using targeted adverts too, something which the Tories did but the Labour Party didn't do in 2015 iirc.


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2017)

JTG said:


> I do wonder if the enthusiasm of younger people may be rubbing off on their parents and/or enabling them to see it through their eyes - bringing housing, student fees etc into sharp focus


I think so, all those enthused students heading home must have an impact - it's either going to be the parents talking the students out of it, or the students talking the parents round. I suspect it will mainly be the latter that prevails, particularly as the students will still be being bombarded daily by labour messaging from their friends etc on facebook, unlike 20 years ago when students would have gone home and instantly been isolated from their peers.


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

hang on - do you guys actually think May decided to call an election on her Easter walking holiday?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 31, 2017)

free spirit said:


> I always suspected this could be on the cards - 600,000 members can make a big difference during an election period in the crucial marginal seats as can the exposure given to corbyn.



A lot of the people I know that are getting involved aren't party members. Voter registration drives, delivering leaflets, flyering at train stations, designing and distributing anti-Tory postcards. Dunkirk spirit and all that. If I was anywhere that mattered I'd be inclined to muck in too, at least as punishment for wasting my time with those shit unsolicited YouTube adverts.


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

free spirit said:


> I think so, all those enthused students heading home must have an impact - it's either going to be the parents talking the students out of it, or the students talking the parents round. I suspect it will mainly be the latter that prevails, particularly as the students will still be being bombarded daily by labour messaging from their friends etc on facebook, unlike 20 years ago when students would have gone home and instantly been isolated from their peers.



More likely m/c parents getting a bit fed up of skimping on golfing cruises to pay their kids' rent.


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

chilango said:


> More likely m/c parents getting a bit fed up of skimping on golfing cruises to pay their kids' rent.



...after all tax cuts are useless if you can't spend it on yourselves.


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2017)

free spirit said:


> I think so, all those enthused students heading home must have an impact - it's either going to be the parents talking the students out of it, or the students talking the parents round. I suspect it will mainly be the latter that prevails, particularly as the students will still be being bombarded daily by labour messaging from their friends etc on facebook, unlike 20 years ago when students would have gone home and instantly been isolated from their peers.


I think Labour will win the demographics of young voters and students, whatever the result. But I'm not convinced that we can talk about a mobilised, active group, intervening in the election.  To be honest, I'm no longer sure _where_ the dividing line between clicktivism, memes, facebook and 'real life' interests and politics is any more - and I'm not really aiming this at your post. But I have a feeling some of that is at the heart of Labour's apparent surge in the polls, which might not manifest itself on the day.


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I think Labour will win the demographics of young voters and students, whatever the result. But I'm not convinced that we can talk about a mobilised, active group, intervening in the election.  To be honest, I'm no longer sure _where_ the dividing line between clicktivism, memes, facebook and 'real life' interests and politics is any more - and I'm not really aiming this at your post. But I have a feeling some of that is at the heart of Labour's apparent surge in the polls, which might not manifest itself on the day.



Cue campaigns for internet voting...


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

You're deluded if you think a load of students are going to go home from uni and argue their Tory parents round to voting Labour. Enough for it to be significant anyway. The fuck.


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2017)

chilango said:


> Cue campaigns for internet voting...


I was just about to come out with something about Labour winning the hyper-real and the virtual, while the unremitting filth of day to day neo-liberalism grinds on after June 8th.


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I was just about to come out with something about Labour winning the hyper-real and the virtual, while the unremitting filth of day to day neo-liberalism grinds on after June 8th.



A moral victory. The charity shield of democracy.


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I think Labour will win the demographics of young voters and students, whatever the result. But I'm not convinced that we can talk about a mobilised, active group, intervening in the election.  To be honest, I'm no longer sure _where_ the dividing line between clicktivism, memes, facebook and 'real life' interests and politics is any more - and I'm not really aiming this at your post. But I have a feeling some of that is at the heart of Labour's apparent surge in the polls, which might not manifest itself on the day.


when it converts to 4-5000 kids causing a road block just attempting to hear Corbyn speak on less than 18 hours notice I reckon it's reached beyond just clicktivism.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, I get that, but it's more a question of why now.  2010 was understandable, Labour were barely the 'left option' (to say the least) and had been running an economy in crisis. But why did Labour not get those votes in 2015, right after the economic stagnation and cuts? I'm no fan of Miliband, Labour or social democracy, but on some kind of spectrum they could make some kind of claim to being the least bad of the big parties.  _But my real question is why not a month ago or even 2 weeks ago?  Labour were positioned exactly where they are now, but were polling in the high 20s._


On the italic part, I don't know really, maybe just the election clarifying things in people's minds. 

But I do think whatever the, often very valid, criticisms that can be made of Corbyn/McDonnell/etc at least this time Labour are at least offering something slightly different. In 2015 it was austerity but just a bit less than the Tories, I mean they were too scared/ideologically opposed to even go for re-ntaionalisation of the railways, something that poll after poll has shown is incredibly popular.


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2017)

chilango said:


> A moral victory. The charity shield of democracy.


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> You're deluded if you think a load of students are going to go home from uni and argue their Tory parents round to voting Labour. Enough for it to be significant anyway. The fuck.


Those 30 odd percent who've always voted tory and always will aren't going to get talked around, but the tories have put on about 15-20% of support that was once Lib Dem or UKIP or even Labour. That's not hardcore tory support, it's soft support that's now being eroded by a variety of factors, one of which could well be million or more students returning home, most of whom are pretty enthused corbyn supporters.

I'd say it's more deluded to think that would have zero impact.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (May 31, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> false dawn imo



Exactly. Deep down we all know that tories tend to come out and vote more on the day where it matters.


----------



## treelover (May 31, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Hopefully it'll make them a bit panicked and clumsy, May will look even more knackered, behind closed doors lots of shouting and finger pointing. Realistically they'll just ramp up the fear factor / negative ads even more, get the papers on the case, get the vote out.
> 
> I'm too used to being disappointed. *I'd love that 1997 feeling again, boozed up and shrieking with a room full of mates, Portillo out on his arse and so on. Most likely to sleep through it this time, wake up with grinning Tories on the telly *



False dawn though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 31, 2017)

free spirit said:


> Those 30 odd percent who've always voted tory and always will aren't going to get talked around, but the tories have put on about 15-20% of support that was once Lib Dem or UKIP or even Labour. That's not hardcore tory support, it's soft support that's now being eroded by a variety of factors, one of which could well be million or more students returning home, most of whom are pretty enthused corbyn supporters.
> 
> I'd say it's more deluded to think that would have zero impact.


I'd better get out and vote to cancel out my idiot child...


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> hang on - do you guys actually think May decided to call an election on her Easter walking holiday?


The tories hadn't prepared for it, their constituency parties had no clue it was happening and had had no instructions to prepare for a snap election.

Whether or not she actually took the decision on her holiday, the fact is the tories were less prepared for it as a party than Labour, who'd issued instructions to prepare for a snap election 6 months ago (as had the lib dems).


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

free spirit said:


> Those 30 odd percent who've always voted tory and always will aren't going to get talked around, but the tories have put on about 15-20% of support that was once Lib Dem or UKIP or even Labour. That's not hardcore tory support, it's soft support that's now being eroded by a variety of factors, one of which could well be million or more students returning home, most of whom are pretty enthused corbyn supporters.
> 
> I'd say it's more deluded to think that would have zero impact.


who said zero?


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2017)

free spirit said:


> when it converts to 4-5000 kids causing a road block just attempting to hear Corbyn speak on less than 18 hours notice I reckon it's reached beyond just clicktivism.


I vaguely remember talking about the corbyn mass meetings (1st leadership election) and the massive rise in membership - that they weren't translating into an actual political force or engagement with working class voters - and using the term 'real life clicktivism'. A sort of splurge of do a bit of that, forward that and add that to your profile.  I don't actually mean that to sound _quite_ as cynical as it does and as I've said, I'm struggling to work out where the boundary of facebookmemery and real life interests is any more.  None of this has the characteristics of a 'social movement', that's part of it - and neither does it really look like class politics.  I don't know whether the impulses to do this roadblock are the same as the impulse to go on strike?


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd better get out and vote to cancel out my idiot child...


maybe, but £50k of student debt vs not £50k of debt is a pretty sobering thought for any parent IMO.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 31, 2017)

free spirit said:


> maybe, but £50k of student debt vs not £50k of debt is a pretty sobering thought for any parent IMO.


That was already true in 2015, though. It's not like the idea of £50k debt is new.


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

free spirit said:


> maybe, but £50k of student debt vs not £50k of debt is a pretty sobering thought for any parent IMO.



Probably not _any_, a handful spend that per year on private school fees.


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

free spirit said:


> maybe, but £50k of student debt vs not £50k of debt is a pretty sobering thought for any parent IMO.


right - which is far more likely to make them consider which way they vote than their idealistic kid arguing with them over the fish fingers.


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I vaguely remember talking about the corbyn mass meetings (1st leadership election) and the massive rise in membership - that they weren't translating into an actual political force or engagement with working class voters - and using the term 'real life clicktivism'. A sort of splurge of do a bit of that, forward that and add that to your profile.  I don't actually mean that to sound _quite_ as cynical as it does and as I've said, I'm struggling to work out where the boundary of facebookmemery and real life interests is any more.  None of this has the characteristics of a 'social movement', that's part of it - and neither does it really look like class politics.  I don't know whether the impulses to do this roadblock are the same as the impulse to go on strike?



I'm trying to work it out too but I can't quite do a proper analysis because the crowds are hidden behind Laura Kuenssberg's tree.


----------



## kabbes (May 31, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That was already true in 2015, though. It's not like the idea of £50k debt is new.


Labour weren't saying they would get rid of tuition fees in 2015 (were they?)


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That was already true in 2015, though. It's not like the idea of £50k debt is new.


were Labour promising free uni education in 2015?


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> who said zero?


ok, you're saying it's insignificant, I'm saying it probably is a significant factor.

We are talking about a million plus people here going home and sitting watching the final election debates with their parents and talking about their student debt levels etc.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 31, 2017)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Exactly. Deep down we all know that tories tend to come out and vote more on the day where it matters.


I'm sorry but this and the 80% turnout stuff is as fantastical as your predications for the Green break through in Leeds NW two years. 

Seriously, take a breath, have a cup of tea and calm down.


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That was already true in 2015, though. It's not like the idea of £50k debt is new.


no it wasn't. The Greens were campaigning to cancel it, Labour weren't going to change it.

eta sorry they were going to reduce the fees to £6k a year.


----------



## bi0boy (May 31, 2017)

Milliband was touting rent caps and a tuition fee reduction. But he couldn't eat a bacon sandwich.


----------



## treelover (May 31, 2017)

free spirit said:


> when it converts to 4-5000 kids causing a road block just attempting to hear Corbyn speak on less than 18 hours notice I reckon it's reached beyond just clicktivism.



Was this Leeds?


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2017)

treelover said:


> Was this Leeds?


yes


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I'm trying to work it out too but I can't quite do a proper analysis because the crowds are hidden behind Laura Kuenssberg's tree.




Subliminal.


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

Two things that have received little comment and may bode well for Labour, this is based on what I reckon not any empirical evidence or anything...

1) Signage. I really think that, at least here in the West Midlands both in marginal, Tory and Labour areas is a distinct lack of signs for Tory candidates whereas there are a good number of signs for Labour candidates. This was something that was pointed out by pro-Trump commentators during the US election in 2016 in respect to Clinton, they were laughed at but it really did seem to point to a lack of enthusiasm which translated into poor turnout for Clinton.

2) Sloganeering. I was amongst those who thought that Strong and stable was good, fine messaging that would serve the needs of the Tories just as well as previous similar empty slogans repeated ad nauseum had in 2015. Strong and stable though has clearly been a total failure, so much so that they have retired it. By contrast, 'for the many not the few' seems to be taking on a sort of memetic quality in a similar way to 'Take Back Control' and 'Make America Great Again'. These are slogans that talk about the people, rather than referring to elite leadership in the same way that 'I'm with her' did.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 31, 2017)

Oh Guardian feed saying that Corbyn is going todo the BBC thing tonight.


----------



## kabbes (May 31, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Oh Guardian feed saying that Corbyn is going todo the BBC thing tonight.


Just when I'd finally been persuaded that doing it would be a mistake!


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Oh Guardian feed saying that Corbyn is going todo the BBC thing tonight.



Good! Win win for Labour imo. If May ends up doing it then it will be a climb down, if she doesn't then she still looks very weak. Amber Rudd is also probably a worse speaker than May, what on earth were they thinking?


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Just when I'd finally been persuaded that doing it would be a mistake!



I never really understood the logic behind not doing it.


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> You're deluded if you think a load of students are going to go home from uni and argue their Tory parents round to voting Labour. Enough for it to be significant anyway. The fuck.


 Students round here _are_ fucking Tories.


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

free spirit said:


> maybe, but £50k of student debt vs not £50k of debt is a pretty sobering thought for any parent IMO.



Not to m/c Tory parents with a portfolio of BTLs mortgaged up to the eyeballs it's not.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Just when I'd finally been persuaded that doing it would be a mistake!


When the other parties were competing for Labours vote I can see why it might have been a mistake but now the danger of that's reduced less risk


----------



## treelover (May 31, 2017)

‘She’s a liar, liar’: anti-Theresa May song heads to top of charts

Liar Liar GE2017 by Captain Ska, viewed/purchased much more than the 2010 version, good sign?


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2017)

treelover said:


> ‘She’s a liar, liar’: anti-Theresa May song heads to top of charts
> 
> Liar Liar GE2017 by Captain Ska, viewed/purchased much more than the 2010 version, good sign?


Haven't seen that before and clicked on it expecting to cringe as is usually the case with 'protest songs'. But it's actually quite well put together.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 31, 2017)

chilango said:


> A moral victory. The charity shield of democracy.


Pride of place in Hillary Clinton's trophy cabinet


----------



## Raheem (May 31, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I never really understood the logic behind not doing it.



Coryn turning up carries the risk that he will fuck something up and look ridiculous on live TV, but without any corresponding risk that May might do the same. 

Otoh, if he performs well or just OK, then May's failure to show up might become a voting issue. Her thing is that JC doesn't have what it takes to go face-to-face with Barnier (not that this is how the negotiations will work anyway), but she's not even willing to go face-to-face with JC.

Think the stakes are v high.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Haven't seen that before and clicked on it expecting to cringe as is usually the case with 'protest songs'. But it's actually quite well put together.


Certainly better than the Le Tigre Clinton song


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Haven't seen that before and clicked on it expecting to cringe as is usually the case with 'protest songs'. But it's actually quite well put together.


oh wilf.


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> Pride of place in Hillary Clinton's trophy cabinet


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Certainly better than the Le Tigre Clinton song



Aw. I used to like Le Tigre.


----------



## treelover (May 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Haven't seen that before and clicked on it expecting to cringe as is usually the case with 'protest songs'. But it's actually quite well put together.



they are great live, only seem to play in London though(gig there next week)


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Certainly better than the Le Tigre Clinton song



oh god I had blocked that out of my memory


----------



## redsquirrel (May 31, 2017)

chilango said:


> Aw. I used to like Le Tigre.


They're great so I can forgive them that aberration, but christ it was fucking terrible - politically and musically


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> oh wilf.


Look, I'm 56, I thought it was a real toe tapper.


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2017)

Anyway, talking of 'songs', I hope someone has locked Billy Bragg in his fucking mansion. One intervention from him and it's defeat dragged from the jaws of victory.


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Look, I'm 56, I thought it was a real toe tapper.


lol, someone on my facebook was saying how great it would be at getting the message to the youth - I told him the youth don't give a fuck about this embarassing shit, and the people buying it to get it in the charts are all in their 50s. 

glad to have some further evidence of this...


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Anyway, talking of 'songs', I hope someone has locked Billy Bragg in his fucking mansion. One intervention from him and it's defeat dragged from the jaws of victory.



Hasn't he gone over to the Lib Dems anyway?


----------



## redsquirrel (May 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Anyway, talking of 'songs', I hope someone has locked Billy Bragg in his fucking mansion. One intervention from him and it's defeat dragged from the jaws of victory.


Wonder if he's still voting LD to keep the Tories out from his mansion


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2017)

to put some stats on this, in the yougov polls there's been a 7% swing from Tory to Labour in the 50-64 age range in the last week vs no significant change in the age brackets either side. There has also been a big closing of the gap in the ABC1 democraphic from 9% to 1% vs a slight swing the other way in the C2DE demographic.

Not conclusive, but those are the demographics that I'd be expecting to see that sort of change in as Corbyn's popularity with the under 25s and students in particular (and the associated policies) filtered back through to their parents.


----------



## binka (May 31, 2017)

Booked the friday off work, will get a box of wine in from Asda. Sounds like we're all in for a great night


----------



## DotCommunist (May 31, 2017)

what it really needs is some proper grimey chorus between that 'liar liar' refrain. I joke not, its a nice chorus. The video is wank mind


----------



## Raheem (May 31, 2017)

binka said:


> Booked the friday off work, will get a box of wine in from Asda. Sounds like we're all in for a great night



Not if you're only getting one box in.


----------



## kabbes (May 31, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I never really understood the logic behind not doing it.


It's a bit of a "parade of losers" without the incumbent government.

(Although have I missed something?  Did I hear that Amber Rudd is going to be there?)


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2017)

binka said:


> Booked the friday off work, will get a *box* of wine in from Asda. Sounds like we're all in for a great night


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Wonder if he's still voting LD to keep the Tories out from his mansion


"_There is power in a uni_...... OY GET ORFF MY LAND!'


----------



## belboid (May 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> It's a bit of a "parade of losers" without the incumbent government.
> 
> (Although have I missed something?  Did I hear that Amber Rudd is going to be there?)


Some Tory will be, but TM is running frit


----------



## kabbes (May 31, 2017)

belboid said:


> Some Tory will be, but TM is running frit


That's the worst possible strategy for the Tories.  Ignore it disdainfully if you must, but don't show it is important enough to turn up for and then have your leader run scared.


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> That's the worst possible strategy for the Tories.  Ignore it disdainfully if you must, but don't show it is important enough to turn up for and then have your leader run scared.



What I've been trying to work out, and I've asked several people about it and none of them have any more of answer than I do, why Rudd? May is a far more capable speaker than Rudd, as you say it would make more sense to just ignore it and send no one or just to send May...  but Rudd?


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

Is Rudd actually secretly a great speaker and I've just not seen it?

Surely they just assumed that Corbyn would never turn up, otherwise they would never have decided this!


----------



## Teaboy (May 31, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Is Rudd actually secretly a great speaker and I've just not seen it?
> 
> Surely they just assumed that Corbyn would never turn up, otherwise they would never have decided this!



She strikes me as a massive liability, she constantly looks flustered and never in control of things.  I do get the impression that she is one of May's favorites though, perhaps TM doesn't trust the others?


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

Given that her entire campaign has been about her being the best choice for those tough talks with the EU, her shitting it at the thought of debating Jeremy fucking Corbyn is a absolute fuck up of the highest order. Even if (when) she wins, she's fucked it.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 31, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> I do get the impression that she is one of May's favorites though, perhaps TM doesn't trust the others?



Perhaps less likely to be using it to raise her profile for the next leadership election.


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

Cornwall into neck and neck territory


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

chilango said:


> Given that her entire campaign has been about her being the best choice for those tough talks with the EU, her shitting it at the thought of debating Jeremy fucking Corbyn is a absolute fuck up of the highest order. Even if (when) she wins, she's fucked it.



I just don't get it,  there must be some thinking behind all this that I do not see but to me it just looks like a total disaster.


----------



## kabbes (May 31, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I just don't get it,  there must be some thinking behind all this that I do not see but to me it just looks like a total disaster.


Everything they have done has been a disaster -- why not this too?

It's still not on the scale of the dementia tax, for example.


----------



## Teaboy (May 31, 2017)

chilango said:


> Given that her entire campaign has been about her being the best choice for those tough talks with the EU, her shitting it at the thought of debating Jeremy fucking Corbyn is a absolute fuck up of the highest order. Even if (when) she wins, she's fucked it.



Yes it does look bad.   As long as Corbyn doesn't balls it all up this should be an open goal.


----------



## gawkrodger (May 31, 2017)

J Ed said:


> 1) Signage. I really think that, at least here in the West Midlands both in marginal, Tory and Labour areas is a distinct lack of signs for Tory candidates whereas there are a good number of signs for Labour candidates. This was something that was pointed out by pro-Trump commentators during the US election in 2016 in respect to Clinton, they were laughed at but it really did seem to point to a lack of enthusiasm which translated into poor turnout for Clinton..



I was chatting about this with a few mates at the weekend. Pretty much all I'm seeing around the Black Country is Labour signs. In fact, I saw only my second Tory signs yesterday, and that was 'cos I was on the rural outskirts of Wolves, in one of the Shropshire?Staffordshire?? constituencies which butt into Wolves and they were lined up along a farmers field.

A lot of Labour signs in my marginal constituency. Have seen but one Tory sign, even in the posh areas on the west side.

Most interesting is that stretch of the Brum New Road/Wolverhampton road (can't remember which bit is which) between the M5/sandwell/toysrus roundabout and the Hagley Road crossroads. I've always found the lamposts (and to a lesser extent, houses which line the road) pretty reflective of political trends. 2001 everything was Labour. 2005 was a real mix of Labour and BNP. 2010 was a load of UKIP and Tory, European elections bunch of UKIP, 2015 mix of Tory, Labour and UKIP, lots of Leave  for the Euro Ref. The last week or so driving up and down there lots of posters. All Labour.

fuck knows if any of this will actually end up meaning anything.

I'd love to do some GIS analysis of posters/signs + election results but can't imagine where I'd get data from


----------



## Teaboy (May 31, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I just don't get it,  there must be some thinking behind all this that I do not see but to me it just looks like a total disaster.



Caught on the hop I imagine.


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

JTG said:


> Cornwall into neck and neck territory


 
I know v little about politics in the SW but these results would be extraordinarily good for Labour if true, wouldn't they? Aren't these ordinarily places where Labour isn't competitive?


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

gawkrodger said:


> I was chatting about this with a few mates at the weekend. Pretty much all I'm seeing around the Black Country is Labour signs. In fact, I saw only my second Tory signs yesterday, and that was 'cos I was on the rural outskirts of Wolves, in one of the Shropshire?Staffordshire?? constituencies which butt into Wolves and they were lined up along a farmers field.
> 
> A lot of Labour signs in my marginal constituency. Have seen but one Tory sign, even in the posh areas on the west side.
> 
> ...



I have seen a few Tory signs in Streetly, Four Oaks and Sutton Coldfield but not that many, a lot less than I would expect to see in these areas. I agree with you, it's an interesting topic. I don't think we should dismiss it outright at all. As you say, a lot of these signs are in areas where there was a lot of signage for the Leave campaign during the referendum, this is potentially positive stuff isn't it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 31, 2017)

Did they choose Rudd hoping they'd force Labour's hand into sending Abbott in return?


----------



## Teaboy (May 31, 2017)

gawkrodger said:


> I was chatting about this with a few mates at the weekend. Pretty much all I'm seeing around the Black Country is Labour signs. In fact, I saw only my second Tory signs yesterday, and that was 'cos I was on the rural outskirts of Wolves, in one of the Shropshire?Staffordshire?? constituencies which butt into Wolves and they were lined up along a farmers field.
> 
> A lot of Labour signs in my marginal constituency. Have seen but one Tory sign, even in the posh areas on the west side.
> 
> ...



Same here.  I live in a tory seat but it is just 2000 majority and number one target for the lib dems.  I've seen loads and loads of lib dem posters and even a few labour and green.  I've not seen one tory yet, not one in a marginal seat where they are the incumbent.  Bizarre to say the least.


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

Sending corbo in at the last minute is a great move I think - now she either has to do it - and be both unprepared and another u-turn - or she gets called chicken all the way through. Nicely done.


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I know v little about politics in the SW but these results would be extraordinarily good for Labour if true, wouldn't they? Aren't these ordinarily places where Labour isn't competitive?


Falmouth & Camborne has had Labour MPs before, 1997-2005 most recently. Constituency was abolished in 2010 - Labour were 7,000 behind Tories in Camborne & Redruth in 2015.
Rest of Cornwall is a Tory/Lib Dem fight


----------



## hot air baboon (May 31, 2017)

chilango said:


> Given that her entire campaign has been about her being the best choice for those tough talks with the EU, her shitting it at the thought of debating Jeremy fucking Corbyn is a absolute fuck up of the highest order. Even if (when) she wins, she's fucked it.



hey...the One Show with Matt Baker is hardly a walk in the park you know...


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

So she is going to be there but debating? God that is even worse


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 31, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Same here.  I live in a tory seat but it is just 2000 majority and number one target for the lib dems.  I've seen loads and loads of lib dem posters and even a few labour and green.  I've not seen one tory yet, not one in a marginal seat where they are the incumbent.  Bizarre to say the least.



Would Tory voters want to sully their garden or their window with an ugly sign, though? Tories are hardly activists, and signs are a bit activist, aren't they?


----------



## Teaboy (May 31, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Would Tory voters want to sully their garden or their window with an ugly sign, though? Tories are hardly activists, and signs are a bit activist, aren't they?



Probably less so but it was very different two years ago.  We had Cameron down here making visits along with several other high profile tories.  Its like they've given up on the seat this time around.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (May 31, 2017)

I almost hope Maybot wins - with a majority of one.


J Ed said:


> So she is going to be there but debating? God that is even worse




No 20% reduction in the frontline grammar police then?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 31, 2017)

She only has one soundbite, and it's not really worth anything in trade.


----------



## emanymton (May 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I vaguely remember talking about the corbyn mass meetings (1st leadership election) and the massive rise in membership - that they weren't translating into an actual political force or engagement with working class voters - and using the term 'real life clicktivism'. A sort of splurge of do a bit of that, forward that and add that to your profile.  I don't actually mean that to sound _quite_ as cynical as it does and as I've said, I'm struggling to work out where the boundary of facebookmemery and real life interests is any more.  None of this has the characteristics of a 'social movement', that's part of it - and neither does it really look like class politics.  I don't know whether the impulses to do this roadblock are the same as the impulse to go on strike?


I think there is too much of an expectation for others to do it form them, rather than doing it for themselves. If that makes sense.


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Just when I'd finally been persuaded that doing it would be a mistake!


I think refusing was the right thing to do three weeks ago - it would have looked like a parade of losers. Stepping in now, at the last minute with the wind in his sails is a power move though. The circumstances have changed considerably since the debate was announced.


----------



## belboid (May 31, 2017)

Sturgeon now the fifth most popular party leader in Scotland, according to the latest ipsos mori. Wheels starting to fall off the SNP loco


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 31, 2017)

Have there been any projections of the Scottish vote specifically?


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> I think refusing was the right thing to do three weeks ago - it would have looked like a parade of losers. Stepping in now, at the last minute with the wind in his sails is a power move though. The circumstances have changed considerably since the debate was announced.


Thinking about this: do you remember a month ago, when people were talking seriously about a complete Labour electoral collapse and the Lib Dems riding a 48%er wave to become the main party of opposition?

A month.


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> Thinking about this: do you remember a month ago, when people were talking seriously about a complete Labour electoral collapse and the Lib Dems riding a 48%er wave to become the main party of opposition?
> 
> A month.



Makes just over a week seem like a very long time indeed.


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I vaguely remember talking about the corbyn mass meetings (1st leadership election) and the massive rise in membership - that they weren't translating into an actual political force or engagement with working class voters - and using the term 'real life clicktivism'. A sort of splurge of do a bit of that, forward that and add that to your profile.  I don't actually mean that to sound _quite_ as cynical as it does and as I've said, I'm struggling to work out where the boundary of facebookmemery and real life interests is any more.  None of this has the characteristics of a 'social movement', that's part of it - and neither does it really look like class politics.  I don't know whether the impulses to do this roadblock are the same as the impulse to go on strike?


it's clearly not the same as taking the decision to go on strike, but then it's also more commitment than is needed to go out to vote.

Did I mention that it started raining and nobody left even though corbyn hadn't arrived yet and nobody knew if he'd even be speaking to those outside or not.

In social media terms as well Labour are wiping the floor with the tories, with nearly 2 million interactions this week on the main labour / corbyn supporting pages vs 350k between the conservatives and theresa May's pages.

I'm struggling to work out how many different people that will be hitting, but if the ratio were anything like a Green Party page I admin it would be around 55 million post views a week, fuck knows how that translates into the number of different people being reached, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't more than 10 million different people a week. That's one hell of a platform to directly reach a big chunk of people in a way that bypasses and counters the media, which IMO is a significant part of why they're doing so much better with the age ranges that use social media the most and so badly with the older generation who use it the least and rely on the daily mail etc far more for their view of things.


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2017)

Yougov's election centre where they're doing the seat projections has been launched here


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

free spirit said:


> Yougov's election centre where they're doing the seat projections has been launched here



Excellent.

It has Reading East as a "toss up" and Bristol NW as likely Labour.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 31, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> According to the BBC


YouGov |  How the YouGov model for the 2017 General Election works


----------



## kabbes (May 31, 2017)

free spirit said:


> Yougov's election centre where they're doing the seat projections has been launched here


Unsurprisingly, Mole Valley is still a safe Conservative, with the same 60%-ish it always gets.  Labour, however, only got 8% in the last election and are now being predicted 16%.  That's mostly at the expense of UKIP, who have disintegrated here as much as everywhere else.


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

Anyway, this just in.


----------



## belboid (May 31, 2017)

chilango said:


> Excellent.
> 
> It has Reading East as a "toss up" and Bristol NW as likely Labour.


Sheffield Hallam too! Oh god that would be good


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

belboid said:


> Sheffield Hallam too! Oh god that would be good



I almost mentioned that. But didn't want to tempt fate!


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> Anyway, this just in.



Lib Dems up?

*unlikes post*


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

belboid said:


> Sheffield Hallam too! Oh god that would be good



TBH that made me doubt the validity of the polling method more than it does enthuse me about the possibility of them losing Hallam.


----------



## Cid (May 31, 2017)

belboid said:


> Sheffield Hallam too! Oh god that would be good



I still think this is pretty unlikely, given that in the great lib dem slump he still managed 4% over labour... Still... I suppose there's a possibility of a swing among the student demmers. The Conservative vote there is weak, so there's not much need to vote strategically.

But yeah, really more makes me echo J Ed above.


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2017)

chilango said:


> Lib Dems up?
> 
> *unlikes post*


Poll Taker - And how will you be voting in the general election sir?
- Libdem
Poll Taker - Try again
- But I'll be voting Libdem!
Poll Taker - Look, I'm not fucking putting that down
- But, but...
Poll Taker - Oh, just fuck off, you miserable, pissyellow, whiney shitbasket


----------



## JimW (May 31, 2017)

Stroud leaning Labour! And that despite Keith Allen putting up an anti-Tory banner on his nightclub.


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> YouGov |  How the YouGov model for the 2017 General Election works


I think the model probably suffers from the averaging affect, so say the greens are putting fuckloads of effort into bristol west, but it has us trailing behind in 4th place. We've basically focussed all significant campaigning effort on 5 seats, but the model is based on the average across all similar seats so will probably end up about right as an average, but not on a seat by seat basis.

The lib dem situation will be a bit similar, though they may have enough lib dem / lab marginals that they're fighting in all of that the average won't be too far off.

I know locally that the lib dem MP (Leeds NW) is starting to panic a bit, and Labour are getting more confident. I'm fairly sure Labour have got more boots on the ground.


----------



## 1%er (May 31, 2017)

I was listening to a retired polling executive on the radio recently and he was asked why recent polls appear to be wrong in UK, US and the recent EU referendum. He claimed (and it seem reasonable) that while most people tell the truth about who they would vote for, they lie about if they will actually vote.

The only figures I remember with any certainty were for the last 4 UK general elections, he said the figures show that turn-out was around 63% (an average of the 4 elections iirc), but the percentage of people involved in the polls who claimed they would actually vote was 92% (seem high).

When asked how they can get any sort of "real data" with sure a big difference in those numbers, he said the different polling companies have different models they use to adjust for the difference.

Anecdotal; If I listen to UK radio I tend to listen to LBC and during the 2015 election it seems most callers said they would vote Tory but over the last week or so most appear to be saying they will vote Labour. I tend to listen between lunchtime and until around 7pm UK time, not sure if that means a different demographic are calling.


----------



## kabbes (May 31, 2017)

ISTM that in Brexit and the last US and last U.K. elections, polling companies have predicted the % result to within the stated error quite reasonably.  The problem for Brexit was that there is such a cliff-edge difference between 48/52 and 52/48 and for the US and UK it comes down to the difficulty of converting % into FPTP results.


----------



## emanymton (May 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> Thinking about this: do you remember a month ago, when people were talking seriously about a complete Labour electoral collapse and the Lib Dems riding a 48%er wave to become the main party of opposition?
> 
> A month.


But they would have been talking bollocks.


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

JimW said:


> Stroud leaning Labour! And that despite Keith Allen putting up an anti-Tory banner on his nightclub.


Wait, Keith Allen has a nightclub in Stroud?!


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

emanymton said:


> But they would have been talking bollocks.


of course. but the labour collapse at least didn't seem that unlikely.


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

chilango said:


> Excellent.
> 
> It has Reading East as a "toss up" and Bristol NW as likely Labour.


GTFI
All four parliamentary seats, the council and the mayor. The only time I enjoy the red team winning in Bristol

Fingers crossed


----------



## emanymton (May 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> of course. but the labour collapse at least didn't seem that unlikely.


I think the extant of any possible collapse was vastly overstated. But yes, I don't think anyone thought they would be doing this well.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (May 31, 2017)

They've described Barrow as a toss up. Think they mean toss stain.


----------



## bi0boy (May 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> ISTM that in Brexit and the last US and last U.K. elections, polling companies have predicted the % result to within the stated error quite reasonably.  The problem for Brexit was that there is such a cliff-edge difference between 48/52 and 52/48 and for the US and UK it comes down to the difficulty of converting % into FPTP results.



The problem in 2015 is that every single pollster understated the Tory vote share, which they've pretty much always done since the 70s:
General Election: 7 May 2015


----------



## belboid (May 31, 2017)

Cid said:


> I still think this is pretty unlikely, given that in the great lib dem slump he still managed 4% over labour... Still... I suppose there's a possibility of a swing among the student demmers. The Conservative vote there is weak, so there's not much need to vote strategically.
> 
> But yeah, really more makes me echo J Ed above.


He survived last time because of tories backing him to stop a quite noisy Labour campaign. They've no particular reason to stick with him this time, and the student vote that was so key for him in 2010 is all but gone. It's plausible, not likely, but it definitely could happen.


----------



## kabbes (May 31, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> The problem in 2015 is that every single pollster understated the Tory vote share, which they've pretty much always done since the 70s:
> General Election: 7 May 2015


5/8 were within 4% of the Tory vote.  Isn't that their margin for error?  The other 3 weren't that far away either.

So yes, they were underestimating the Tories but not by that huge a margin.  I think the problem is as much about the communication and interpretation of the polls as the actual percentages.  There is all kind of model and parameter error in there, which will tend to systematically under- or over-estimate certain results, as well as random result error.  This type of uncertainty is really not properly communicated.  And then the way this gets interpreted as uniform swing is just all kinds of wrong and should really be binned.


----------



## bi0boy (May 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> 5/8 were within 4% of the Tory vote.  Isn't that their margin for error?  The other 3 weren't that far away either.
> 
> So yes, they were underestimating the Tories but not by that huge a margin.  I think the problem is as much about the communication and interpretation of the polls as the actual percentages.  There is all kind of model and parameter error in there, which will tend to systematically under- or over-estimate certain results, as well as random result error.  This type of uncertainty is really not properly communicated.  And then the way this gets interpreted as uniform swing is just all kinds of wrong and should really be binned.



The most reliable information that has been obtainable from the polls for yonks is that the Conservative vote share will be greater than indicated. Of course this time their methodology adjustments might have worked, but I wouldn't count on it.


----------



## kabbes (May 31, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> The most reliable information that has been obtainable from the polls for yonks is that the Conservative vote share will be greater than indicated. Of course this time their methodology adjustments might have worked, but I wouldn't count on it.


Trufax.  There still comes a point, though, where reactive systems overreact/fail to account for new circumstance and it all goes the other way.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 31, 2017)

That YouGov data was collected over seven days, so represents quite a long time period relative to other polls - there could have been some movement back towards the Tories since (think I've seen this on one poll).


----------



## phillm (May 31, 2017)

I suspect as ever a lot of tory voters will stay in the 'underground' and not make it known and a good few more will hold their nose and vote Tory on the day.


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

Door to door polling in Bristol NW this evening


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 31, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> That YouGov data was collected over seven days, so represents quite a long time period relative to other polls - there could have been some movement back towards the Tories since (think I've seen this on one poll).


The way I'm looking at polling is to track each company and look at the trends within their series of polls. Clearly their methodologies and assumptions are different, leading to very different leads for Con, but the trends within each line are relatively consistent.

Looking at the most recent ones here, the drift is still towards Labour with ICM, Youguv, Survation. The very latest one, Kantar, has drifted a tiny bit back to tory after drifting a long way towards Lab, but that's one smallish poll with only a tiny change, so you can't read anything into that on its own. There's no evidence in there really of any drift back to tory - most polling companies are still showing drift to lab.

Person on wikipedia is doing a good job here, btw, updating with every new poll virtually straight away. It's my go-to source for a glance at current polling.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 31, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Looking at the most recent ones here, the drift is still towards Labour with ICM, Youguv, Survation. The very latest one, Kantar, has drifted a tiny bit back to tory after drifting a long way towards Lab, but that's one smallish poll with only a tiny change, so you can't read anything into that on its own. There's no vidence in there really of any drift back to tory - most polling companies are still showing drift to lab.
> .
> Person on wikipedia is doing a good job here, btw, updating with every new poll virtually straight away. It's my go-to source for a glance at current polling.



That's an excellent page isn't it?
Thanks for putting it up  , I wasn't aware of it.


----------



## JimW (May 31, 2017)

JTG said:


> Wait, Keith Allen has a nightclub in Stroud?!


It was news to me too, though I knew he lived local. Bought an old gig venue at the top of town, think he's still doing it up.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 31, 2017)

belboid said:


> Sheffield Hallam too! Oh god that would be good


Oh fucking please that would be great (though I echo J Ed's scepticism)


----------



## redsquirrel (May 31, 2017)

One thing that YouGov tool does confirm is that you're a fucking idiot if you're going to vote LD to keep the Tories out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 31, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> One thing that YouGov tool does confirm is that you're a fucking idiot if you're going to vote LD to keep the Tories out.


Unless you're in Richmond. Or some bits of Cornwall. There are a few tory/ld marginals about.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 31, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Unless you're in Richmond. Or some bits of Cornwall. There are a few tory/ld marginals about.


Richmond possibly, Cornwell - no. Look at the map, not a Con/LD marginal seat. Voting LD either makes it more likely that the Tories will take the seat, or the seat is such a safe Tory one that it's irrelevant - in which case why vote for yellow filth.

EDIT: On Sheffield Hallam, while I still think Clegg will survive, one thing that does need to be considered is that he was saved in 2015 by Tory voters (5000 votes down on 2010), and helped by the fact that the Tories basically didn't run a candidate against him. This time the Tories will be running a campaign and I can see some of those Tory voters going back to blue, so if Labour could keep the vote it got from 2015 then he might be in some trouble.


----------



## Raheem (May 31, 2017)




----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Richmond possibly, Cornwell - no. Look at the map, not a Con/LD marginal seat. Voting LD either makes it more likely that the Tories will take the seat, or the seat is such a safe Tory one that it's irrelevant - in which case why vote for yellow filth.
> 
> EDIT: On Sheffield Hallam, while I still think Clegg will survive, one thing that does need to be considered is that he was saved in 2015 by Tory voters (5000 votes down on 2010), and helped by the fact that the Tories basically didn't run a candidate against him. This time the Tories will be running a campaign and I can see some of those Tory voters going back to blue, so if Labour could keep the vote it got from 2015 then he might be in some trouble.



I think Clegg's gone. I really do


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

CON: 42% (-1) 
LAB: 39% (+3) 
LDEM: 7% (-2) 
UKIP: 4% (-)

YouGov 30/31 May


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

JTG said:


> I think Clegg's gone. I really do



Is he 2017's Portillo moment? 

I think I said that in 2015 too


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

According to Goodwin, anything under 9 is potentially hung parliament territory.


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

chilango said:


> Is he 2017's Portillo moment?
> 
> I think I said that in 2015 too


What's been said is right - he was saved by Tory voters in 2015, this time a few of those will go back to the Tories and he'll be sunk by the rising red tide


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

chilango said:


> Is he 2017's Portillo moment?
> 
> I think I said that in 2015 too



Christ I remember walking back through Sheffield city centre in 2015 after seeing the exit polls, thinking to myself that at least Clegg might lose his seat


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

JTG said:


> What's been said is right - he was saved by Tory voters in 2015, this time a few of those will go back to the Tories and he'll be sunk by the rising red tide



Yes I did...



chilango said:


> Was going to post this in the polling thread, but thought it merited its own thread.
> 
> So, which "big names" could lose their seats in May?
> 
> Obvs the dream is Clegg. But are there any others to hope for?


----------



## bemused (May 31, 2017)

YouGov is either going to look like geniuses or half-wits in just over a week.


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

Look at Matthew Goodwin's twitter. He reckons Corbyn can do it. Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) on Twitter


----------



## JimW (May 31, 2017)

If Labour go over 40% will Hilary Benn and the rest do the decent thing with the brandy and service revolver?


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

JimW said:


> If Labour go over 40% will Hilary Benn and the rest do the decent thing with the brandy and service revolver?


No, they'll suddenly become available for Cabinet positions once more and demand their 'experience' is called upon


----------



## agricola (May 31, 2017)

JTG said:


> No, they'll suddenly become available for Cabinet positions once more and demand their 'experience' is called upon



They'll get them too, if he wins.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 31, 2017)

JTG said:


> I think Clegg's gone. I really do


I hope you're right


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

More YouGov:

On which party has the best policies for you and your family:
LAB: 35%
CON: 29%
LDEM: 6%
UKIP: 4%
[DK]: 26%

On which party has the best policies for the country:
LAB: 33%
CON: 32%
LDEM: 6%
UKIP: 4%
[DK]: 25%

"Don't know" quite high in those but Labour would appear to have convinced a far higher % of their voters that they've got the goods than the Tories have


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2017)

The You Gov poll is now showing Labour in the lead in London, the north and now the midlands & Wales.

The Tory support is heavily concentrated in the 'rest of the south' region where they're beating Labour 38% to 25% (overall figures), and Scotland where this won't count for anything because the SNP are trouncing both parties.

So Labour are now in the lead in 3 out of 5 regions, the tories only in one (though it's a big region).

Also Corbyn is now preferred as Prime Minister by Lib Dem voters both past and present, whereas they were heavily in favour of May at the start of this election.

And there's been a general reduction in the tory standing on all issues, along with a big swing in the proportion who view Labour campaign as being more positive than negative, and the reverse for the Tories who've now viewed as running a negative campaign.

And this bit's looking pretty good for Labour as well.


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

This is interesting:



Remainers almost completely uninterested in the Liberal Democrats


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2017)

ah beaten to the chase there by jtg


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

free spirit said:


> ah beaten to the chase there by jtg


You're looking properly mind, I'm just nicking mine off the Britain Elects twitter


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

Public preference for Prime Minister: 
T. May: 43% (-2) 
J. Corbyn: 30% (+2)

Public expectation of result: 
Con majority: 62% 
Hung, Con ahead: 7% 
Hung, Lab ahead: 5% 
Lab majority: 7%


----------



## redsquirrel (May 31, 2017)

JTG said:


> This is interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> Remainers almost completely uninterested in the Liberal Democrats



Ha Ha,

BTW killer b if the Captain Ska isn't up your ally you could try one of these. If you don't watch the video the Conservative Friends of India one isn't that bad.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 31, 2017)

That 'expectation' could be handy in persuading Tory voters not to make the effort. Kind of hope it stays high. Maybe the YouTube crap will frighten them into turning out. (Got to be said, what sort of demographic do they think uses YouTube?)


----------



## Dogsauce (May 31, 2017)

JTG said:


> This is interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> Remainers almost completely uninterested in the Liberal Democrats




That tallies with my Facebook 'bubble' - just about all the loudest remoaners are actively supporting Labour. I'm guessing they see it as Labour's soft Brexit vs May's swivel-eyed Brexit.


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> That 'expectation' could be handy in persuading Tory voters not to make the effort. Kind of hope it stays high. Maybe the YouTube crap will frighten them into turning out. (Got to be said, what sort of demographic do they think uses YouTube?)


Also Labour voters not happy with JC but who want to keep the Tory majority down etc.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 31, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Look at Matthew Goodwin's twitter. He reckons Corbyn can do it. Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) on Twitter



Everything I can see on his feed suggests the other, tbh.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 31, 2017)

Of particular note, he mentions yougov's model predicted Hillary would win Michigan, Wisconsin, and a couple of others she lost.

He also has a run-down of different models and their prediction of seats, all of which except for yougov have the Tories with a ~100 majority. 

I see no reason to believe they'll all be wrong and the one outlier will be correct. As much as I wish it was so.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 31, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Of particular note, he mentions yougov's model predicted Hillary would win Michigan, Wisconsin, and a couple of others she lost.
> 
> He also has a run-down of different models and their prediction of seats, all of which except for yougov have the Tories with a ~100 majority.
> 
> I see no reason to believe they'll all be wrong and the one outlier will be correct. As much as I wish it was so.


I have the same suspicion that he and Eaton mention - that Labour are gaining votes in safe Labour and safe Tory seats, which won't help them in terms of seats.


----------



## JTG (Jun 1, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I have the same suspicion that he and Eaton mention - that Labour are gaining votes in safe Labour and safe Tory seats, which won't help them in terms of seats.


Dunno. Think it may be mixed tbh. Can certainly see them winning here (Bristol NW), 4,000-odd Tory majority. Dubious about some other places mind, even the outer Bristol suburbs are somewhat different to, say, Nuneaton or Thurrock


----------



## NoXion (Jun 1, 2017)

JTG said:


> This is interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> Remainers almost completely uninterested in the Liberal Democrats




Would seem to support my suspicion that Remoaners are a vocal minority of the Remainers as a whole.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 1, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Would Tory voters want to sully their garden or their window with an ugly sign, though? Tories are hardly activists, and signs are a bit activist, aren't they?



I saw a few in the posher ends of my semi marginal constituency in 2015. I haven't seen a single one this time round.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 1, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I have the same suspicion that he and Eaton mention - that Labour are gaining votes in safe Labour and safe Tory seats, which won't help them in terms of seats.


I forget which poll it was, but one of the recent ones analised the marginals and showed Labour ahead in the Lab Tory marginals when all responses were included, only falling behind slightly when the weighting was applied. 

And they're now ahead in 3 out of the 5 regions YouGov uses, vs the Tory's 1 plus scotland (which is useless because the SNP are wiping them both out up there).

IME Labour are fighting hard to win the marginals not just securing their base - eg in Leeds Richard Burgon seems to be spending as much time in the other marginal constituencies as he is in his own, with Labour fighting to win one from the lib dems, and another from the Tories.

I get the sense that the Labour activist base are really seeing that the tide is going their way and jumping in to support it where it counts, while the Tories are struggling to mobilise anyone to do anything much.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 1, 2017)

JTG said:


> Dunno. Think it may be mixed tbh. Can certainly see them winning here (Bristol NW), 4,000-odd Tory majority. Dubious about some other places mind, even the outer Bristol suburbs are somewhat different to, say, Nuneaton or Thurrock



A lot of us posting here are in cities, deep in Corbyn fanaticism. I've no idea how it looks in Essex, Northamptonshire, leafier bits of the West Midlands. It might look nothing like the picture we're seeing.

At the same time Labour doesn't have to push to many seats over to remove the existing Tory majority, although that might be balanced out by Tory gains in Scotland.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 1, 2017)

BTW did anyone post the latest Ipsos Mori Scottish poll?
SNP 43%
CON 25%
LAB 25%
LDEM 5%

So Labour gaining in Scotland too, which doesn't help them in terms of seats but _could_ help the SNP.

Also an interesting SurveyMonkey poll
CON 44% 
LAB 38% 
LDEM 6% 
UKIP 4%


> Their method is unusual – sample is gathered by randomly selecting people at the end of other surveys hosted on the surveymonkey platform. Back in 2015 they were the only company whose pre-election poll got the Conservative lead about right…but because they got both Labour and the Conservatives too low their average error across all parties was the highest (and the BPC inquiry found that their sample was still heavily skewed towards the politically interested… though they may have corrected that since then).


So take it with a pinch of salt, but worth bearing in mind for doing something different.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 1, 2017)

free spirit said:


> analised



Analysed.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 1, 2017)

JimW said:


> If Labour go over 40% will Hilary Benn and the rest do the decent thing with the brandy and service revolver?


nobody does things with honour anymore. They'll start scheming on how to fuck corbyn and thinking the opportunities that power gives for this


----------



## Crispy (Jun 1, 2017)

kabbes said:


> ISTM that in Brexit and the last US and last U.K. elections, polling companies have predicted the % result to within the stated error quite reasonably.  The problem for Brexit was that there is such a cliff-edge difference between 48/52 and 52/48 and for the US and UK it comes down to the difficulty of converting % into FPTP results.


The reasoning follows that polling for elections with proportional representation would be more accurate....


----------



## free spirit (Jun 1, 2017)

> I need your help!


Title of latest email from the local Lib Dem MP.


> Electoral Calculus putting us ahead


Title of latest email from local Labour challenger, along with a long list of campaigning slots to join in with.

Even at the last election the lib dems here had an air of confidence about them. This time they're starting exude and air of creeping panic.


----------



## treelover (Jun 1, 2017)

Plumdaff said:


> I saw a few in the posher ends of my semi marginal constituency in 2015. I haven't seen a single one this time round.



Lots in farmers fields on the periphery of the Peak District.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 1, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Analysed.


ay that too.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 1, 2017)

treelover said:


> Lots in farmers fields on the periphery of the Peak District.



Not you as well. Put the crossword down and concentrate.


----------



## JTG (Jun 1, 2017)

free spirit said:


> I forget which poll it was, but one of the recent ones analised the marginals and showed Labour ahead in the Lab Tory marginals when all responses were included, only falling behind slightly when the weighting was applied.
> 
> And they're now ahead in 3 out of the 5 regions YouGov uses, vs the Tory's 1 plus scotland (which is useless because the SNP are wiping them both out up there).
> 
> ...


Back you up on the marginals: three excellent Labour leaflets here, emails from the campaign (they have me on their list as a supporter cos of my old union membership) suggest they aren't having any trouble getting their leaflets delivered and door knocking sessions are well supported it would seem. Tory stuff has been limited to personally addressed stuff ie not delivered by volunteers.

Honestly believe Labour will win here


----------



## Nylock (Jun 1, 2017)

Big fuck-off tory sign outside a big fuck off house locally (i think it's the local candidate's gaff though)...


----------



## free spirit (Jun 1, 2017)

JTG said:


> Back you up on the marginals: three excellent Labour leaflets here, emails from the campaign (they have me on their list as a supporter cos of my old union membership) suggest they aren't having any trouble getting their leaflets delivered and door knocking sessions are well supported it would seem. Tory stuff has been limited to personally addressed stuff ie not delivered by volunteers.
> 
> Honestly believe Labour will win here


We've got a green contingent heading up to leaflet the marginal that we've pulled out of at the weekend. Thought we should do our bit.


----------



## JTG (Jun 1, 2017)

JTG said:


> Back you up on the marginals: three excellent Labour leaflets here, emails from the campaign (they have me on their list as a supporter cos of my old union membership) suggest they aren't having any trouble getting their leaflets delivered and door knocking sessions are well supported it would seem. Tory stuff has been limited to personally addressed stuff ie not delivered by volunteers.
> 
> Honestly believe Labour will win here


Oh, also we never get leaflets here. Maybe one Labour. My patch right on the edge of the constituency, not many houses compared to main estate up the road and probs one of the more Tory bits of Henbury. In other words, not worth the effort unless you have the resources to get round every single street.
Our local Tory councillor is standing in safe Labour Bristol South so not sure he's doing much door knocking on his own patch - he seems popular so that may cost Leslie as well.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 1, 2017)

I've lived in this part of town for 7 years and not once have I been doorstepped by canvassers or candidates of any party.... If the local Tory one turns up I will view that as a sign of palpable terror from them.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 1, 2017)

Crispy said:


> The reasoning follows that polling for elections with proportional representation would be more accurate....



Sort of, yeah

Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2014 - Wikipedia


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 1, 2017)

Nylock said:


> I've lived in this part of town for 7 years and not once have I been doorstepped by canvassers or candidates of any party.... If the local Tory one turns up I will view that as a sign of palpable terror from them.



David Prescott turned up on my doorstep in Feb. But then, we had everybody and their dog wandering the streets.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 1, 2017)

Crispy said:


> The reasoning follows that polling for elections with proportional representation would be more accurate....


That would be my expectation, although I can't claim to have investigated it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 1, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> That 'expectation' could be handy in persuading Tory voters not to make the effort. Kind of hope it stays high. Maybe the YouTube crap will frighten them into turning out. (Got to be said, what sort of demographic do they think uses YouTube?)


What is the YouTube crap?

Is it social media advertising that I've read about?


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 1, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> What is the YouTube crap?
> 
> Is it social media advertising that I've read about?



It's a highly negative ad that autoplays on YouTube ahead of whatever you want to watch, with strong personal attack on Corbyn the terrorist.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 1, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> It's a highly negative ad that autoplays on YouTube ahead of whatever you want to watch, with strong personal attack on Corbyn the terrorist.


Wow. Haven't seen it. Can it be linked to?


----------



## killer b (Jun 1, 2017)

My kids (9 & 7) are complaining about the scary ad on YouTube. Fuck knows why you'd have it autoplaying before some Minecraft game review, but there it is.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2017)

killer b said:


> My kids (9 & 7) are complaining about the scary ad on YouTube. Fuck knows why you'd have it autoplaying before some Minecraft game review, but there it is.



Vid aimed at young people in (I assume) a marginal constituency


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2017)

In 2015 in a Lab/Lib marginal I got yellow Tory adverts non-stop, I'm in a safe seat now and have gotten absolutely no targeted advertising.


----------



## killer b (Jun 1, 2017)

Not at all marginal. Solid Labour round here.


----------



## strung out (Jun 1, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Wow. Haven't seen it. Can it be linked to?


This one I assume:


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2017)

killer b said:


> Not at all marginal. Solid Labour round here.



No idea then, that's very strange. Glad that they are wasting their money.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2017)

I wonder whether repeatedly seeing "this man could be Prime Minister" and just Corbyn's face then not watching the rest, which is how a lot of people will experience these adverts, might actually be good for Labour...


----------



## killer b (Jun 1, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I wonder whether repeatedly seeing "this man could be Prime Minister" and just Corbyn's face then not watching the rest, which is how a lot of people will experience these adverts, might actually be good for Labour...


The current tory tactic has a number of weaknesses along these lines - the constant _Who do you want negotiating brexit, Corbyn or May_ line only works in their favour as long as May retains an air of competence and reliability - which she is rapidly losing.


----------



## Cid (Jun 1, 2017)

I've had a green councillor round, Bennett is standing here (sheffield central). Nothing otherwise... I know my CLP has been up Halifax, where the labour vote is marginal and UKIP were at 12% in 2015. Also Penistone & Stocksbridge, where it's a lot less marginal, but where UKIP got 22% in 2015.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2017)

Cid said:


> I've had a green councillor round, Bennett is standing here (sheffield central). Nothing otherwise... I know my CLP has been up Halifax, where the labour vote is marginal and UKIP were at 12% in 2015. Also Penistone & Stocksbridge, where it's a lot less marginal, but where UKIP got 22% in 2015.



Makes sense, there is no way that Labour can lose Sheffield Central especially now that the Greens are splitting the middle-class but not Tory vote.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 1, 2017)

Just watched that. 

When it auto plays, can it be skipped? I just automatically skip ads whenever I'm faced with them. And if they can't be skipped I do something else while waiting (or give up on whatever it was I was trying to do when the ad interrupted). Am I unusual in that?

If that's playing to primary aged children, I think they're wasting their money. Jezza won't be Labour leader when they get round to voting. 

Is it just YouTube it's on? (And what is the age demographic that uses YouTube?)


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 1, 2017)

Cid said:


> Penistone


 god bless you weird place names


----------



## newbie (Jun 1, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Ha Ha,
> 
> BTW killer b if the Captain Ska isn't up your ally you could try one of these. If you don't watch the video the Conservative Friends of India one isn't that bad.


the man in the pink hat ftw


----------



## newbie (Jun 1, 2017)

strung out said:


> This one I assume:



something I read said this is the most watched party politcal ad in UK history.  I haven't seen it.  Does it cost the tories money if I watch it?  Does it cost them more if I loop it?


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 1, 2017)

killer b said:


> Not at all marginal. Solid Labour round here.



Same here (more than 50% in last election). If targeted by location surely this will come under constituency expenses, which there is a cap on, so maybe they're targeting by some other method (age/gender/interests). They've had huge amounts in donations from scared rich people so maybe they're spending that throwing this crap about as much as they can.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 1, 2017)

newbie said:


> something I read said this is the most watched party politcal ad in UK history.


Really? And yet the Tories seem to have decimated* their lead. Doesn't seem to have worked. 


(*I know).


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 1, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> One thing that YouGov tool does confirm is that you're a fucking idiot if you're going to vote LD to keep the Tories out.



Twickenham. My seat 

It looks likely to be the only lib dem gain of the evening.  A progressive alliance with errr....... Vince Cable.  Oh bright new day!


----------



## JTG (Jun 1, 2017)

Have we done this Ipsos MORI poll for STV?



Scotland:
SNP 43%
Cons 25%
Lab 25%
Lib Dems 5%
Greens 1%
UKIP 1%

Labour were on 13% and Tories 30% in a (YouGov?) poll a couple of weeks ago


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 1, 2017)

JTG said:


> Have we done this Ipsos MORI poll for STV?


Post #3676


----------



## newbie (Jun 1, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Really? And yet the Tories seem to have decimated* their lead. Doesn't seem to have worked.
> 
> 
> (*I know).


Must be quite powerful then.  Maybe I should watch it, to see if it shakes my firm beliefs that Linton Crosby is a genius and May is strong and stable and Corbyn is a terrorist.


----------



## JTG (Jun 1, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Post #3676


So sorry


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 1, 2017)

JTG said:


> No, they'll suddenly become available for Cabinet positions once more and demand their 'experience' is called upon



Which all begs a question which doesn't seem to be asked yet.  Should JC actually squeak it somehow would he be able to get much of the manifesto through parliament?  The PLP is still stacked with Blairites and the short notice for the election has prevented much manipulating of the other candidates so they'll be the usual rag tag Blairites that have been hanging around for a while.

All of this is cloud cuckoo land mind.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 1, 2017)

JTG said:


> Have we done this Ipsos MORI poll for STV?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It means the Tory gains in Scotland we were talking about then may not happen. But Labour's recovery, unless clumped, won't recover it any seats. So if this is right, the SNP would be the beneficiary.

I'd be delighted if the Tories in Scotland went back to third place. They've been smug as fuck. About being a poor second.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 1, 2017)

JTG said:


> So sorry


I hope you're flagellating yourself as we post


----------



## JTG (Jun 1, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> It means the Tory gains in Scotland we were talking about then may not happen. But Labour's recovery, unless clumped, won't recover it any seats. So if this is right, the SNP would be the beneficiary.


Yes, suspect Labour haven't done enough there to recover - 25% is only marginally up on two years ago. Could hold on to Edinburgh South I guess, suppose there could be some churn - SNP got 50% in 2015 so a drop to 43-45 may see a couple of seats go elsewhere.

LD down again, from 7.5% in 2015. However, if 2015 couldn't shift Carmichael from the islands then I doubt he'll go now either. Orkney & Shetland Liberal since 1950 & only 17 years without a Liberal/Whig MP in 200 years


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 1, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Really? And yet the Tories seem to have decimated* their lead. Doesn't seem to have worked.
> 
> 
> (*I know).



Anti-Clinton attack ads, customised and targetted using crafty algorithms, are credited by many with helping trump to victory. The tories' version seems much more ham-fisted. The way their ad is edited makes it obvious that it's a selective-quoting hatchet job, and as others have pointed out the still image of Corbyn with the phrase 'this man could be prime minister' could just as easily have the opposite effect to the one they're after.

There doesn't seem to be any targetting going on. There's no positive message from the tories to counterbalance the negative anti-Corbyn stuff. Remember Cameron's 2010 billboards? He was everywhere, telling people he was gonna do this that and the other. All bullshit of course, but he was at least looking like a man who wanted the job rather than a man who just didn't want someone else to have it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 1, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anti-Clinton attack ads, customised and targetted using crafty algorithms, are credited by many with helping trump to victory. The tories' version seems much more ham-fisted. The way their ad is edited makes it obvious that it's a selective-quoting hatchet job, and as others have pointed out the still image of Corbyn with the phrase 'this man could be prime minister' could just as easily have the opposite effect to the one they're after.
> 
> There doesn't seem to be any targetting going on. There's no positive message from the tories to counterbalance the negative anti-Corbyn stuff. Remember Cameron's 2010 billboards? He was everywhere, telling people he was gonna do this that and the other. All bullshit of course, but he was at least looking like a man who wanted the job rather than a man who just didn't want someone else to have it.


Yup, you have to take it as a part of the campaign, and May has been utterly dismal. Despite her starting position. Despite the media being natural supporters. Despite an opposition with a parliamentary party that doesn't support its leader.

I still think they'll win. But May is damaged and will only limp on until whatever the 1922 committee thinks is a decent interval.

But then, at this point in the US elections I still thought Clinton would squeak it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 1, 2017)

JTG said:


> Yes, suspect Labour haven't done enough there to recover - 25% is only marginally up on two years ago. Could hold on to Edinburgh South I guess, suppose there could be some churn - SNP got 50% in 2015 so a drop to 43-45 may see a couple of seats go elsewhere.
> 
> LD down again, from 7.5% in 2015. However, if 2015 couldn't shift Carmichael from the islands then I doubt he'll go now either. Orkney & Shetland Liberal since 1950 & only 17 years without a Liberal/Whig MP in 200 years


I think the three non SNP seats will remain the way they are. And I think the Tories may add a couple in the borders and possibly North East. But if this this right, nothing like they were hoping for.


----------



## newbie (Jun 1, 2017)

In trying to find out if deliberately watching their ad costs them money, which I haven't as yet, I did find this round-up of attack ads from the beeb.  Given the spending brouhaha after the last election this is probably going to get quite a lot of analysis after the election. They make the point


> A word of caution is in order though: our methodology is limited by the fact that we can only see what you, our audience, send us.
> ...
> If you spot an advert in your social media feed which looks political then please send us a screengrab or a link to the content.





SpookyFrank said:


> There doesn't seem to be any targetting going on.



I certainly haven't been targetted * but I'm not sure any individual can draw conclusions based only on their own experience.  It's not what the BBC have reported



> Our crowdsourced experiment has also revealed more about the local ambitions of the Conservatives.
> 
> We found that the Conservatives are targeting Labour or Liberal Democrat seats in the Midlands and the North, where a significant proportion of the electorate voted for UKIP in 2015. We have seen adverts from 12 constituencies that match this profile. The aim seems to be to not only attract UKIP voters, but also Labour supporters with reservations about Corbyn.
> 
> "The geographical targeting on Facebook is pretty granular," says Carl Miller of the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media at Demos. "This allows political parties to focus their adverts on target seats."



But i still don't know if deliberately seeking out the ads costs the tories money.  I don't particularly want to make extra profit for Facebook or Google, but...

* but I have been wondering why something called BlightyTV has been popping up on Youtube.  Turns out it's linked on the tory facebook main page.  hmm.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anti-Clinton attack ads, customised and targetted using crafty algorithms, are credited by many with helping trump to victory. The tories' version seems much more ham-fisted. The way their ad is edited makes it obvious that it's a selective-quoting hatchet job, and as others have pointed out the still image of Corbyn with the phrase 'this man could be prime minister' could just as easily have the opposite effect to the one they're after.
> 
> There doesn't seem to be any targetting going on. There's no positive message from the tories to counterbalance the negative anti-Corbyn stuff. Remember Cameron's 2010 billboards? He was everywhere, telling people he was gonna do this that and the other. All bullshit of course, but he was at least looking like a man who wanted the job rather than a man who just didn't want someone else to have it.


There is one important difference between 2010 and 2017, which is that Cameron was running to oust the incumbent, while May is the incumbent. Her biggest weakness as the incumbent is that she wasn't elected PM last election and the record she's running on is flimsy at best. She called Article 50. That's about it in terms of what she's done in the last year - that's all she has to run on.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Yup, you have to take it as a part of the campaign, and May has been utterly dismal. Despite her starting position. Despite the media being natural supporters. Despite an opposition with a parliamentary party that doesn't support its leader.
> 
> I still think they'll win. But May is damaged and will only limp on until whatever the 1922 committee thinks is a decent interval.
> 
> But then, at this point in the US elections I still thought Clinton would squeak it.


I still thought Clinton would squeak it when I went to bed on US election night.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 1, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Really? And yet the Tories seem to have decimated* their lead. Doesn't seem to have worked.
> 
> 
> (*I know).


Because is there anybody at this point who doesn't know that Jezza has this supposed (but actually entirely reasonable) anti-violence record being spun as pro-terrorist?  It's already baked into the numbers.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 1, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Because is there anybody at this point who doesn't know that Jezza has this supposed (but actually entirely reasonable) anti-violence record being spun as pro-terrorist?  It's already baked into the numbers.


Indeed. So the ad won't be affecting existing Labour support, but should be maintaining the Tory lead. Except it isn't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Indeed. So the ad won't be affecting existing Labour support, but should be maintaining the Tory lead. Except it isn't.


From what I've seen recently, including the debate last night, all the tories seem to be doing now is trying to get their vote out. Don't think they're even trying to change anybody's mind from another party, just trying to avert apathy from their side. In that sense, warnings about Corbyn might have an effect, but may be aimed at people who would never be voting for him.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 1, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is one important difference between 2010 and 2017, which is that Cameron was running to oust the incumbent, while May is the incumbent. Her biggest weakness as the incumbent is that she wasn't elected PM last election and the record she's running on is flimsy at best. She called Article 50. That's about it in terms of what she's done in the last year - that's all she has to run on.



She could make some shit up though. Brexit is her opportunity to do this because it hasn't happened yet so her and the tories have yet to fuck it up. Even on brexit though, she's said nothing. Again it's all about why Corbyn can't do it, not why she can. And focussing on Brexit mugs off the large chunk or her support who would have voted against it, or who don't want us to be completely cauterised from Europe. This is probably why she's light on detail; she can't think of any details that wouldn't piss off more people than they won over.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 1, 2017)

The Tories/Crosby are generally very good with what they're doing though - they do a lot of focus groups to work out the kind of attack that works - last election I thought the 'coalition of chaos' bollocks was weak and unlikely to be the sort of thing people were bothered about - instead it was picked up in post-election analysis as resonating strongly. And we've already seen on this board people lapping up the Corbyn/IRA bollocks. It'll work.

Separately, it's also worth remembering that the Tories gained their slim majority at the last election by cheating at the ground game, overspending in constituencies and bussing in activists where they had few volunteers. They might not be able to play the same game where they have a localised cunt deficiency this time, and Labour has a very active base, at least in the cities, which is being directed at target seats.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 1, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> She could make some shit up though. Brexit is her opportunity to do this because it hasn't happened yet so her and the tories have yet to fuck it up. Even on brexit though, she's said nothing. Again it's all about why Corbyn can't do it, not why she can. And focussing on Brexit mugs off the large chunk or her support who would have voted against it, or who don't want us to be completely cauterised from Europe. This is probably why she's light on detail; she can't think of any details that wouldn't piss off more people than they won over.



The prick Boris Johnson was waffling on about 'Labour not having a plan' for Brexit on the BBC this morning, yet the Tories haven't really been open about what they're offering yet. The hypocrisy needs flagging up when they do this.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 1, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> From what I've seen recently, including the debate last night, all the tories seem to be doing now is trying to get their vote out. Don't think they're even trying to change anybody's mind from another party, just trying to avert apathy from their side. In that sense, warnings about Corbyn might have an effect, but may be aimed at people who would never be voting for him.


That's the thing, though. If the polls are right they aren't holding their position, they're retreating.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 1, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> The prick Boris Johnson was waffling on about 'Labour not having a plan' for Brexit on the BBC this morning, yet the Tories haven't really been open about what they're offering yet. The hypocrisy needs flagging up when they do this.



BBC etc have let them get away with it every time so far. A simple, 'this plan of yours, what was it again?' could derail the whole thing. 

Nobody has mentioned the leak from the Juncker meeting either.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 1, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Separately, it's also worth remembering that the Tories gained their slim majority at the last election by cheating at the ground game, overspending in constituencies and bussing in activists where they had few volunteers. They might not be able to play the same game where they have a localised cunt deficiency this time, and Labour has a very active base, at least in the cities, which is being directed at target seats.



The tories have recently learned from their chums at the CPS that camapign spending rules are made to be broken.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 1, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Indeed. So the ad won't be affecting existing Labour support, but should be maintaining the Tory lead. Except it isn't.


My retcon interpretation:

1) When they first hear something, people react to it.  Then they get used to the idea and it stops having so much impact.  So whatever gain it initially brought about for the Tories is leaking away.

2) People have now had the chance to hear Jezza explain himself and they find the explanations reasonable.  At the end of the day, it's only the most extreme of the hardcore that think fighting is better than talking.  And on the Ireland stuff, he actually has history on his side -- in the end, it WAS talking to the IRA that brought about peace.  People know this.

3) Now he has had a lot of media exposure, people have a measure of his character.  This just doesn't fit with the message of him being a terrifying terrorist-sympathising monster.  He's a genial old man of good humour,  not somebody shouting that all shall burn in purifying fire.  People believe their own assessment a lot more than what they are told.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> That's the thing, though. If the polls are right they aren't holding their position, they're retreating.


Yep. Not saying it's working, just that this is what their whole campaign seems to amount to to me. If the polls are right, it absolutely isn't working. 

I think they thought Corbyn was unelectable so all they needed to do was to point at him as often as possible. They believed their own propaganda, seems to me - the evidence suggests that Corbyn has a history of being rather electable.


----------



## killer b (Jun 1, 2017)

While Trump's campaign did use relentless targeted attack ads, so did Clinton's (her campaign was considerably better funded too, IIRC). The difference was that as well as the attack ads, Trump also ran a very positive campaign. He gave people something to vote for. Clinton offered only hard work and the spectre of Trump - in many ways, a weird mirror image of this election campaign (hopefully with the same result...)


----------



## The Pale King (Jun 1, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is one important difference between 2010 and 2017, which is that Cameron was running to oust the incumbent, while May is the incumbent. Her biggest weakness as the incumbent is that she wasn't elected PM last election and the record she's running on is flimsy at best. She called Article 50. That's about it in terms of what she's done in the last year - that's all she has to run on.



Agreed. It also struck me watching some of the debt last night that this is a 7 year old government that has well run out of steam. They have few achievements to boast of ('taking the lowest paid out of tax' - a Lib Dem policy from the coalition days is the one mentioned most regularly) and seemingly few ideas for the future. All the positivity and futurity on the Labour side at the moment, and when Rudd said something about a 'brighter future' last night it just sounded fucking laughable.


----------



## belboid (Jun 1, 2017)

Standard are reported that Corbyn is now more popular than May in the capital, and on a 50% share of the vote - which is the same as in 97

Shock surge for Labour as Jeremy Corbyn now more popular than PM in London


----------



## killer b (Jun 1, 2017)

Labour on 50% in London  (yougov)


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 1, 2017)

kabbes said:


> 5/8 were within 4% of the Tory vote.  Isn't that their margin for error?  The other 3 weren't that far away either.
> 
> So yes, they were underestimating the Tories but not by that huge a margin.  I think the problem is as much about the communication and interpretation of the polls as the actual percentages.  There is all kind of model and parameter error in there, which will tend to systematically under- or over-estimate certain results, as well as random result error.  This type of uncertainty is really not properly communicated.  And then the way this gets interpreted as uniform swing is just all kinds of wrong and should really be binned.



Interesting paper published last week suggesting that pollsters are taking samples which don't include enough non-voters (obviously non-voters can't be arsed to do political opinion surveys). When the sample is then demographically weighted, the views of non-voters get overweighted. The authors suggest this accounts for the 2010 Cleggasm, so it wouldn't surprise me that it is playing some role in the current situation.

Missing Nonvoters and Misweighted Samples | Public Opinion Quarterly | Oxford Academic

I think for the polling companies who for the rest of the year are doing market research for corporations, election polling is seen just as a way to stick their neck out and perhaps be lucky enough to catch a few plaudits if their way of getting things wrong happens to be right.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2017)

belboid said:


> Standard are reported that Corbyn is now more popular than May in the capital, and on a 50% share of the vote - which is the same as in 97
> 
> Shock surge for Labour as Jeremy Corbyn now more popular than PM in London



Is it me or are the media giving more legitimacy to the YouGov polling than the others? Is it because they allow them to write better headlines or because they genuinely think that they may be more authoritative?


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 1, 2017)

J Ed said:


> or because they genuinely think that they may be more authoritative?



Pretty sure the Evening Standard don't have a team of statisticians assessing the merits of each polling company.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 1, 2017)

belboid said:


> Standard are reported that Corbyn is now more popular than May in the capital, and on a 50% share of the vote - which is the same as in 97
> 
> Shock surge for Labour as Jeremy Corbyn now more popular than PM in London



Love the photo of May used in that article.


----------



## killer b (Jun 1, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Is it me or are the media giving more legitimacy to the YouGov polling than the others? Is it because they allow them to write better headlines or because they genuinely think that they may be more authoritative?


it's because there's more of a story there.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 1, 2017)

killer b said:


> it's because there's more of a story there.



Yeah, keen to talk up what could be an otherwise dull election.


----------



## killer b (Jun 1, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah, keen to talk up what could be an otherwise dull election.


I think it's stopped being dull a while ago...


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2017)

Graunid had a story where they called up four pollsters, one was Yougov. 2 said the Tories would have a 50+ seat majority and another 100+. Real horror show potential if the Yougov one isn't right.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 1, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Graunid had a story where they called up four pollsters, one was Yougov. 2 said the Tories would have a 50+ seat majority and another 100+. Real horror show potential if the Yougov one isn't right.



Most things do seem to point to a healthy tory majority.  100+ seats would be a shocker though.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 1, 2017)

I seriously don't know what to think anymore.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Most things do seem to point to a healthy tory majority.  100+ seats would be a shocker though.



The thing is though that the projections are so wildly different, there can't be any middle ground here surely. 

The Tories are continuing to campaign in Labour areas BUT on the other hand, they also do seem rattled by the polling as you can see from the constant re-launches.


----------



## killer b (Jun 1, 2017)




----------



## Raheem (Jun 1, 2017)

killer b said:


>




Apparently, Panelbase have radically adjusted their turnout model and it would have been a two-point lead using their previous model (according to a poster at ukpollingreport).

If that's correct, it would suggest things are moving a lot at the moment.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 1, 2017)

It seems a bit dumb of them to change their model half way through. If there's one thing that is useful in polling it is the trend that a particular poll has rather than the absolute number, which is always bloody wrong for most polls anyway. Oh well, makes things a whole lot more interesting if you're into betting on these things.


----------



## JTG (Jun 1, 2017)

killer b said:


>



Panelbase released one the other day that was a week out of date showing a 15 point lead. Got lots of Tories excited on twitter until it was pointed out how old the data was


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

Amazing how quickly it's changing. A week ago, I was just starting to believe that a hung parliament had the tiniest of slithers of possibility to it. Now, I'm not so sure I'd bet against it. 

It's the hope that kills ya.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 1, 2017)

The methodological problems of doing national surveys have got so bad that they probably shouldn't be doing national polls anymore. Just about the only thing they tell you is the movement in the figures from poll to poll by the same polling company.  Probably better to just blitz 20 constituencies and then come up with conclusions no stronger than 'Labour look vulnerable in X', 'Tories look like keeping Y'.  The parties will still do their own polls and will spin the fuck out of them, but the ritual of newspapers commissioning national polls is built around some mutual bullshit that they offer scientific measurement.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Just about the only thing they tell you is the movement in the figures from poll to poll by the same polling company.


That's not nothing, though, and the direction of movement has been consistent across the companies. That's the main thing I've been looking at. Trying to avoid the temptation only to believe the good or bad news.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 1, 2017)

Wilf said:


> The methodological problems of doing national surveys have got so bad that they probably shouldn't be doing national polls anymore. Just about the only thing they tell you is the movement in the figures from poll to poll by the same polling company.  Probably better to just blitz 20 constituencies and then come up with conclusions no stronger than 'Labour look vulnerable in X', 'Tories look like keeping Y'.  The parties will still do their own polls and will spin the fuck out of them, but the ritual of newspapers commissioning national polls is built around some mutual bullshit that they offer scientific measurement.


When I did market research (in general, not just for politics stuff) I came away convinced that people would tell you the first thing that came into your head.


----------



## 8den (Jun 1, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Amazing how quickly it's changing. A week ago, I was just starting to believe that a hung parliament had the tiniest of slithers of possibility to it. Now, I'm not so sure I'd bet against it.
> 
> It's the hope that kills ya.



Another pleasant dream is the inevitable Tory bloodbath *if* they lose. Who might return from the shadows to take the Throne?  And we might have the joyous sight of Michael Gove giving himself another fatal injury while stabbing someone in the back.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 1, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> When I did market research (in general, not just for politics stuff) I came away convinced that people would tell you the first thing that came into your head.



Was this at a mindreaders' convention?


----------



## killer b (Jun 1, 2017)

hehe


----------



## Wilf (Jun 1, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> When I did market research (in general, not just for politics stuff) I came away convinced that people would tell you the first thing that came into your head.


Idris, in action earlier.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 1, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> It seems a bit dumb of them to change their model half way through. If there's one thing that is useful in polling it is the trend that a particular poll has rather than the absolute number, which is always bloody wrong for most polls anyway. Oh well, makes things a whole lot more interesting if you're into betting on these things.



It's cos their overriding objective is to be the closest to the actual result. Although it does seem odd that they are mostly hoping to achieve this by repeatedly deciding that they still haven't skewed their number quite enough in favour of the Tories.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 1, 2017)

YouGov |  The pollsters’ experimental election


"The reason the polls got the 2015 election wrong was down to sampling, particularly among young people. The sort of young people who took part in polls were too engaged and too likely to vote, meaning polls ended up with too many young people voting. Polling companies have taken different approaches to solving this, but they broadly fall into two categories. Some have tried to improve their samples to reduce the number of people who are very interested in politics. Others have changed their turnout models so that they assume the same low level of turnout among young people as happened in 2015."


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> YouGov |  The pollsters’ experimental election
> 
> 
> "The reason the polls got the 2015 election wrong was down to sampling, particularly among young people. The sort of young people who took part in polls were too engaged and too likely to vote, meaning polls ended up with too many young people voting. Polling companies have taken different approaches to solving this, but they broadly fall into two categories. Some have tried to improve their samples to reduce the number of people who are very interested in politics. Others have changed their turnout models so that they assume the same low level of turnout among young people as happened in 2015."


Ta for that. It explains clearly the differences between the two camps (and indeed why there are two camps). So if Labour really have enthused younger voters, the narrow polls are to be believed. If not, the wider ones are. 

Thing is though that the wider polls assuming the same low young person turnout as 2015 are now coming down under double digits. I am encouraged by the reason for the wider-gap polls being as they are. I really do think it is more than possible that Corbyn will enthuse more young people than Milliband did in 2015. The wide-gap polls are doing their best not to believe their own figures based on past mistakes, but each election has its own dynamic, and this one feels a little different - I feel some hope in the air around Corbyn that just wasn't there last time.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2017)

Is there any reason to think that there would be an increase on 2015 youth turnout, something closer to 2010?

Surely a lot of the 2010 youth turnout was due to the Cleggmania nonsense, which has in some ways perhaps found an equivalent in Corbyn.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 1, 2017)

Pessimism of the intellect.

Those of us who wanted a Yes win in 2014 felt hopeful a week out from polling day. Even those of us who'd been pessimistic/realistic for years. The morning of 19th September wasn't a happy morning.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 1, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Is there any reason to think that there would be an increase on 2015 youth turnout, something closer to 2010?
> 
> Surely a lot of the 2010 youth turnout was due to the Cleggmania nonsense, which has in some ways perhaps found an equivalent in Corbyn.



I was thinking exactly that.  And whilst Cleggmania made a lot of noise it didn't really do much for the lib dems.  I have this feeling we've all been here before.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> I was thinking exactly that.  And whilst Cleggmania made a lot of noise it didn't really do much for the lib dems.  I have this feeling we've all been here before.



I don't think you understand the point I was making, though I did not explain it very well!

The most favourable polling for Labour, Yougov, is predicated on a model of higher youth turnout than 2015 though still lower than 2010.

YouGov |  The pollsters’ experimental election



> Looking at estimates from past elections from the House of Commons library, in 2015 the turnout gap between young and old was 35 points, in 2010 it was 23 points, in 2005 it was 36 points. In other words, we’re showing a smaller gap than in 2015, but similar to 2010 and not one that we think is totally unrealistic if Jeremy Corbyn has enthused younger people



 I am speculating, I don't know, on the cause of that higher level of youth turnout and wondering whether it might be because of Cleggmania. If Labour is able to mobilise younger voters in the same way that the Lib Dems did, which is still reasonably modest, then that looks very good for Labour.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Is there any reason to think that there would be an increase on 2015 youth turnout, something closer to 2010?
> 
> Surely a lot of the 2010 youth turnout was due to the Cleggmania nonsense, which has in some ways perhaps found an equivalent in Corbyn.


I don't have the stats, but my suspicion is that the variation in overall turnouts election to election is mostly down to volatility at the younger end, with older people voting in relatively similar high numbers each time. If that's right, it does mean that the younger end varies a lot up and down each election depending on what? On whether or not someone or something has inspired them to vote. Milliband's shower inspired nobody - my bias may be at work here, but I can't help thinking that models assuming young apathy to Milliband levels must be wrong.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 1, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I don't think you understand the point I was making, though I did not explain it very well!
> 
> The most favourable polling for Labour, Yougov, is predicated on a model of higher youth turnout than 2015 though still lower than 2010.
> 
> ...



Ah. I see.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I don't think you understand the point I was making, though I did not explain it very well!
> 
> The most favourable polling for Labour, Yougov, is predicated on a model of higher youth turnout than 2015 though still lower than 2010.
> 
> ...


You're as biased as me, no doubt, but it's hard not to think this.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't have the stats, but my suspicion is that the variation in overall turnouts election to election is mostly down to volatility at the younger end, with older people voting in relatively similar high numbers each time. If that's right, it does mean that the younger end varies a lot up and down each election depending on what? On whether or not someone or something has inspired them to vote. Milliband's shower inspired nobody - my bias may be at work here, but I can't help thinking that models assuming young apathy to Milliband levels must be wrong.



What efforts have been made at getting the young to vote for Corbyn? I am genuinely asking. I know there's the grime for Corbyn thing, am I right to say that there has been a good amount of effort at voter registration at universities?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

J Ed said:


> What efforts have been made at getting the young to vote for Corbyn? I am genuinely asking. I know there's the grime for Corbyn thing, am I right to say that there has been a good amount of effort at voter registration at universities?


I don't know either, but this is where grassroots volunteer stuff makes a difference, and all the noises I've heard about that are that there has been more from Labour this time around.

I wonder how much Clegg's pledge on tuition fees made a difference in getting young people out in 2010. There's a direct parallel if that was a significant factor.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 1, 2017)

urbs -  I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability - but I have a bad feeling that hope will be cruelly dashed


----------



## agricola (Jun 1, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Is there any reason to think that there would be an increase on 2015 youth turnout, something closer to 2010?
> 
> Surely a lot of the 2010 youth turnout was due to the Cleggmania nonsense, which has in some ways perhaps found an equivalent in Corbyn.



TBH I'd be amazed if the turnout among the younger age groups wasn't on a scale much bigger than 2010.  They have never been gone after in the way that Labour have in this campaign, and I think even they would realize that the chances are they are never going to be offered it again.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2017)

agricola said:


> TBH I'd be amazed if the turnout among the younger age groups wasn't on a scale much bigger than 2010.  They have never been gone after in the way that Labour have in this campaign, and I think even they would realize that the chances are they are never going to be offered it again.



I hope so. IMO the Grime for Corbyn thing is really good because it's one of the first campaigns I've seen at getting younger people to vote that isn't explicitly aimed at students and graduates. It was also organised by people outside the Labour Party I think originally.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 1, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Was this at a mindreaders' convention?


----------



## agricola (Jun 1, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I hope so. IMO the Grime for Corbyn thing is really good because it's one of the first campaigns I've seen at getting younger people to vote that isn't explicitly aimed at graduates.



It was much better than that unlocking nonsense of a few days ago, which was probably the worst thing they have done all campaign.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

I'm almost at the point of believing that the real picture might be to the left of the yougov figures. 

I need to stop doing this.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 1, 2017)

I think the concept on inter-generational inequality has been building slowly but it is seeping through to everyone now.  2010 was all about tuition fees which was only ever going to effect a limited number of younger voters.


----------



## agricola (Jun 1, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> I think the concept on inter-generational inequality has been building slowly but it is seeping through to everyone now.  2010 was all about tuition fees which was only ever going to effect a limited number of younger voters.



Indeed, and if anything has done that its the Tory social care policy.  I'd guess most people who thought that they and their family were alright did so because they had got on the housing ladder early enough and owned their own home; threaten it (which is explicitly what that policy does, and if anything the u-turn since makes it even more obvious) and you suddenly expose them to everything that has been going on housing, with workplace terms and conditions and the rest of it.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2017)

agricola said:


> Indeed, and if anything has done that its the Tory social care policy.  I'd guess most people who thought that they and their family were alright did so because they had got on the housing ladder early enough and owned their own home; threaten it (which is explicitly what that policy does, and if anything the u-turn since makes it even more obvious) and you suddenly expose them to everything that has been going on housing, with workplace terms and conditions and the rest of it.



A family member today was visiting a market town in a safe Tory seat today with a population that is disproportionately quite old. She said that Tory MPs were campaigning there and were met with a combination of total disinterest and a bit of hostility. Not claiming that this is representative or anything but interesting perhaps!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 1, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> urbs -  I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability - but I have a bad feeling that hope will be cruelly dashed



I'm keeping a stony face. As always over anything


----------



## Raheem (Jun 1, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm almost at the point of believing that the real picture might be to the left of the yougov figures.
> 
> I need to stop doing this.



If YouGov's model implies a demographic split in the turnout similar to 2010, then for their figures to underestimate the Labour vote, one of two things would need to happen. Either Corbyn would need to have a greater appeal at the younger end of the spectrum than Nick Clegg did. And/or, at the older end of the spectrum, people would need to be less enthused by May than they were by Cameron. Surely neither of those things is possible?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 1, 2017)

Raheem said:


> . And/or, at the older end of the spectrum, people would need to be less enthused by May than they were by Cameron. Surely neither of those things is possible?



That seems quite likely no? Given the whole dementia tax thing, that can't have played well with older people.


----------



## agricola (Jun 1, 2017)

Raheem said:


> If YouGov's model implies a demographic split in the turnout similar to 2010, then for their figures to underestimate the Labour vote, one of two things would need to happen. Either Corbyn would need to have a greater appeal at the younger end of the spectrum than Nick Clegg did. And/or, at the older end of the spectrum, people would need to be less enthused by May than they were by Cameron. Surely neither of those things is possible?



Why not?  Corbyn's policies deliberately aim to appeal to the young, and May's deliberately aim to negatively affect the old.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 1, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> That seems quite likely no? Given the whole dementia tax thing, that can't have played well with older people.



Dunno. Cameron pissed a lot of die hard tories off because they thought he was a phony, hence in part the rise of UKIP during his tenure.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Dunno. Cameron pissed a lot of die hard tories off because they thought he was a phony, hence in part the rise of UKIP during his tenure.



Yes, I think that May probably does appeal more to older voters who prioritise social conservativism. Whether the dementia tax stuff is enough to offset that, we'll have to see. I think it could go either way.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

Raheem said:


> If YouGov's model implies a demographic split in the turnout similar to 2010, then for their figures to underestimate the Labour vote, one of two things would need to happen. Either Corbyn would need to have a greater appeal at the younger end of the spectrum than Nick Clegg did. And/or, at the older end of the spectrum, people would need to be less enthused by May than they were by Cameron. Surely neither of those things is possible?


I've just looked up youth turnout, and it has plummetted since 1992, recovering somewhat in 2010. But if Corbyn can get an equal turnout to Blair in 97, which itself was way down on 92, he will be doing better than Clegg in 2010. I think this is very possible, given that the UK has recently been a massive outlier among countries around the world regarding youth no-shows. A rise back to 50-odd % might be better thought of as a reversion to the mean following the exceptional circumstances that were the years of disillusionment during the New Labour Iraq War years.

To add to this, yougov has been marking down responses from people who didn't vote in 2015. This is reactive statty stuff that doesn't even try to account for the reasons for the changes in voting patterns. If you factor in post-Iraq feelings of disenfranchisement and hypothesise this as the reason for the UK straying so far from voting patterns in other countries (which may of course be wrong!), then this practice could be wrong, and even in the yougov figures, they weight the results against labour.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> That seems quite likely no? Given the whole dementia tax thing, that can't have played well with older people.


That bit's already accounted for in the polls, though. It's one of the reasons why the tories still have a lead despite being a shower of hopeless cunts.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 1, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Dunno. Cameron pissed a lot of die hard tories off because they thought he was a phony, hence in part the rise of UKIP during his tenure.



This is a fair point, actually. They would have still voted, but they would have voted for UKIP. So the question is really whether they are likely to be more or less enthused by May/Nuttall compared to Cameron/Farage.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

Raheem said:


> This is a fair point, actually. They would have still voted, but they would have voted for UKIP. So the question is really whether they are likely to be more or less enthused by May/Nuttall compared to Cameron/Farage.


Sorry, my response to monkeygrinder was really to you. That's already accounted for in the polls. It's the reason for the tory lead currently.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 1, 2017)

It's the dementia tax, *and* the end of the triple lock promise. I'm still shocked they went for both. My FIL explicitly said he'd be voting Tory because they always protect pensioners at the beginning of this campaign. I think it will have been a horrid surprise for a lot of older voters that the Tories were finally gunning for them too.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 1, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sorry, my response to monkeygrinder was really to you. That's already accounted for in the polls. It's the reason for the tory lead currently.



Sorry, what's the reason for the Tory lead?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 1, 2017)

YouGov Wales one (29-31 May 2017)

_Labour:_ 46%
_Conservatives: _35%
_Plaid Cymru:_ 8%
_Liberal Democrats:_ 5%
_Ukip: _5%

Which they project in terms of seat changes (using what method I've no idea)
_Labour:_ 27 seats (+2)
_Conservatives: _9 seats (-2)
_Plaid Cymru:_ 3 seats (no change)
_Liberal Democrats:_ 1 seat (no change)


----------



## Wilf (Jun 1, 2017)

J Ed said:


> A family member today was visiting a market town in a safe Tory seat today with a population that is disproportionately quite old. She said that Tory MPs were campaigning there and were met with a combination of total disinterest and a bit of hostility. Not claiming that this is representative or anything but interesting perhaps!


When maiden aunts bicycling to evensong turn Corbyn, the red flag will fly over the Palace of Westminster.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Sorry, what's the reason for the Tory lead?


You were indicating factors that suggest what I said can't happen. But any comparison of May to Cameron is already in the polls. If anything, that's also getting worse by the day. Also, Cameron was up against a pretty woeful Brown.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 1, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> YouGov Wales one (29-31 May 2017)
> 
> _Labour:_ 46%
> _Conservatives: _35%
> ...



I would fucking love it, in a Kevin Keegan style, if they lost Cardiff North and Cardiff went entirely red. 

Gower must be a certainty to go back to Labour. 

Must. Not. Get. Heady.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 1, 2017)

Plumdaff said:


> I would fucking love it, in a Kevin Keegan style, if they lost Cardiff North and Cardiff went entirely red.
> 
> Gower must be a certainty to go back to Labour.
> 
> Must. Not. Get. Heady.


Apparently the two they are predicting to change hands are Gower and the Vale of Clwyd


----------



## Raheem (Jun 1, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You were indicating factors that suggest what I said can't happen. But any comparison of May to Cameron is already in the polls. If anything, that's also getting worse by the day. Also, Cameron was up against a pretty woeful Brown.



You're thinking in terms of whether older Tories will switch. But the issue is that more of them may stop in than the pollsters are prediciting. I'm not saying this will happen, but if it did, it would make their models too skewed to the Tories.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 1, 2017)

I'm still skeptical that there will not be an increased Tory majority but I do think the Wales thing was always nonsense, I mean last year Labour took 30+% in the assembly elections, the idea that the Tories were going to win the majority of Welsh seats was always fanciful.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

Raheem said:


> You're thinking in terms of whether older Tories will switch. But the issue is that more of them may stop in that the pollsters are prediciting. I'm not saying this will happen, but if it did, it would make their models too skewed to the Tories.


Not really. I was simply concentrating on the measures polling companies have taken post-2015 to correct for past errors. Those measures are made purely on stats, not accounting for reasons (such as, for instance, disillusionment with the entire system caused by the Iraq war) - not asking any 'why' questions. Even the yougov bloke acknowledges this in part when he wonders how much Corbyn might enthuse young voters.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 1, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not really. I was simply concentrating on the measures polling companies have taken post-2015 to correct for past errors. Those measures are made purely on stats, not accounting for reasons (such as, for instance, disillusionment with the entire system caused by the Iraq war) - not asking any 'why' questions. Even the yougov bloke acknowledges this in part when he wonders how much Corbyn might enthuse young voters.



But there are no stats for turnout until the day of the election. If the pollsters are trying to guess at what turnout will be without reference to what may or may not motivate different demographic groups, then it is entirely possible that they are underestimating the level of support there will be for Labour on the day, and overestimating Tory support.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

Con	300 seats
Lab	 270 seats
SNP	 50 seats
Other  30 seats

Jeremy Corbyn to be the next prime minister as the leader of the Coalition of Chaos.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 1, 2017)

What's that? A model or just your prediction/hope?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> What's that? A model or just your prediction/hope?


The most striking thing to me about the various things I've linked to has been the variation from other countries regarding the youth vote in the UK over the last 20 years. I suspect that the reasons for this are largely to do with the Iraq war and New Labourism. Those reasons are finally gone, so that is a prediction based on the polls plus that hypothesis.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 1, 2017)

polling has showed that under 25s are overwhelmingly saying they will vote labour and their has been a big boost in voter registration - again, especially amongst young people.
I am certain their will be a bigger turn out amongst young people and it may be that the tories granny kicking manifesto will depress the older vote. The extent that this will happen is the big question - and will determine weather we have a hung parliament of a tory majority of up to 60/70. 
I am pretty certain a three figure majority is beyond them now.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 1, 2017)

odds on tory majority of over 150 -  10-1
Odds of hung parliament - 6-1.


----------



## JimW (Jun 1, 2017)

For another anecdote, was at our works pub quiz last night and one of the teams of twenty somethings who do the customer service call centre was called Vote Labour


----------



## treelover (Jun 1, 2017)

Big Up the NHS, the huge F/B page(50, 000) seems to be giving up attempts to be impartial, too many anti-tory posts to contend with.


----------



## treelover (Jun 1, 2017)

J Ed said:


> A family member today was visiting a market town in a safe Tory seat today with a population that is disproportionately quite old. She said that Tory MPs were campaigning there and were met with a combination of total disinterest and a bit of hostility. Not claiming that this is representative or anything but interesting perhaps!



Plenty of Tory posters in the very posh parts of Sheff, few Lib Dumps as well.


----------



## Supine (Jun 1, 2017)

U.K. news article congratulates YouGov on using modern methods in polling inference - Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science


----------



## bendeus (Jun 1, 2017)

Another anecdote: true, blue single mum I know, earns £70k plus per year. Very aspirational, loves her designer kit, drivers a Beemer, etc. Never voted anything other than Tory all her life and is now going red. Says that Corbnobi's policies are 'hopeful' and 'positive'. Agrees that the Maybot is wooden and evidently unpleasant and cruel. Says she has nothing to offer. Really surprising vote face but entirely intentional. I have no doubt that she'll put her cross next to Labour next week.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 1, 2017)

The latest new-fangled daily poll from YouGov is out. Slight increase in Tory seat count, but basically the same as yesterday.

Follow the 2017 UK General Election with YouGov

Con: 42% (317), Lab: 38% (253), Lib Dem: 9% (9), UKIP: 3% (0)


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 2, 2017)

Those putting their faith in the yougov stuff are going to be so disappointed on june 9th. I mean, I'm going to be too, because even if you expect it to happen the return of yet another tory govt and this time with a big majority is going to be utter shit.


----------



## strung out (Jun 2, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Those putting their faith in the yougov stuff are going to be so disappointed on june 9th. I mean, I'm going to be too, because even if you expect it to happen the return of yet another tory govt and this time with a big majority is going to be utter shit.


It's not the despair Laura, I can stand the despair, it's the hope I can't stand.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 2, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Apparently the two they are predicting to change hands are Gower and the Vale of Clwyd




Don't know about Clwyd, but my old school Labour/TU mate Eddy is a *ward organiser* (and constant canvasser/leafletter) near to a posh bit of Swansea West that for him is actually just within Gower, albeit his ward does include a real mix of Gower/Mumbles poshoes togteher with an equally wide mix of on the edge of Swansea dwellers.

But Toni Antoniazzi (Lab candidate, Gower) has a huge and active team throughout the Swansea side of Gower, and Eddy (retired, fit, active) is pushing his gang along load in just his part.

Labour are hugely publicising the uselessness of Byron Davies (Con) big time, and justifiably, because he's done fuck all round that area. Frinstance, he makes feeble claims to have brought the Swansea Bay Tidal Barrage forward.

Reality : the Barrage project is at a standstill atm, and Byron  has zero to do with Swansea Council or Carwyn James (proper) roles with that, because Byron is a fucking Tory who bashes Welsh Labour authorities/bodies all the time..

He also pretends to support Swansea Council in getting various SA projects happening, but Antoniazzi called him a liar on those. And even the Tory-minded Swansea Evening Post left her alone on that


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 2, 2017)

TLDR?? 

Byron Davies' Tory majority in Gower is 27 and Labour will swing that easily with all their genuine hard work just now.

Very smart anti-Tory, straight-to-gadget stuff is going on as well, locally targetted.  Da Youf might just turn out anti-Tory on the day


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2017)

I don't know if Smithson's blog from yesterday was posted?

politicalbetting.com  » Blog Archive   » Another day of the polls tightening but only YouGov has TMay not securing a majority

"The critical calculation to make is how much a poll lead is at variance with the GB CON margin on 6.6% that was enough at GE2015 to give Mr. Cameron and now Mrs. May a majority. 

Under standard swing theory the Tories should be gaining seats if they secure a gap of 6.6% or more next Thursday and suffer seat losses if their national vote share is much below that. 

For me what’s been significant is that Theresa May now making visits not just to targets which they hope to gain to but seats they already hold. That reflects a certain loss of confidence."


----------



## J Ed (Jun 2, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> I don't know if Smithson's blog from yesterday was posted?
> 
> politicalbetting.com  » Blog Archive   » Another day of the polls tightening but only YouGov has TMay not securing a majority
> 
> ...



Wow. Smithson fucking hates Corbyn too, he must really believe what he is saying.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Wow. Smithson fucking hates Corbyn too, he must really believe what he is saying.


But again, what he's saying is: _tightening, Tories losing confidence. However all but YouGov still have Tories taking majority._


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 2, 2017)

Brexit and the enthused youth vote is fucking up the polls. 
Remainers, da kids and soft brexiters may be going to labour
Whilst brexiters are going tory.
So it may be that the tories do better in strong brexit areas and labour do better in strong remain areas. So projections based on universal swing and/or previous voting patterns are likley to be an unreliable guide to what will happen next week.
One thing that im pretty sure of is that the tories have a solid bloc of older, quiet voters who will dutifully vote for them whilst the labour support is a lot more volatile. 
Im still going for modest tory majority.


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> But again, what he's saying is: _tightening, Tories losing confidence. However all but YouGov still have Tories taking majority._



Yep, even if she only takes one more seat than 2015 her 'decision to call and election was a success, building a stronger, stabler government to negotiate Britain's future'. Only yougov is consistently delivering below that...

There's so much about this election that is hard to predict, but there's that innate human tendency to emphasize factors that buoy up 'your side'. There's every chance of a shy tory vote, every chance that the embittered centrist LP remain a large factor, that Corbyn's somewhat lacklustre performances leave people at home. Fuck knows how they're dealing with this in their models, I suspect to some extent they aren't.

I mean I'm hopeful, but er... that goes with being human really.


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2017)

It's on that point that I think May's media blackout works. She'll come in for criticism of course, but she's not able to do the things that make her look actively incompetent. Moved to a purely defensive campaign, knowing that labour's ability to attack is limited by finance and the extent of press compliance.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 2, 2017)

Cid said:


> Yep, even if she only takes one more seat than 2015 her 'decision to call and election was a success, building a stronger, stabler government to negotiate Britain's future'. Only yougov is consistently delivering below that...



I don't think so - for her personally a gain of one seat would be a disaster. Obviously she'd still be PM in the short term but her standing would be destroyed, and the other Tories who fancy the job would be getting into line.


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I don't think so - for her personally a gain of one seat would be a disaster. Obviously she'd still be PM in the short term but her standing would be destroyed, and the other Tories who fancy the job would be getting into line.



That did seem a bit eulogising of May... I mean I agree, I think she's scuppered even with a slight-moderate gain; her spads are probably sitting in meetings, appalled faces in hands wondering what the fuck is wrong with her. And clearly anyone with power in the party will be thinking the same thing. I just mean she can trot out the line that she achieved her objectives... Then maybe shuffled quietly out with some words about her health or similar.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 2, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> odds on tory majority of over 150 -  10-1
> Odds of hung parliament - 6-1.



I've stuck a tenner on hung parliament and I very rarely bet. My reasons are I've been listening to lbc a lot and there's been almost non stop calls from people saying they're either switching to labour, libs or abstain, but mostly switching to labour. Also, apparently the yougov model that predicted the hung parliament was used for the EU referendum on more than one occasion and it predicted leave each time.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 2, 2017)

My friend who bet on a Tory majority last time at 7/1 and bet on Brexit too (both against his personal preference) is betting today on a Labour 20 seat gain vs 2015.  FWIW.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I wonder whether repeatedly seeing "this man could be Prime Minister" and just Corbyn's face then not watching the rest, which is how a lot of people will experience these adverts, might actually be good for Labour...


Non scientific anecdote: In the way that these things seem to happen, having only just discussed this yesterday, one of my students later brought it up.

He always tries to divert me with current affairs if he thinks I'm about to make him play an arpeggio he hasn't practised. (I'm actually not proud that this usually works for him, but what can I say?) Anyway he said he'd seen the adverts for Corbyn on YouTube and asked if I thought he'd win. Now I didn't linger on the topic because the fucker hadn't practiced his half diminished but from the way he was talking this was a pro Corbyn ad. Are there such things or did he mean the Tory ad? If the latter, it's misfired. 

(It should be added this guy is 16 so not a voter anyway).


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

All the parties are running targeted advertising on social media (one of Mcdonnell's recent begging emails was to raise funds to do a campaign encouraging registation a few days before the registration deadline, for example) - so it's impossible to be sure without further details.

'this man could be prime minister' strikes me as a particularly poor start to a hit ad though, I must say.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

I went to a hustings last night in Barnet, the tory MP was booed and laughed at frequently and the labour candidate got loads of applause. I still think the tories will win but I don't think it will be a landslide. If they get back in with a reduced majority that will still be a terrible result for them.


----------



## JimW (Jun 2, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Non scientific anecdote: In the way that these things seem to happen, having only just discussed this yesterday, one of my students later brought it up.
> 
> He always tries to divert me with current affairs if he thinks I'm about to make him play an arpeggio he hasn't practised. (I'm actually not proud that this usually works for him, but what can I say?) Anyway he said he'd seen the adverts for Corbyn on YouTube and asked if I thought he'd win. Now I didn't linger on the topic because the fucker hadn't practiced his half diminished but from the way he was talking this was a pro Corbyn ad. Are there such things or did he mean the Tory ad? If the latter, it's misfired.
> 
> (It should be added this guy is 16 so not a voter anyway).


I should sign up, I don't even have to practice to be half diminished.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> All the parties are running targeted advertising on social media


I'm only being targeted by Tory leaflets (physical).


----------



## hot air baboon (Jun 2, 2017)

the "Garden Tax" is now today's topic of conversation in the office this morning and not in a good way for Lab - Tories would do well to hammer that between now & election day


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> I went to a hustings last night in Barnet, the tory MP was booed and laughed at frequently and the labour candidate got loads of applause. I still think the tories will win but I don't think it will be a landslide. If they get back in with a reduced majority that will still be a terrible result for them.


probably renewed calls for el corbo to go though, maybe even YET ANOTHER leadership challenge- they'll spin anything other than a win as a disaster for him and his policies


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2017)

JimW said:


> I should sign up, I don't even have to practice to be half diminished.


Do you drink your fifths or flat them? (Apologies for the jargony gag, but if there's anyone nerdy enough to get it we can do a virtual high five).


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Non scientific anecdote: In the way that these things seem to happen, having only just discussed this yesterday, one of my students later brought it up.
> 
> He always tries to divert me with current affairs if he thinks I'm about to make him play an arpeggio he hasn't practised. (I'm actually not proud that this usually works for him, but what can I say?) Anyway he said he'd seen the adverts for Corbyn on YouTube and asked if I thought he'd win. Now I didn't linger on the topic because the fucker hadn't practiced his half diminished but from the way he was talking this was a pro Corbyn ad. Are there such things or did he mean the Tory ad? If the latter, it's misfired.
> 
> (It should be added this guy is 16 so not a voter anyway).



There are loads of pro-Corbyn ads.

e2a: or do you mean a sponsored ad? like one of the ones that appears before the video you want to watch?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 2, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> probably renewed calls for el corbo to go though, maybe even YET ANOTHER leadership challenge- they'll spin anything other than a win as a disaster for him and his policies


It feels to me that there is a general recognition that Labour have run a good election challenge and that Corbyn is increasingly popular with the electorate as they actually see him.  If that is also backed up with an improved performance vs 2015, it surely strengthens Corbyn's position as leader.  I'd say anything better than a Tory majority of a dozen or so should (although who knows?) keep him fighting on.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2017)

Cid said:


> There are loads of pro-Corbyn ads.


Ah, OK. I was going to ask how I'm missing all these, but it's by not doing anything modern.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

Oh yeah worth saying that the tory MP was going on about 'the coalition of chaos with Jeremy Corbyn' and pretty much everyone was laughing at her.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> Oh yeah worth saying that the tory MP was going on about 'the *coalition of chaos* with Jeremy Corbyn' and pretty much everyone was laughing at her.


I know I'm not the target audience for that phrase, but to me it sounds ace.


----------



## belboid (Jun 2, 2017)

I recently discovered that the Cuban revolution in Trinidad was largely led by a bloke named Chaos. how could he ever have failed?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

Yeah, the green guy was also brilliantly terrible at public speaking as well  at one point it was his turn to answer an audience question and he said 'oh sorry I've got to go to the toilet'  and another he gave an answer and then said 'oh dear I've bumped my nose on the microphone'


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 2, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> probably renewed calls for el corbo to go though, maybe even YET ANOTHER leadership challenge- they'll spin anything other than a win as a disaster for him and his policies



They can call for what they like can't they - they can't win an internal election until they manage to stitch it up.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> They can call for what they like can't they - they can't win an internal election until they manage to stitch it up.



That's why Corbyn will almost certainly stay on afterwards in anything other than a massive landslide for the tories.  Corbyn knows he will win internal elections the problem is he lacks the numbers in the PLP to get a suitable (if one exists) replacement nominated.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

I met some people from the labour party last night and they said they have never had so many people out delivering leaflets etc. They were all a bit uncertain about corbyn as well but they said that recently they don't have as many 'concerns about his electability' lol


----------



## Libertad (Jun 2, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Do you drink your fifths or flat them? (Apologies for the jargony gag, but if there's anyone nerdy enough to get it we can do a virtual high five).



High ten.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah, the green guy was also brilliantly terrible at public speaking as well  at one point it was his turn to answer an audience question and he said 'oh sorry I've got to go to the toilet'  and another he gave an answer and then said 'oh dear I've bumped my nose on the microphone'



There was a question about the environment and he went on a random tangent about how 'in Barnet there are some terrible traffic jams'


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2017)

Can't be arsed to trawl the thread, but is there a decent, in-depth explanation of polling methods and who uses what out there? and track record.


----------



## treelover (Jun 2, 2017)

newbie said:


> In trying to find out if deliberately watching their ad costs them money, which I haven't as yet, I did find this round-up of attack ads from the beeb.  Given the spending brouhaha after the last election this is probably going to get quite a lot of analysis after the election. They make the point
> 
> 
> 
> ...





hot air baboon said:


> the "Garden Tax" is now today's topic of conversation in the office this morning and not in a good way for Lab - Tories would do well to hammer that between now & election day



Never even heard of it.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 2, 2017)

Cid said:


> Can't be arsed to trawl the thread, but is there a decent, in-depth explanation of polling methods and who uses what out there? and track record.


This the type of thing you want?


----------



## hot air baboon (Jun 2, 2017)

treelover said:


> Never even heard of it.



quite so - says something about the slow, flat-footed Tory campaign


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 2, 2017)

New Ipsos MORI phone poll



CON 45% LAB 40%


----------



## brogdale (Jun 2, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> New Ipsos MORI phone poll
> 
> 
> 
> CON 45% LAB 40%



Impressive trend.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 2, 2017)




----------



## Smangus (Jun 2, 2017)

cat, pigeons etc . Nice


----------



## kabbes (Jun 2, 2017)

Ipsos Mori seem to update less often than some of the others, so that ten point swing is in 2 weeks and in line with the others over that period.  It's jaw-dropping because we aren't used to 10 point swings in two weeks, not because it is particularly out of line -- two weeks ago, everybody had the Tories with a lead of about 15 points, now 5 is more typical.  Incredible but true.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2017)

Oh to be a fly on the wall in the tory HQ.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 2, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Oh to be a fly on the wall in the tory HQ.



The Hitler bunker clip will appear in due course.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 2, 2017)

That Ipsos Mori is interesting because IIRC they have focused on correcting for turnout rather than taking the YouGov/Survation approach of trying to improve sampling, so two different methods now showing a lead of 5-6%.

EDIT: Actually scratch that I'm confusing Ipsos Mori and ICM.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 2, 2017)

This has Labour losing seats


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 2, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> This has Labour losing seats


Yep, all models bar YouGov's show an increased Tory majority and BritainElects uses an running average of the last polls by each pollster so they have the Tories 9% ahead of Labour.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 2, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Yep, all models bar YouGov's show an increased Tory majority and BritainElects uses an running average of the last polls by each pollster so they have the Tories up 9% in Labour.


Ohh wait, I suppose I was conflating 'voting intentions' (e.g. in IpsoMori above) with 'seats won'.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 2, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> I know I'm not the target audience for that phrase, but to me it sounds ace.



The advantage of a coalition of chaos, over unilateral one-party chaos, is that you have some hope the different strands of chaos will occasionally cancel each other out.


----------



## newbie (Jun 2, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I don't think so - for her personally a gain of one seat would be a disaster. Obviously she'd still be PM in the short term but her standing would be destroyed, and the other Tories who fancy the job would be getting into line.


(possibly amongst other reasons) she called the election because her backbenches contained sufficient potential rebels to threaten her stability and make her look weak. If she fails to gain a clear personal mandate by substantially increasing her majority she's toast and they're into trench warfare.  Which will be fun to watch if nothing else


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

newbie said:


> (possibly amongst other reasons) she called the election because her backbenches contained sufficient potential rebels to threaten her stability and make her look weak. If she fails to gain a clear personal mandate by substantially increasing her majority she's toast and they're into trench warfare.  Which will be fun to watch if nothing else



Even staying on the same number of seats would be shit for them. They were expecting a landslide. Isn't the majority at the moment about 6?


----------



## agricola (Jun 2, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> the "Garden Tax" is now today's topic of conversation in the office this morning and not in a good way for Lab - Tories would do well to hammer that between now & election day



It has been pushed a bit - though it always falls down because the mention of it in the manifesto only says that they'll consider it, and the people who it would impact on most are people who do not have "gardens" as they are commonly understood.


----------



## newbie (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> Even staying on the same number of seats would be shit for them. They were expecting a landslide. Isn't the majority at the moment about 6?


Absolute majority of 17 at dissolution.  She needs an increased majority measured by the dozen to make her position secure.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

newbie said:


> Absolute majority of 17 at dissolution.  She needs an increased majority measured by the dozen to make her position secure.



If she ended up with a majority of 2 that would still be brilliant.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 2, 2017)

I like the cut of this fellow's jib


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

He's going to have a surfeit of yellow pieces.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> He's going to have a surfeit of yellow pieces.



And he's going to have to take a fire engine apart for the extra reds.


----------



## Smangus (Jun 2, 2017)

No Star Wars bits?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2017)

“Bitter lemon. Because he’s bitter, and a lemon.”


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

These satisfaction ratings are important IMO: the lines the Tory campaign is built around actually begin to work _against_ them the less satisfied people are with May's performance. Marvelous stuff.


----------



## newbie (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> If she ended up with a majority of 2 that would still be brilliant.


IKWYM but no absolute tory majoirty is brilliant.

otoh thinking about the longer term a minority government teetering along is not a great way to approach the Brexit negotiations.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2017)




----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> “Bitter lemon. Because he’s bitter, and a lemon.”



Yeah whilst the 'strong and stable' thing is certainly floundering it definitely plays into the general desire for a strong leader who will fight all these perceived (real and imaginary) battles.  It's always been Corbyn's electoral weakness and it will be why, imo, many people will grudgingly vote for May.  A massive shame but there we are.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 2, 2017)

It's not like they'll be sat in Brexit negotiations making all the decisions themselves. It's bollocks cartoon stuff to paint it that way.  May will probably bottle it and send some ineffectual deputy.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> It's not like they'll be sat in Brexit negotiations making all the decisions themselves. It's bollocks cartoon stuff to paint it that way.



Of course, but the perception is there that its going to be massive dust-up that everyone concession will have to be fought for.  In reality it will be a bunch of capitalists making sure the flow of capital is not fucked up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Of course, but the perception is there that its going to be massive dust-up that everyone concession will have to be fought for.  In reality it will be a bunch of capitalists making sure the flow of capital is not fucked up.



I wouldn't rule out a certain level of protectionism and attempts to lever out some of that money we will no longer be contributing- theres already been talk of a divorce payment iirc


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah whilst the 'strong and stable' thing is certainly floundering it definitely plays into the general desire for a strong leader who will fight all these perceived (real and imaginary) battles.  It's always been Corbyn's electoral weakness and it will be why, imo, many people will grudgingly vote for May.  A massive shame but there we are.


She's rapidly pissing away the _strong and stable_ rep as we speak though. Unlikely to be enough, but...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2017)

Sorry to keep coming back posting tweets. But what's significant about some of these is not so much what they're saying but who is doing the saying.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 2, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> View attachment 108267
> 
> Sorry to keep coming back posting tweets. But what's significant about some of these is not so much what they're saying but who is doing the saying.


And who is. . . this?

Just who is the five o'clock hero, danny?


----------



## The Boy (Jun 2, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> And who is. . . this?
> 
> Just who is the five o'clock hero, danny?



Mike smithson.  Political gambler, avid dislike of corbyn.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> And who is. . . this?
> 
> Just who is the five o'clock hero, danny?


Founder of Political Betting website and a notorious Lib Dem.

TSE is also from Political Betting and is a Tory fan.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> These satisfaction ratings are important IMO: the lines the Tory campaign is built around actually begin to work _against_ them the less satisfied people are with May's performance. Marvelous stuff.




yes - this is probably more telling than the polls. corbyn was waaaay behind in satisfaction/disatifaction ratings and on "who would be best pm?" - as the campaign has gone on he has made up a lot of ground - he is still behind on both counts but - he has the momentum. 
The more exposure may and corbyn get - the more it helps corbyn. 

Britain Elects? @britainelects ·

Who would make the most capable Prime Minister:

T. May: 50% (-11)
J. Corbyn: 35% (+12)

(via @IpsosMori)

for the tories - polling day cant come quick enough.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

I never usually vote because reformism and that but i'm voting labour this time because there's a chance some of the policies have a potential to benefit me especially the ones about renting and low wages. i'll take that tbh. plus I am relishing the chance to give the tories a good kicking. I don't even like corbyn really.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I wouldn't rule out a certain level of protectionism and attempts to lever out some of that money we will no longer be contributing- theres already been talk of a divorce payment iirc



There will be a divorce settlement, a big one as well.  If you make assurances you will be contributing a certain amount over a period of years you can't just turn around and say actually, no.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> I am relishing the chance to give the tories a good kicking.


This is never as much of a motivating force as I'd like it to be, but fingers crossed it has a good showing this time round.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

if he got in we'd all go back to hating him in a few months. but tbh i just want to get the tories out.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> yes - this is probably more telling than the polls. corbyn was waaaay behind in satisfaction/disatifaction ratings and on "who would be best pm?" - as the campaign has gone on he has made up a lot of ground - he is still behind on both counts but - he has the momentum.
> The more exposure may and corbyn get - the more it helps corbyn.
> 
> Britain Elects? @britainelects ·
> ...


Yup, it has to be remembered that all the pollsters (save YouGov) are still predicting a comfortable Tory majority. (They're all assuming that the people Corbyn has enthused, primarily young people, won't turn out on the day. Even those who, but for the weighting-for-voting-likelihood,  would have Corbyn ahead).

However, May is not doing well. She called an unnecessary election (people don't like that), after saying she wouldn't (people don't like that), she u-turned on her manifesto within days, she won't speak to people, won't do debates, repeats stock phrases without regard to the relevance to the question, and has virtually gone into hiding. The "weak and wobbly" jibe seems to be starting to hit home. And now the election expenses row has reared up again, and with links to CCHQ (Marion Little). She has to be hoping nothing else will go wrong before next Thursday. However, I just don't think Corbyn has enough time before then to reap the benefits.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

yeah, I reckon may will still win, but it wont be the landslide she is predicting. she called this election so can get an increased mandate for the brexit negotiations, even if she got the same number of seats it would be a failure.

limping on in a minority govt would be interesting though


----------



## chilango (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> yeah, I reckon may will still win, but it wont be the landslide she is predicting. she called this election so can get an increased mandate for the brexit negotiations, even if she got the same number of seats it would be a failure.
> 
> limping on in a minority govt would be interesting though



The Tories might well win. May won't. She's already lost.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

chilango said:


> The Tories might well win. May won't. She's already lost.



yeah, brexit and the forthcoming negotiations will be a poisoned chalice for sure.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2017)

one of the best things about corbyn getting in as lab leader the first time was the tears of the labour right. By the time leadership challenges came along they had enough game face on to keep it stony and clap. But the first win, that was sweet. If he by some miracle actually got in it would be ten times better.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 2, 2017)

Today's bucket of cold water:  not so much in the detail, but the feel of what's happening and the arc of events, this feels a bit like the (Scottish) indyref.  Seemingly natural remain majority which eroded over time; the remain campaign was dreadful; indie campaign was energising and optimistic; young voters get involved; ultimately a single poll (iirc) shows indie majority (we haven't yet had a Labour lead, but it wouldn't surprise me if some dodgy poll or other shows one in the next couple of days).  Result: 10 point gap.  Sorry. 

p.s. if you have any other dreams, personal, political or professional, I'm happy to bring out the wet blanket of doom. In fact its my superpower.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 2, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> one of the best things about corbyn getting in as lab leader the first time was the tears of the labour right. By the time leadership challenges came along they had enough game face on to keep it stony and clap. But the first win, that was sweet. If he by some miracle actually got in it would be ten times better.



General election: Theresa May 'weak and feeble and spineless' over climate change, says Ed Miliband – live


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Today's bucket of cold water:  not so much in the detail, but the feel of what's happening and the arc of events, this feels a bit like the (Scottish) indyref.  Seemingly natural remain majority which eroded over time; the remain campaign was dreadful; indie campaign was energising and optimistic; young voters get involved; ultimately a single poll (iirc) shows indie majority (we haven't yet had a Labour lead, but it wouldn't surprise me if some dodgy poll or other shows one in the next couple of days).  Result: 10 point gap.  Sorry.
> 
> p.s. if you have any other dreams, personal, political or professional, I'm happy to bring out the wet blanket of doom. In fact its my superpower.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 2, 2017)




----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

but even a slightly increased majority is shit for her. she was expecting a landslide.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> but even a slightly increased majority is shit for her. she was expecting a landslide.


indeed


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

a majority of 20 isn't exactly 'strong and stable'.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2017)

Yeah she's fucked either way.  Unless the mega shitstorm the papers are going to throw at Corbyn next week hits home she's fatally wounded.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 2, 2017)

Given what this was nominally supposed to be about - getting a big enough majority to blow lib/lab interventions on brexit out of the water/give her a stronger hand in the negotiations - anything other than a majority of say 40 is shocking.  Anything less than that and it was an expensive (£50m to stage a gen election?) waste of time and loss of focus when she should have been doing brexit'.  The eurobods must be laughing themselves into incontinence. 'Oh, hi Theresa, you're back.... election?.... oh, how did that go?.... ah, I'm sorry.... RIGHT, LET'S GET TO IT'


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah she's fucked either way.  Unless the mega shitstorm the papers are going to throw at Corbyn next week hits home she's fatally wounded.


what have they got left?


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)




----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> what have they got left?



Its going to go into overdrive.  Nothing specific I expect just a ramping up on all counts now its getting close.  The IRA stuff hasn't really hit home so they'll just go back to the tried and tested labour will wreck the economy, jobs and livelihood etc.  Its going to be Project Fear on steroids I reckon.


----------



## chilango (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


>




The Tory lead has been growing all this time?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Given what this was nominally supposed to be about - getting a big enough majority to blow lib/lab interventions on brexit out of the water/give her a stronger hand in the negotiations - anything other than a majority of say 40 is shocking.  Anything less than that and it was an expensive (£50m to stage a gen election?) waste of time and loss of focus when she should have been doing brexit'.  The eurobods must be laughing themselves into incontinence. 'Oh, hi Theresa, you're back.... election?.... oh, how did that go?.... ah, I'm sorry.... RIGHT, LET'S GET TO IT'



the excuses for not going on tv as well lol. 'im too busy working on brexit whereas jeremy corbyn just wants to be on tv all the time' - then why did you call the election then?!


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Its going to go into overdrive.  Nothing specific I expect just a ramping up on all counts now its getting close.  The IRA stuff hasn't really hit home so they'll just go back to the tried and tested labour will wreck the economy, jobs and livelihood etc.  Its going to be Project Fear on steroids I reckon.



it will be the trump effect. this will massively backfire. I still think the tories will win but even their current majority is shit for them and I don't think they will keep that. Finchley is Margaret thatcher's old seat and it looks like Labour will take that


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 2, 2017)

Back me despite Corbyn as May will win, Labour candidate urges voters


> “The polls are all saying that the Conservative party will win a large majority, possibly with more MPs than they have ever had before."


What polls is she reading


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

they sent it to the printers a month ago.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> they sent it to the printers a month ago.


I figured as much, but felt like there's been more up to date leaflets coming out. I guess they decided they might as well send 'em out anyway


----------



## Wilf (Jun 2, 2017)

Bottom line is if the tories get over 40%, unless Labour are very close, they get a significant majority - fptp.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

is there a poll breakdown by each seat?


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

also this (from here)


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> is there a poll breakdown by each seat?


The samples are never big enough for it to be meaningful. Ashcroft did some polling in marginals last time, but I don't think he's bothered this time round.


----------



## JimW (Jun 2, 2017)

May's dissatisfied hits 50% for the first time and she's negative as 'good prime minister'


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> I figured as much, but felt like there's been more up to date leaflets coming out. I guess they decided they might as well send 'em out anyway


Why not pulp them?

I hope Jezza wins, so people like that can choke on it.


----------



## agricola (Jun 2, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> one of the best things about corbyn getting in as lab leader the first time was the tears of the labour right. By the time leadership challenges came along they had enough game face on to keep it stony and clap. But the first win, that was sweet. If he by some miracle actually got in it would be ten times better.



Indeed.  The best thing about it is it will all be down to him, they haven't raised their heads above the parapet once*.

* though of course if he does win, you can expect to hear that it was actually their doing, because they didn't put his picture on their leaflets


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> what have they got left?


 Posh sociopath Boris, Pauline from Royston Vasey and a bunch of ideological hard right headcases waiting in the wings.


----------



## Rimbaud (Jun 2, 2017)

agricola said:


> * though of course if he does win, you can expect to hear that it was actually their doing, because they didn't put his picture on their leaflets



They'll probably try and use that line of argument but they would just be laughed at to be fair. It would take serious cognitive dissonance for that to be given credence by anyone.

Best thing about the election really, even if May wins we can still take solace in the demise of Blairism.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

Ben Goldacre's view was widely shared among the blairites a few weeks ago - just rub their faces in this.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

ashcroft's latest model has drastically reined in his expectations on tory gains too


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2017)

Nobody else.


----------



## JimW (Jun 2, 2017)

Depends who votes does it? Cheers m'lord.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 2, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Its going to go into overdrive.  Nothing specific I expect just a ramping up on all counts now its getting close.  The IRA stuff hasn't really hit home so they'll just go back to the tried and tested labour will wreck the economy, jobs and livelihood etc.  Its going to be Project Fear on steroids I reckon.



Most people voting Corbyn are either not bothered by this, or they are simply too young to remember/care. Turn-out of previous non-voters and young people will decide how close, or not this is. My head is still going for a much reduced Tory win and Im refusing to listen to my heart for fear of crushing disappointment. 

Edit: Under no illusions about Corbyn enacting some sort of socialist paradise, just think we need a change of direction and at worst to get these ideas in the mainstream.


----------



## Rimbaud (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> Ben Goldacre's view was widely shared among the blairites a few weeks ago - just rub their faces in this.
> 
> View attachment 108293



That line really cunts me off, there's been variations from Nick Cohen et al, really infuriating - I support Corbyn and I am going to vote Labour because of him. I didn't put him in power cos I'm not in the party and I also wouldn't vote Labour if it was any of the other candidates. So if Corbyn did lose badly how exactly would that be my fault, but not the fault of the journalists endlessly writing articles and tweeting about how shit he is?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 2, 2017)

Barking_Mad said:


> just think we need a change of direction and at worst to get these ideas in the mainstream.


Personally that's possibly the most important thing about this election for me. Like most, I doubt Labour will win, and I'm not convinced Corbyn is ready (or has the team) to make a success of it if they miraculously do, but the discourse has been dragged so far right over the past 20 years that just to have these sorts of ideas taken seriously would be such a relief.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

I don't like a lot of JC's politics tbh, for example I don't think he's an antisemite himself but I think he's sometimes been too weak on standing up to those types of his supporters (although im kinda enjoying the prospect of the dismay of those anti-imperialist types when they discover he's not going to be what they hoped ), don't like a lot of the STWC stuff , the support of Assad etc (although I don't know if he's actually said anything in support of him, but a lot of his supporters definitely have). I also think he comes across as a bit dithery at times 

But let's face it he probably wont do much of what the STWC lot are demanding and has the potential to do a bit of good for people renting and the like. and i'm enjoying the prospect of seeing some tories crying. I also dont think he is as crazy about power as she is - i cant see him wanting to read the emails of everyone in the country or have dreams of staying in power indefinitely lol, so yeah.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> I also dont think he is as crazy about power as she is - i cant see him wanting to read the emails of everyone in the country or have dreams of staying in power indefinitely lol, so yeah.


I've been wondering if that's something people are responding to, consciously or unconsciously. His history as a backbencher is generally taken as a clear sign that he's in it for 'the right reasons' and believes the stuff he campaigns on. Even if they don't share his beliefs, I get the feeling there's a certain amount of grudging respect for that after the conveyor belt of weather vane politicians who believe in whatever they think will get them more power.

Of course, there's probably just as many who think he's a dogmatic, scruffy little hermit who shouldn't have any more power than secretary of the local allotment association.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

and yeah I think it is a lot like trump tbh. people are fed up. the tories have been in for seven years and done no good to anyone. of course corbs won't do a lot either if he gets in (which he probably wont) but I think telling everyone how bad it is to vote for someone and how it will create a 'coalition of chaos' is never going to go well.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 2, 2017)

Ipsos Mori have Tories on 45%, Labour on 40% and Libdems on 7%.

Labour + Tory vote = 85%

I don't think that's happened in my lifetime. The idea of Labour cracking the 40% mark and still lagging 5 points behind just doesn't compute with me. Given that this election is not dividing on class lines but more on young v old lines and given this almost 50's/60's level of support for the two frontrunners I think we are going to see carnage on election night with lots of seats being lost by all parties. Don't trust the models that predict seat numbers even if you trust the polls themselves (which you shouldn't).


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

third party vote has utterly collapsed in England.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> I think telling everyone how bad it is to vote for someone and how it will create a 'coalition of chaos' is never going to go well.


It's weird actually, because we're constantly told how fear is used to rule us, and it's hard to argue against that exactly, but if you look at Trump, Brexit and now this GE, the fear-mongering campaigning seems to have had basically the opposite effect.

I suppose those are all bit more 'anti-status quo' votes, but it's still suggest fear alone doesn't always work.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

at the hustings I went to the tory was robotically going on about the coalition of chaos, at one point she was talking about Corbyn 'finding his way into downing street' and people were yelling out 'that's rubbish' etc


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

At one point she said that she voted for a particular policy, then when she finished talking the labour candidate said 'can I just point out that she voted against it five times'


----------



## J Ed (Jun 2, 2017)

I suppose this is going to out me a bit, but I do not care. I did canvassing today for Labour in what is supposed to be a marginal constituency and I can now absolutely believe the polls. This is the sort of working-class, pro-Leave area that was supposed to be going over to May and I only met a single Tory voter. One single Labour voter who was angry about Corbyn and wasn't voting as a result, lots of Labour voters proudly saying that they will vote Labour again and a handful of Green and Lib Dem voters who said that they were going to vote Labour this time.

I expected a lot of hostility towards Corbyn but instead it really was a mix of people who liked him, really liked him and were indifferent to him. Somewhere along the line this policy of having an entire campaign based around attacking Corbyn has gone very wrong.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jun 2, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I suppose this is going to out me a bit, but I do not care. I did canvassing today for Labour in what is supposed to be a marginal constituency and I can now absolutely believe the polls. This is the sort of working-class, pro-Leave area that was supposed to be going over to May and I only met a single Tory voter. One single Labour voter who was angry about Corbyn and wasn't voting as a result, lots of Labour voters proudly saying that they will vote Labour again and a handful of Green and Lib Dem voters who said that they were going to vote Labour this time.
> 
> I expected a lot of hostility towards Corbyn but instead it really was a mix of people who liked him, really liked him and were indifferent to him. Somewhere along the line this policy of having an entire campaign based around attacking Corbyn has gone very wrong.



Which constituency? You seem to be Brum based - Erdington?


----------



## free spirit (Jun 2, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Yup, it has to be remembered that all the pollsters (save YouGov) are still predicting a comfortable Tory majority. (They're all assuming that the people Corbyn has enthused, primarily young people, won't turn out on the day. Even those who, but for the weighting-for-voting-likelihood,  would have Corbyn ahead).
> 
> However, May is not doing well. She called an unnecessary election (people don't like that), after saying she wouldn't (people don't like that), she u-turned on her manifesto within days, she won't speak to people, won't do debates, repeats stock phrases without regard to the relevance to the question, and has virtually gone into hiding. The "weak and wobbly" jibe seems to be starting to hit home. And now the election expenses row has reared up again, and with links to CCHQ (Marion Little). She has to be hoping nothing else will go wrong before next Thursday. However, I just don't think Corbyn has enough time before then to reap the benefits.


interesting thing about the Ipso poll is that is shows labour are slightly ahead in all of the self reported likely to vote categories for this time from 10/10 to 6/10.

They must be downgrading those figures purely on the 2015 statistics / the always, usually, depends category of whether people usually vote or not, which seems a mathodology that's highly likely to prove wrong at this election to me.

Also not looking good for lib dems with nearly half of their support considering voting for another party, though I suspect mostly that would be in the lab / tory marginals.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 2, 2017)

gawkrodger said:


> Which constituency? You seem to be Brum based - Erdington?



Yes.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 2, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I expected a lot of hostility towards Corbyn but instead it really was a mix of people who liked him, really liked him and were indifferent to him. Somewhere along the line this policy of having an entire campaign based around attacking Corbyn has gone very wrong.



I do wonder whether the smear campaign when he first got in unintentionally acted in the same way as a trade union inoculation strategy — this time around no-one's shocked, no dead cat.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

I think it's going to be completely unpredictable on election night tbh


----------



## J Ed (Jun 2, 2017)

Rob Ray said:


> I do wonder whether the smear campaign when he first got in unintentionally acted in the same way as a trade union inoculation strategy — this time around no-one's shocked, no dead cat.



Honestly just since the election was called or so the most hostility I've encountered towards Corbyn has come from Remainer liberals. They fucking hate him, and for like no reason... it's like those Clintonite idiots who are still angry at Bernie Sanders.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I suppose this is going to out me a bit


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Honestly just since the election was called or so the most hostility I've encountered towards Corbyn has come from Remainer liberals. They fucking hate him, and for like no reason... it's like those Clintonite idiots who are still angry at Bernie Sanders.



My mum is one of those...she is going to vote for him though because she hates theresa may so much.


----------



## chilango (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> I think it's going to be completely unpredictable on election night tbh



I hope so.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 2, 2017)

Arch-Tory, Spectator journo Fraser Nelson thinks the polls might be right too. They are getting quite scared.

Why we can't be sure that Jeremy Corbyn won't win | Coffee House


----------



## mather (Jun 2, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Honestly just since the election was called or so the most hostility I've encountered towards Corbyn has come from Remainer liberals. They fucking hate him, and for like no reason... it's like those Clintonite idiots who are still angry at Bernie Sanders.



One more reason to vote for Corbyn and then we can put to rest any fantasies The Economist has about creating a "new party of the radical centre".


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 2, 2017)

A "new party of the radical centre" would be amazing though, watching Blair and his acolytes going in guns blazing and blelatedly realising with rising horror that their powder is nothing more than sand and fag ash would be the _most_ fun.


----------



## mather (Jun 2, 2017)

Rob Ray said:


> A "new party of the radical centre" would be amazing though, watching Blair and his acolytes going in guns blazing and blelatedly realising with rising horror that their powder is nothing more than sand and fag ash would be the _most_ fun.



I'd rather not have to go through the experience of seeing and hearing any more of Blair, we had ten years of that crap and that was more than enough.

Besides, the hegemony of liberalism is now in steep decline across the entire world, it is a system and ideology that has degenerated to such an extent that it can no longer answer any of the problems we face and it can no longer provide the goods. So no need for any more liberal charades as it self-evident and clear for all to see that liberalism is now on it's death bed.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 3, 2017)

Rob Ray said:


> A "new party of the radical centre" would be amazing though, watching Blair and his acolytes going in guns blazing and blelatedly realising with rising horror that their powder is nothing more than sand and fag ash would be the _most_ fun.




on that note -
The election shows why a new centrist party would struggle



> a week after the EU referendum, an ally of George Osborne approached Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron and suggested the creation of a new centrist party called “the Democrats” (the then chancellor had already pitched the idea to Labour MPs). For nearly two years, conversations such as this one have been taking place among senior politicians. Peter Mandelson, according to Labour figures, is one of those "serious" about creating a new party. This week's _Economist _endorses the Liberal Democrats as a "down payment" on such a project.


----------



## newbie (Jun 3, 2017)

mather said:


> I'd rather not have to go through the experience of seeing and hearing any more of Blair, we had ten years of that crap and that was more than enough.
> 
> Besides, the hegemony of liberalism is now in steep decline across the entire world, it is a system and ideology that has degenerated to such an extent that it can no longer answer any of the problems we face and it can no longer provide the goods. So no need for any more liberal charades as it self-evident and clear for all to see that liberalism is now on it's death bed.


so what comes next?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 3, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> on that note -
> The election shows why a new centrist party would struggle


Christ, that article gave me sick in my mouth. "Liberals have to colonise existing parties". Anyone on these boards who still moans about "liberal" being a swear word should be forced to read that filth.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 3, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Christ, that article gave me sick in my mouth. "Liberals have to colonise existing parties". Anyone on these boards who still moans about "liberal" being a swear word should be forced to read that filth.


A very peculiar one too. On the one hand arguing that there's a strand of liberalism that extends across all three parties but then arguing for colonisation which would surely have these liberals working in opposition to each other rather than together. 

Shit in every way.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> A very peculiar one too. On the one hand arguing that there's a strand of liberalism that extends across all three parties but then arguing for colonisation which would surely have these liberals working in opposition to each other rather than together.
> 
> Shit in every way.


Oh it's worse than that, I'm afraid. He's arguing for a "reeducation" of party politics back towards all-party liberal consensus. Notice he starts by saying this is a project "Cameroons", "Blairites" and "Cleggites" are all involved in. That none of them feel politically at home now. He's talking about "Centrist" forces that the Economist can get behind reshaping all the parties back towards convergence. So that the choice is no choice. It's a liberal entryist coup.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 3, 2017)

Silly liberals.


----------



## Ole (Jun 3, 2017)

New YouGov poll (50,000 sample) showing a 4 point Tory lead, same as previous two polls.

Still predicting a hung parliament.

Con: 308 seats (-22) [95% confidence of 265-340 seats)
Labour: 261 seats (+32) [95% confidence of 230-301 seats)

Follow the 2017 UK General Election with YouGov


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 3, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Oh it's worse than that, I'm afraid. He's arguing for a "reeducation" of party politics back towards all-party liberal consensus. Notice he starts by saying this is a project "Cameroons", "Blairites" and "Cleggites" are all involved in. That none of them feel politically at home now. He's talking about "Centrist" forces that the Economist can get behind reshaping all the parties back towards convergence. So that the choice is no choice. It's a liberal entryist coup.



Its the breathtaking sense of entitlement of these cunts. Sooner or later the silly voters will come to their senses and realise that they need to have us grown-ups back in charge of them.


----------



## mather (Jun 3, 2017)

newbie said:


> so what comes next?



I cannot say what comes next with any degree of certainty, only that liberalism is on the way out.

However, I would guess we could see a return to a more 'normal' form of politics, more polarised with the issues of class, economy and wealth distribution taking centre stage again (as they should IMO) and radical political formations from both the left and right gaining at the expense of the political centre and the neo-liberal consensus. The neo-liberal consensus may seem like that is how politics has always been done but historically that has not been the case.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 3, 2017)




----------



## J Ed (Jun 3, 2017)




----------



## J Ed (Jun 3, 2017)

Not so good


----------



## Raheem (Jun 3, 2017)

There's a lot of polls out today, though...


----------



## J Ed (Jun 3, 2017)

Raheem said:


> There's a lot of polls out today, though...



Yes, Comres also deliberately underweights youth/working-class vote. Assuming, I think I'm right in saying, a decline on 2015 voting patterns amongst young people. I don't think that's possible


----------



## Ole (Jun 3, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Yes, Comres also deliberately underweights youth/working-class vote. Assuming, I think I'm right in saying, a decline on 2015 voting patterns amongst young people. I don't think that's possible



They are assuming that voters will turn-out in roughly the same proportions as they did in 2015, when only 44% of 18-24 year olds voted.

However their own poll says 66% of 18-24 year olds are "absolutely certain to vote" when asked the question.


----------



## newbie (Jun 3, 2017)

mather said:


> I cannot say what comes next with any degree of certainty, only that liberalism is on the way out.
> 
> However, I would guess we could see a return to a more 'normal' form of politics, more polarised with the issues of class, economy and wealth distribution taking centre stage again (as they should IMO) and radical political formations from both the left and right gaining at the expense of the political centre and the neo-liberal consensus. The neo-liberal consensus may seem like that is how politics has always been done but historically that has not been the case.


I was thinking we've had neo-cons and neo-liberals maybe it's time for neo-socialism


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 3, 2017)

newbie said:


> I was thinking we've had neo-cons and neo-liberals maybe it's time for neo-socialism


It's been done. And it sounds a bit fash: 

Neosocialism - Wikipedia

How about nu-Socialism?


----------



## mather (Jun 3, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> How about nu-Socialism?



That sounds too Blairite.

How about just _socialism_, no need for silly new names.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2017)




----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2017)

Fieldwork today apparently...after the QT broadcast.


----------



## JimW (Jun 3, 2017)

IT"S HAPPENING!


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 3, 2017)

'Kinell.

At some point I'm going to have to stop assuming these are outliers or dodgy methodologies.

Just got the sense in the last couple of days that Labour was stalling, more because there haven't been any Tory calamities to capitalise on. The Facebook army seemed quieter, but apparently back on it this evening.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 3, 2017)

My dad voted tory last time. Guess what he's voting now


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> 'Kinell.
> 
> At some point I'm going to have to stop assuming these are outliers or dodgy methodologies.
> 
> Just got the sense in the last couple of days that Labour was stalling, more because there haven't been any Tory calamities to capitalise on. The Facebook army seemed quieter, but apparently back on it this evening.


Increasing numbers of poll respondents are seemingly seeing the tories as a calamity, full stop.
Perhaps it wasn't such a smart move for May to draw public attention onto what a shower of cunts they are.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Jun 3, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> My dad voted tory last time. Guess what he's voting now



UKIP?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 3, 2017)

I'm genuinely shocked because he usually votes tory, lib dem or not at all. I don't think he has ever voted for them


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 3, 2017)

You'll know it's all over when the Tory shills on BBC start looking like they're shitting themselves. Don't think we're there yet, but I hope there's a bit of fear creeping in (likely unwarranted as I don't think Corbyn is a vindictive type).


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 3, 2017)

Nine Bob Note said:


> UKIP?



No labour


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2017)

Looking forward to Corbyn's crossover with 43.2%; would shut the fuckers up or a while.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 3, 2017)

It's all gone a bit Boaty McBoatface.

I hate the fact that I'm too used to disappointment, too pessimistic to let myself enjoy this.

Dare to dream stuff like Barwell out, Soubry out, the whining of many many cunts, the total meltdown of the local paper BTL idiots. Imagine the bad mood of Kelvin Mackenzie, the furrowed face of Toby Young.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> It's all gone a bit Boaty McBoatface.
> 
> I hate the fact that I'm too used to disappointment, too pessimistic to let myself enjoy this.
> 
> Dare to dream stuff like Barwell out, Soubry out, the whining of many many cunts, the total meltdown of the local paper BTL idiots. Imagine the bad mood of Kelvin Mackenzie, the furrowed face of Toby Young.


Even better, the (potentially fatal?) degree of cognitive dissonance experienced by any of the 172 actually winning their seats for Corbyn.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 3, 2017)

Is it possible to die from some kind of overdose of schadenfreude? Asking for a friend.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 3, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Imagine the bad mood of Kelvin Mackenzie, the furrowed face of Toby Young.



Before I had properly processed what you meant, I imagined it furrowed by a tractor-drawn plough. Guess that won't happen, but I'd like to see him wandering the corridors of an empty Free School.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 3, 2017)

How has Survation previously read? I can't remember.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2017)

sheothebudworths said:


> How has Survation previously read? I can't remember.


Good, but assuming a 'youth' turnout of 82% looks well off the mark.


----------



## JimW (Jun 3, 2017)

sheothebudworths said:


> How has Survation previously read? I can't remember.


Well just from those numbers they had the Tories more than ten points ahead previously


----------



## strung out (Jun 3, 2017)

sheothebudworths said:


> How has Survation previously read? I can't remember.


43% / 36% on May 30th
43% / 34% on May 22nd
46% / 34% on May 20th
48% / 30% on May 15th


----------



## killer b (Jun 3, 2017)

This afternoon I was listening to a phone in on radio 4 - any answers. There was a range of people calling, but noticeably there was loads of lifelong Tory voters switching to Labour. Loads. All over the dementia tax and winter fuel.


----------



## JimW (Jun 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> This afternoon I was listening to a phone in on radio 4 - any answers. There was a range of people calling, but noticeably there was loads of lifelong Tory voters switching to Labour. Loads. All over the dementia tax and winter fuel.


How foolish are they going to feel when the North Koreans nuke us?


----------



## J Ed (Jun 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> This afternoon I was listening to a phone in on radio 4 - any answers. There was a range of people calling, but noticeably there was loads of lifelong Tory voters switching to Labour. Loads. All over the dementia tax and winter fuel.



There will of course also be many more who won't be able to bring themselves to vote for Labour but who won't turn out for the Tories either.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Good, but assuming a 'youth' turnout of 82% looks well off the mark.


Sorry scrub that...I think it's 50%...shouldn't trust others to do the full tabs reading for me.


----------



## magneze (Jun 3, 2017)

brogdale said:


>



Some follow up on that. The "event" being QT.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 3, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Sorry scrub that...I think it's 50%...shouldn't trust others to do the full tabs reading for me.



Youth turnout in 2010 was 49%


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 3, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Good, but assuming a 'youth' turnout of 82% looks well off the mark.



Someone, can't remember who  also talked down the potential impact of the youth vote anyway (was it 12% in total?).
I can't work out if that's good news or not.


----------



## not a trot (Jun 3, 2017)

The Tory press are going to go fucking mental between now and Thursday


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 3, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Sorry scrub that...I think it's 50%...shouldn't trust others to do the full tabs reading for me.



OH!


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Youth turnout in 2010 was 49%


44% in 2015, I think.
Will be higher this time, and the degree to which will determine the outcome. Anyone wanting a Corbyn victory would be well advised to find young adults and walk them around to their polling stations.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2017)

sheothebudworths said:


> OH!


It's 'good' news.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 3, 2017)

JimW said:


> How foolish are they going to feel when the North Koreans nuke us?


----------



## magneze (Jun 3, 2017)




----------



## magneze (Jun 3, 2017)




----------



## magneze (Jun 3, 2017)

All over the place.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 3, 2017)

Well at least we've gone from just being like 'Yougov better be right' to 'Yougov and Survation better be right'.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2017)




----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2017)

Vermin will be relieved with raft of 40+ stability.


----------



## Sirena (Jun 3, 2017)

Labour ahead of Conservatives by three points in new unadjusted poll

and.....

18-24 Year old Voting Intention:
LAB: 68%
CON: 16%
LDEM: 8%
GRN: 3%
UKIP: 1%
(ICM Research)


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2017)

Sirena said:


> Labour ahead of Conservatives by three points in new unadjusted poll
> 
> and.....
> 
> ...


That really is staggeringly bad for the Greens in their key demographic.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2017)

Apologies for any party pooping here...but...

Summary of Con leads tonight ComRes +12 ICM +11 ORB +9 Opinium +6 Survation +1


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2017)

more poop...


----------



## magneze (Jun 3, 2017)




----------



## bi0boy (Jun 3, 2017)

Polling averages couldn't be more useless, ignore them.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 3, 2017)

brogdale said:


> more poop...
> 
> View attachment 108401


My extra slice of poop is that I feel it's going to be an even wider gap on Thursday.  Only way that will change is if Theresa May does something like talking to the voters between now and then.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2017)

Makes you wonder just how piss-poor the vermin would have to become to repel the Brexit-addled.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 3, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Makes you wonder just how piss-poor the vermin would have to become to repel the Brexit-addled.



The Brexit-addled? The most vocally Labour-adverse people I've spoken to on the basis of EU referendum beef recently are remoaners.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 3, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Apologies for any party pooping here...but...
> 
> Summary of Con leads tonight ComRes +12 ICM +11 ORB +9 Opinium +6 Survation +1


Irony is, I've been saying the polls were going to go back to the tories this week. Because they didn't quite do and there were a couple of good ones for corbo, I was almost expecting a 1% lead for Labour in one of the ones tonight.  ((((my easily swayed emotions))))


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2017)

J Ed said:


> The Brexit-addled? The most vocally Labour-adverse people I've spoken to on the basis of EU referendum beef recently are remoaners.


Lib Dems?


----------



## J Ed (Jun 3, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Lib Dems?



Honestly not just Lib Dems, just posh smug centrists who have swallowed a slew of 'fake news'.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Honestly not just Lib Dems, just posh smug centrists who have swallowed a slew of 'fake news'.


Yeah, but the reason that the vermin with their ultra-neolib policies are polling at 'core +' is that formerly non-tory voters have bought May's myth of her Brexit and privileged that above material considerations of their own interest.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 3, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Apologies for any party pooping here...but...
> 
> Summary of Con leads tonight ComRes +12 ICM +11 ORB +9 Opinium +6 Survation +1



(YouGov +4)

But the Survation one (which showed the gap closing by 11 points in the last week) was the only one conducted after Question Time. Could there be a causal link? Who knows, but I'd say it counts as a cliffhanger.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 3, 2017)

Raheem said:


> (YouGov +4)
> 
> But the Survation one (which showed the gap closing by 11 points in the last week) was the only one conducted after Question Time. Could there be a causal link? Who knows, but I'd say it counts as a cliffhanger.


Whatever is going on in the polls I doubt QT had much effect. May came across as a smug shit but it was at best a points victory for corbyn.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 3, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Whatever is going on in the polls I doubt QT had much effect. May came across as a smug shit but it was at best a points victory for corbyn.



I didn't think so, even with his lukewarm attitude to nuclear holocaust, I think he wiped the floor with her, and she with herself. I'll admit that your take seems to be reflected more in the responses to the debate I have seen. But apparently 76% of people in the survey watched either the debate or highlights, so I don't think we can be quick to dismiss the potential for it to have had an impact.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 3, 2017)

Polls seem all over the place. 

I still think tories will get back in though. I'm trying not to be optimistic because I am usually disappointed.


----------



## Cid (Jun 3, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Honestly not just Lib Dems, just posh smug centrists who have swallowed a slew of 'fake news'.



Yep, I have a couple of relatives and acquaintances of this ilk... People who actually are Blairites. Some just supporters, some who were members. The key thing with them at the moment is bitterness and vindictiveness. It would take a hell of a lot to swing them to Corbyn.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 3, 2017)

Cid said:


> Yep, I have a couple of relatives and acquaintances of this ilk... People who actually are Blairites. Some just supporters, some who were members. The key thing with them at the moment is bitterness and vindictiveness. It would take a hell of a lot to swing them to Corbyn.



The sort of people who ask to speak to your manager because they got a hair in their soup.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 3, 2017)

My mum is a Remainer liberal. upset about brexit and she doesn't like Corbyn... But she is voting for him because she hates theresa may so much.


----------



## Idaho (Jun 3, 2017)

Once you've seen 4 or 5 elections where it seems obvious the tories should lose.. But they win, then you can't help but assume that this one will revert to type.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 3, 2017)

J Ed said:


> The sort of people who ask to speak to your manager because they got a hair in their soup.



Bloody hell


----------



## Raheem (Jun 3, 2017)

Idaho said:


> Once you've seen 4 or 5 elections where it seems obvious the tories should lose.. But they win, then you can't help but assume that this one will revert to type.



This is the reverse, though. The polls are saying that the Tories should win.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 3, 2017)

Cid said:


> Yep, I have a couple of relatives and acquaintances of this ilk... People who actually are Blairites. Some just supporters, some who were members. The key thing with them at the moment is bitterness and vindictiveness. It would take a hell of a lot to swing them to Corbyn.


Do you know what they intend to do? Vote LD/Green, just not bother or are they actually going to vote Con?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 3, 2017)

Idaho said:


> Once you've seen 4 or 5 elections where it seems obvious the tories should lose.. But they win, then you can't help but assume that this one will revert to type.


Which four or five elections where these?


----------



## Cid (Jun 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Do you know what they intend to do? Vote LD/Green, just not bother or are they actually going to vote Con?



LD I think.

Following the Economist's lead.


----------



## Red O (Jun 3, 2017)

Re: Survation poll:


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Jun 3, 2017)

I'm starting to think that it _could _be worth ringing in sick on Friday so that I can stay up...

Are there any high-profile cunts other than Clegg who could lose their seats if it all goes tits up for the former condems? Our own Woodcock is going no question, and given his status as one of Jezza's key detractors NW Tonite will likely send a crew along to Barrow town hall. Anyone else? Rudd has a small majority, but the bookies don't think so


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 3, 2017)

Nine Bob Note said:


> I'm starting to think that it _could _be worth ringing in sick on Friday so that I can stay up...
> 
> Are there any high-profile cunts other than Clegg who could lose their seats if it all goes tits up for the former condems? Our own Woodcock is going no question, and given his status as one of Jezza's key detractors NW Tonite will likely send a crew along to Barrow town hall. Anyone else? Rudd has a small majority, but the bookies don't think so


At the peak of Tory polling some people were mentioning Farron, didn't think it was on the cards myself


----------



## Cid (Jun 3, 2017)

It's a pseud thing I think; I buy the economist whenever I get the train/plane, I buy the FT/Times (and the graun) because I'm an economically active member of society and intellectually engaged with the real, pragmatic side of politics. I deeply admire David Aaronovitch.

The Graun's support of labour might push them a bit, but pushing against a deep-seated sense of entitlement and superiority.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Jun 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> At the peak of Tory polling some people were mentioning Farron, didn't think it was on the cards myself



No chance. I think the locals do like the man and there is no Labour support left in Kendal at all to split the vote.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 3, 2017)

not a trot said:


> The Tory press are going to go fucking mental between now and Thursday



They've already started plain making things up (the 'garden tax'). Desperate stuff. Expect far worse.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 3, 2017)

Red O said:


> Re: Survation poll:



I can't be bothered digging into it, but those figures for people having seen the debate sound very unlikely, even if it includes youtubers, highlights and the rest.  That's Morecambe and Wise Show Christmas Special circa 1976 level.


----------



## chilango (Jun 3, 2017)

I've been emailed what appears to be an internal document from a city firm outlining why they should expect a significant Tory majority come Friday _despite_ the polls. I'll sanitize the key extracts at work on Monday.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Jun 3, 2017)

Wilf said:


> That's Morecambe and Wise Show Christmas Special circa 1976 level.



Is that the one with Rippon singing and dancing? Fucking baghead.


----------



## marty21 (Jun 3, 2017)

.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 3, 2017)

Nine Bob Note said:


> I'm starting to think that it _could _be worth ringing in sick on Friday so that I can stay up...


"I'm not fucking coming in you cunt,the workers have taken over under and you'll first up against the wall anyway.... what, _it was only an exit poll?_.... and, what, _Tories got a majority of 50_?.... yeah, I'll be straight in"


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 3, 2017)

chilango said:


> I've been emailed what appears to be an internal document from a city firm outlining why they should expect a significant Tory majority come Friday _despite_ the polls. I'll sanitize the key extracts at work on Monday.



If it was anything other than this we'd see something happening on the financial markets. Big capital will have its own polling and analysis.

What are the betting markets up to?


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 3, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> If it was anything other than this we'd see something happening on the financial markets. Big capital will have its own polling and analysis.
> 
> What are the betting markets up to?


I used to trust betting markets but they got the last few polling upsets just as wrong as the polls... they don't have secret access to anything more accurate than we do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2017)

Polls seem to be diverging even more. Latest ones with tory lead as low as 1 percentage point (Survation, today) and as high as 12 (ComRes, ended yesterday). Have the polls ever diverged this much? And have there ever been so many polling companies? I don't remember there being this many.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 4, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Polls seem to be diverging even more. Latest ones with tory lead as low as 1 percentage point (Survation, today) and as high as 12 (ComRes, ended yesterday). Have the polls ever diverged this much? And have there ever been so many polling companies? I don't remember there being this many.



They're less divergent than it seems, because, although no two companies are using exactly the same methodology, you can put them into two groups, based on how likely they think it is that younger people will vote. The ones that are assuming turnout patterns similar to 2015 are giving the Tories a lead that is still in double figures. Others that think turnout will be more like 2010, when more younger people voted, are giving a narrower lead.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 4, 2017)

sheothebudworths said:


> Someone, maybe kabbes  also talked down the potential impact of the youth vote anyway (was it 12% in total?).
> I can't work out if that's good news or not.


Not me, FWIW.  Credit for analysis due to those who do it, although I don't know who it was so can't help you there.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2017)

Raheem said:


> They're less divergent than it seems, because, although no two companies are using exactly the same methodology, you can put them into two groups, based on how likely they think it is that younger people will vote. The ones that are assuming turnout patterns similar to 2015 are giving the Tories a lead that is still in double figures. Others that think turnout will be more like 2010, when more younger people voted, are giving a narrower lead.


Direction of movement is also diverging, though. Some are staying stubbornly in double figures, others showing the lead collapsing.


----------



## strung out (Jun 4, 2017)

Even different polls from the same polling companies are varying depending on the methodology used.

Survation for example used telephone polling for its survey on 26th/27th of May, showing a 43% / 37% lead for the Tories
Today's Survation poll used online interviews to gather its data, showing a 40% / 39% lead for the Tories.

This does make me wonder about how comparable the two are, especially given this statement on Survation's website on their polling accuracy in previous elections: "_Our embarrassingly-considered-rogue final 2015 General Election poll (and the only poll we conducted using our custom telephone methood) correctly picked up the correct Conservative lead over Labour – which was entirely missed by our online work and the industry (including all methods)._"

That doesn't particularly inspire confidence in the accuracy of their online polling!


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 4, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Not me, FWIW.  Credit for analysis due to those who do it, although I don't know who it was so can't help you there.



Ah, real apologies  - there was lots of well set out figures/numbers/percentages ('Oh! So it must've been kabbes' <-- me  ). I'll edit.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 4, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Direction of movement is also diverging, though. Some are staying stubbornly in double figures, others showing the lead collapsing.



They've all been showing the lead reducing recently, up until today. Hopefully that's not a peak.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 4, 2017)

chilango said:


> I've been emailed what appears to be an internal document from a city firm outlining why they should expect a significant Tory majority come Friday _despite_ the polls. I'll sanitize the key extracts at work on Monday.



Yeah do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2017)

strung out said:


> Even different polls from the same polling companies are varying depending on the methodology used.
> 
> Survation for example used telephone polling for its survey on 26th/27th of May, showing a 43% / 37% lead for the Tories
> Today's Survation poll used online interviews to gather its data, showing a 40% / 39% lead for the Tories.
> ...


Pollsters are going to have to change the way they present their results, I think, just like weather forecasters have. Weather forecasters now effectively present a range of forecasts with approximate probabilities attached. Pollsters are starting to do this kind of thing also, regarding different results that they predict depending on who actually turns out to vote.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 4, 2017)

France seem to manage with accurate polls, as do most other countries.

Perhaps Brits are just innately dishonest.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> France seem to manage with accurate polls, as do most other countries.
> 
> Perhaps Brits are just innately dishonest.


In presidential elections, France consistently has an 80 per cent turnout. UK turnout is much more volatile due mostly to volatility in the turnout of younger people. 

The UK is an outlier on the back of the 2015 election in terms of the difference in voting rate between old and young. Nowhere else in Europe is the gap anywhere near what it was in the UK in 2015. The UK used not to be an outlier - the change has come in the last 20 years. All the signs are that youth turnout will be higher this time than the 38 per cent of last election. The question then becomes 'how much higher?' That, nobody can know. 

Then there is the question of voter registration. An estimated 7.5 million people were not registered to vote in 2014. That's an enormous number. Changes to voter registration have affected this, particularly affecting the number of new 18 year-olds registering. They used to be registered by their mum and dad. Now they have to register themselves, and a huge number of them are not doing it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 4, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> France seem to manage with accurate polls, as do most other countries.
> 
> Perhaps Brits are just innately dishonest.














a selection of britain's foremost liars


----------



## killer b (Jun 4, 2017)

The accuracy or otherwise of British polling is down to problems with sampling & weighting rather than dishonesty on the part of those polled. There's a good blog on it here: UK Polling Report


----------



## brogdale (Jun 4, 2017)

Is this even allowed?


----------



## magneze (Jun 4, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Is this even allowed?
> 
> View attachment 108460


Well/badly what?


----------



## Raheem (Jun 4, 2017)

magneze said:


> Well/badly what?



Doing well or badly as leader of their respective parties.


----------



## chilango (Jun 4, 2017)

YouGov are trying to poll me, but the survey keeps glitching.

So if Labour are down tomorrow that's why


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> I've been emailed what appears to be an internal document from a city firm outlining why they should expect a significant Tory majority come Friday _despite_ the polls. I'll sanitize the key extracts at work on Monday.



Okay. Their absolute confidence in a substantial Tory win (and this has been re-iterated in a copy of an email I was sent earlier this morning) lies in the following:


The relative strengths/weaknesses of the campaigns won't actually translate into a significant number of changed votes (they cite Clegg's campaign in 2010 as evidence).
Strong Tory performances in recent local elections.
They don't think the youth vote will turn out. 
The close polls are outliers and are being over-hyped by the media to make the election appear more "exciting" than it actually is.
They simply cannot believe that that many people support Labour.
The UKIP vote will transfer to the Tories.
Postal votes have already been cast and are more likely to be for the Tories.
Polling on "leadership" and the economy both favours the Tories and its this that people vote on.
Interestingly, this firm brought in two "name" experts to provide this analysis, and has sent out further internal emails to defend their projection of a large or very large Conservative majority.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> They simply cannot believe that that many people support Labour.


Dunno bout anyone else, but it's this one that convinces me they are not mainly relying on guesswork like everyone else is.


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Dunno bout anyone else, but it's this one that convinces me they are not mainly relying on guesswork like everyone else is.



That did leap out at me.

This is a multi-paged document with graphs and everything, so most of the points are paraphrased. That one is pretty close to verbatim.

My contact is very confident that this forecast is correct. 

I'm not so sure.


----------



## Rimbaud (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> Postal votes have already been cast and are more likely to be for the Tories.


RE postal votes, I live overseas but I register for a proxy vote and I get my Dad to do it on my behalf. So I don't know if postal voting is a good indicator, mightn't younger people overseas be more likely to do a proxy vote than a postal vote?


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> RE postal votes, I live overseas but I register for a proxy vote and I get my Dad to do it on my behalf. So I don't know if postal voting is a good indicator, mightn't younger people overseas be more likely to do a proxy vote than a postal vote?



Dunno. 

I was overseas for 2001, 2005 and 2010. Didn't vote in any of them. 

Traditionally I suspect (though could be wrong) that the older voters are far more likely to vote when overseas than younger voters. Regardless of method.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 5, 2017)

magneze said:


> Well/badly what?


Well, that's one of the problems I have with satisfaction polling anyway: how are you supposed to answer a question like that about the leader of a party you don't support?

_Do you think x is doing well at being a complete shit_?

I'm not convinced everyone will understand the question in the same way.


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 5, 2017)

I have been reasonably satisfied with Theresa May's Tory-Party leadership. If only they could consistently maintain such erratic, transparently incompetent, uncharismatic and prone-to-mishap standards.


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> That did leap out at me.
> 
> This is a multi-paged document with graphs and everything, so most of the points are paraphrased. That one is pretty close to verbatim.
> 
> ...



I've also been pointed in the direction of this analysis:

Make sense of the latest general election polls in 5 steps


----------



## killer b (Jun 5, 2017)

I came across this about the changes to methodology which has resulted in the big differences we're seeing between the companies - well worth reading (it may already have been posted, but I haven't seen it before).

UK Polling Report


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 5, 2017)

What concerns me about the change in methodology is the impact it has on how people actually vote. If a party is way behind in the polls it affects morale and there's the phenomenon of people wanting to back a winner. In trying to reflect what the result will end up being rather than how people in general feel about the two parties (whether they actually vote or not) the polls could significantly affect voting behaviour. It is a bit of an ethical minefield.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 5, 2017)

eoin_k said:


> I have been reasonably satisfied with Theresa May's Tory-Party leadership. If only they could consistently maintain such erratic, transparently incompetent, uncharismatic and prone-to-mishap standards.


Well, precisely.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 5, 2017)

killer b said:


> I came across this about the changes to methodology which has resulted in the big differences we're seeing between the companies - well worth reading (it may already have been posted, but I haven't seen it before).
> 
> UK Polling Report


I think I posted that a few days back. (I certainly intended to). But you're right, it's worth paying attention to.

"There have been a wide variety of changes (including YouGov interlocking past vote & region, ICM changing how they reallocate don’t knows, ICM and ComRes now both doing only online polls during the campaign). However, the core changes seem to boil down to two approaches: some companies have focused on improving the sample itself, trying to include more people who aren’t interested in politics, who are less well educated and don’t usually vote. Other companies have focused on correcting the problems _caused_ by less than representative samples, changing their turnout model so it is based more on demographics, and forcing it to more accurately reflect turnout patterns in the real world. Some companies have done a bit of both."


----------



## emanymton (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> Okay. Their absolute confidence in a substantial Tory win (and this has been re-iterated in a copy of an email I was sent earlier this morning) lies in the following:
> 
> 
> The relative strengths/weaknesses of the campaigns won't actually translate into a significant number of changed votes (they cite Clegg's campaign in 2010 as evidence).
> ...


Not sure about 5 and 8, but broadly i think they are right.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> The relative strengths/weaknesses of the campaigns won't actually translate into a significant number of changed votes (they cite Clegg's campaign in 2010 as evidence)



That's a big thing for me. Only sparse, but I've ready a few things where people have slated mostly May, sometimes the whole party, but at the end have said they'll still vote Tory.

You see it for other parties too, of course, but the stuff where we think "that's mad, they're woeful, they can't recover..." - Tory voters don't care enough to actually change their vote.


----------



## killer b (Jun 5, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> That's a big thing for me. Only sparse, but I've ready a few things where people have slated mostly May, sometimes the whole party, but at the end have said they'll still vote Tory.
> 
> You see it for other parties too, of course, but the stuff where we think "that's mad, they're woeful, they can't recover..." - Tory voters don't care enough to actually change their vote.


This is true of the tribal Tories - increasingly, voters just aren't so tribal though.


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2017)




----------



## Gerry1time (Jun 5, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> What concerns me about the change in methodology is the impact it has on how people actually vote. If a party is way behind in the polls it affects morale and there's the phenomenon of people wanting to back a winner. In trying to reflect what the result will end up being rather than how people in general feel about the two parties (whether they actually vote or not) the polls could significantly affect voting behaviour. It is a bit of an ethical minefield.



You may know it already, but this effect was (and perhaps still is) a campaign tactic, especially in by elections. You go into a constituency you want to win and think you can win, but currently have little hope of winning, and dump a serious bunch of money at the bookies on your party winning. The bookies then think something is up and shorten the odds on you winning, even to the point of making you the favourite. You then put 'bookies favourite' all over your leaflets during the campaign, and people vote for you thinking you can actually win. When you do win, the bunch of money you put on at long odds pays for a large part of your campaign expenditure.


----------



## killer b (Jun 5, 2017)

The yougov model has the tories losing even more seats today. Death or Glory.


----------



## JimW (Jun 5, 2017)

My local will be open all night for the results. Might be Friday off if these polls keep narrowing.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 5, 2017)

killer b said:


> The yougov model has the tories losing even more seats today. Death or Glory.


The daily movements are well within their 95% confidence interval, though, which is HUGE.

Basically, if the YouGov guess is somewhere between 266 and 344 for the Tories, they say there is a 95% chance it then contains the actual polling result.  But that's massive!  344 would be an increase on their current majority, albeit a fairly shit one, and be kind of in line with everybody else's polling.  266, on the other hand, would make Labour the largest party.  What do we conclude?  Nobody has a farking clue, is what.

17-52 for the SNP.  That's everything from near domination down to being the minority!


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 5, 2017)




----------



## wtfftw (Jun 5, 2017)

Google served me this
Seat-by-seat poll predicts which candidate will become your next MP

I should probably comment not just link but it's basically yougov.


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 5, 2017)

Tonight's *Survation* poll. @Conservatives 41.5% @UKLabour 40.4%

edit - not yet officially released, could be wrong...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 5, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> Tonight's *Survation* poll. @Conservatives 41.5% @UKLabour 40.4%




No wai? 

I'm on principle ordering myself to disbelieve this, because it's not the hope that kills you, it's the subsequent despair


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> View attachment 108560




I'm the 33%


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 5, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> No wai?
> 
> I'm on principle ordering myself to disbelieve this, because it's not the hope that kills you, it's the subsequent despair



In 2015 it was an overestimation of the youth vote that was mostly responsible for the borked polls. Surely they won't still be overestimating them this time around? The others clearly aren't, but are they weighting it too far in the opposite direction? Or just about right?

We need a young adult child catcher to round 'em all up on Thursday and take them to their polling stations.


----------



## Smangus (Jun 5, 2017)

After the last election and Brexit predictions all these companies must be shitting themselves about this result.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 5, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> Tonight's *Survation* poll. @Conservatives 41.5% @UKLabour 40.4%
> 
> edit - not yet officially released, could be wrong...


Britain Elects confirms it, 

CON: 41% (-2) 
LAB: 40% (+3) 
(via @Survation / 02 - 03 Jun) Chgs. w/ 27 May.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 5, 2017)

Smangus said:


> After the last election and Brexit predictions all these companies must be shitting themselves about this result.




That's why they're all over the place now, surely. Widely varying methods of correcting past errors in methodology.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 5, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Britain Elects confirms it,
> 
> CON: 41% (-2)
> LAB: 40% (+3)
> (via @Survation / 02 - 03 Jun) Chgs. w/ 27 May.




Dates of that survey : prior to Saturday evening. We need to see post terror-attack polls too ...


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 5, 2017)

Smangus said:


> After the last election and Brexit predictions all these companies must be shitting themselves about this result.



Regardless of whether they get it right or not, we'll all be hanging on every single poll they put out next time.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jun 6, 2017)

aren't Survation the polling company which is suggesting a ridiclously high youth turnout of something like 80%?


----------



## Raheem (Jun 6, 2017)

gawkrodger said:


> aren't Survation the polling company which is suggesting a ridiclously high youth turnout of something like 80%?



I think I read that somewhere, but of course they're not.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jun 6, 2017)

too late for me to check, but I note in their latest Scottish poll out yesterday they're putting Labour at +8


----------



## Borp (Jun 6, 2017)

National seat polling doesn't look anywhere near as exciting as the voting intention polls. They're all on 50+ seat majorities for the tories apart from yougov which has tories 21 short of a majority.

No idea about methodology etc. 

As usual a lot will come down to the marginals. That's where it's always at. Just hope labour are doing their best there.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 6, 2017)

gawkrodger said:


> aren't Survation the polling company which is suggesting a ridiclously high youth turnout of something like 80%?


Here's Survation's Damien Lyons Lowe explaining their figures, and why he thinks they're right: Conservative Lead Over Labour Has Dropped 16 points In a Month – What’s Going On?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 6, 2017)

Not polling as such, but polling derived.
Given the usual caveats about this 'political compass'-style methodology....the 'ideological' mapping of support in 2015 and 2017.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 6, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Not polling as such, but polling derived.
> Given the usual caveats about this 'political compass'-style methodology....the 'ideological' mapping of support in 2015 and 2017.
> 
> View attachment 108577
> ...


That's very interesting but it does imply the non-existence of voters that are at least within the area defined by (0.2, 0.2), (0.2, 0.5), (0.6, 0.8) and (0.6, 0.6).  This is literally the middle ground (it encompasses (0.5, 0.5)) that we are normally told contains MOST of the voters!  So what is going on?  Has the whole country become totally polarised, or are the LSE's measurements a load of bollocks?  Or something else?


----------



## chilango (Jun 6, 2017)

kabbes said:


> That's very interesting but it does imply the non-existence of voters that are at least within the area defined by (0.2, 0.2), (0.2, 0.5), (0.6, 0.8) and (0.6, 0.6).  This is literally the middle ground (it encompasses (0.5, 0.5)) that we are normally told contains MOST of the voters!  So what is going on?  Has the whole country become totally polarised, or are the LSE's measurements a load of bollocks?  Or something else?



As I mentioned somewhere it's certainly feeling more polarised to me.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 6, 2017)

chilango said:


> As I mentioned somewhere it's certainly feeling more polarised to me.


Yeah, I agree with that.  But not as polarised as implied by that political compass-style map, with literally nobody _other _than at the poles.  The majority of people in my own personal bubble are still as middle-ground wishy-washy liberal as they ever were.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 6, 2017)

them fat tails are gonna throw up some surprises. it is all over the place


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 6, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> them fat tails are gonna throw up some surprises. it is all over the place



Tailshaming!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 6, 2017)

ICM/Guardian poll released yesterday.

CON 45%(nc)
LAB 34%(nc)
LDEM 8%(-1)
UKIP 5%(nc)


----------



## 03gills (Jun 6, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> ICM/Guardian poll released yesterday.
> 
> CON 45%(nc)
> LAB 34%(nc)
> ...



I just have a nagging feeling that this is *exactly* what will go down. Impressive increase in vote share for Labour considering it's only been two years since the last election. But the vast swathes of UKIP voters going Tory will fuck Labour badly & give the Tories a landslide.


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 6, 2017)

If you look at the unweighted base for that survey 658 say they will vote Labour compared to 641 Tories, while 569 voted Conservative last time as against 547 voting Labour.


----------



## killer b (Jun 6, 2017)

you shouldn't look at the unweighted bases tho.


----------



## Ole (Jun 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> you shouldn't look at the unweighted bases tho.


It's a notable observation regardless, but it holds for the weighted base as well.

It shows that many UKIP voters are going Labour.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 6, 2017)

Interesting blog from John Curtice suggesting Scottish Labour is benefitting from the Corbyn effect. His title is well-chosen: it's an overflow effect, not something locally generated.

There's a number of reasons we know this is overspill, but chiefly: 1. there really is no Labour campaign in Scotland, as the party activist base is completely demoralised. 2. The party in Scotland is anti Corbyn anyway. (Their sole MP has been vocally anti Corbyn, and has, for example, left previous anti Corbyn remarks up on his social media even through the election campaign). 3. As Curtice notes, it is Corbyn's stance and policies that people cite, rather than Dugdale's or the Scottish party's performance.

The Labour Surge Washes Over Hadrian's Wall - What Scotland Thinks

It's perhaps worth noting that the old guard of stale dinosaurs were wiped out at the last GE and none is standing this time. (Though Blair MacDougall, the Better Togethet chief, is standing. But his recognition rating is probably nowhere near what he thinks it is). Perhaps the voters think the clean out was enough to rehabilitate the party.


----------



## killer b (Jun 6, 2017)

Ole said:


> It's a notable observation regardless, but it holds for the weighted base as well.
> 
> It shows that many UKIP voters are going Labour.


Polling asking that specific question also shows that - about half as many as are going Tory. Where those voters are is a fairly key question...


----------



## Wilf (Jun 6, 2017)

03gills said:


> I just have a nagging feeling that this is *exactly* what will go down. Impressive increase in vote share for Labour considering it's only been two years since the last election. But the vast swathes of UKIP voters going Tory will fuck Labour badly & give the Tories a landslide.


Yeah, I feel like the Ancient Mariner, forever compelled to be the voice of doom, but I can't see a way to even a hung parliament.  For it to be anything other than a tory majority, several things that don't normally happen have to happen.  In a period of mad volatility* in the polls, the fact that there hasn't been a single Labour lead is also telling.  It's interesting how Labour's numbers haven't suffered too much after the terrorist outrages, but Labour haven't quite managed to become the vehicle for the resentments that drove Brexit.  They've done well and provided the basis for something to be built in the future, but I just have a feeling it will be a 10%, even 12% tory lead on Thursday. 

* Well, a kind of volatility. Massive differences _between_ polling companies, but a clear direction of travel towards Labour - but one which seems to have stopped now.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 6, 2017)




----------



## brogdale (Jun 6, 2017)

Ole said:


> It's a notable observation regardless, but it holds for the weighted base as well.
> 
> It shows that many UKIP voters are going Labour.


Yep, Matthew Goodwin's work with ICM polling data has been useful on this and started to show a trend of increasing fall-out to Lab.


----------



## Ole (Jun 6, 2017)

Have we had any polls out with fieldwork entirely after the London Bridge attack?


----------



## killer b (Jun 6, 2017)

not yet...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> View attachment 108612


recon theres some pickup from an 'anyone but the tories or the SNP' vote seeing tory leaflets etc and grudgingly nose holding?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 6, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> recon theres some pickup from an 'anyone but the tories or the SNP' vote seeing tory leaflets etc and grudgingly nose holding?


Possibly. I do think it's actually enthusiasm for Corbyn and his mild renationalisation programme.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> View attachment 108612


Impressive bar chart.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 6, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Impressive bar chart.


*Not to scale.


----------



## Ole (Jun 6, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Yep, Matthew Goodwin's work with ICM polling data has been useful on this and started to show a trend of increasing fall-out to Lab.
> 
> View attachment 108613


Certainly there are now more UKIP->Labour voters than UKIP->UKIP voters. That is impressive.


----------



## Ole (Jun 6, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Impressive bar chart.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 6, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, I agree with that.  But not as polarised as implied by that political compass-style map, with literally nobody _other _than at the poles.  The majority of people in my own personal bubble are still as middle-ground wishy-washy liberal as they ever were.


 It says it's reflecting the mean views of each party's supporters, so presumably there will be some percentages of support around those coloured areas as well.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 6, 2017)

Still think Labour should be pushing a 'Take back control' theme aimed at UKIP demographic - reclaiming our railways and post office. It's a policy with a lot of support. Unfortunately I think a lot of the domestic policy issues have been crowded out by terrorism and security, which I think is to Labour's disadvantage.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 6, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Still think Labour should be pushing a 'Take back control' theme aimed at UKIP demographic - reclaiming our railways and post office. It's a policy with a lot of support. Unfortunately I think a lot of the domestic policy issues have been crowded out by terrorism and security, which I think is to Labour's disadvantage.


Yep, sounds good, a way of genuinely making brexit into something useful.  On your other point, I think Labour _have_ been hit by the terror stuff, but nobody seems to have got any particular theme running consistently throughout the election - even brexit for the tories, which is what the whole things was supposed to be about.


----------



## killer b (Jun 6, 2017)

I'm not sure if using a campaign slogan from a recent political campaign you were on the wrong side of is really the most sensible idea tbh.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 6, 2017)

1st draft: 'Brexit, it's the future'
2nd draft: 'Nationalisation, it's the future'
3rd draft: 'Garlic Bread, it's the future'


----------



## chilango (Jun 6, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, I feel like the Ancient Mariner, forever compelled to be the voice of doom, but I can't see a way to even a hung parliament.  For it to be anything other than a tory majority, several things that don't normally happen have to happen.  In a period of mad volatility* in the polls, the fact that there hasn't been a single Labour lead is also telling.  It's interesting how Labour's numbers haven't suffered too much after the terrorist outrages, but Labour haven't quite managed to become the vehicle for the resentments that drove Brexit.  They've done well and provided the basis for something to be built in the future, but I just have a feeling it will be a 10%, even 12% tory lead on Thursday.
> 
> * Well, a kind of volatility. Massive differences _between_ polling companies, but a clear direction of travel towards Labour - but one which seems to have stopped now.



Just one point.

Labour don't have to be in the lead for the Tories to lose their majority.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 6, 2017)

chilango said:


> Just one point.
> 
> Labour don't have to be in the lead for the Tories to lose their majority.


Yeah, true, but I was just getting at the fact that even amidst the _very_ wide variations in the polls Labour has never managed even a 1% lead.  As a result, it doesn't bode well for them just losing by say 2% which, at a guess, is the territory they'd have to be in for a Lab + SNP + libscum to be anywhere near the finishing line.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 6, 2017)

I'm not too sure how much this still holds, but the old truism used to be that a party getting over 40% does very well out of the fpp system.  A logic that we are probably back to as ukip and libs fall back. As such the tories polling over 40 is the real problem.  Con 42 Lab 39 is far worse than Con 36 Lab 33, iyswim.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 6, 2017)

chilango said:


> Just one point.
> 
> Labour don't have to be in the lead for the Tories to lose their majority.


Theoretically, Labour doesn't even need more votes in order to have more seats. In 1951, Churchill won more seats than Labour with fewer votes.

It's more likely that the Tories would perform this feat. But there are ways it could happen.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Theoretically, Labour doesn't even need more votes in order to have more seats. In 1951, Churchill won more seats than Labour with fewer votes.
> 
> It's more likely that the Tories would perform this feat. But there are ways it could happen.


And Feb 74, though the other way round.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 6, 2017)

Ole said:


> Have we had any polls out with fieldwork entirely after the London Bridge attack?


there's a big one on thursday


----------



## killer b (Jun 6, 2017)

Opiniums final poll has the Tories on a 7 point lead  (Labour slipping by 1)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> Opiniums final poll has the Tories on a 7 point lead  (Labour slipping by 1)


one thing which is (fairly) certain is that the polls will all differ significantly from the final result. and there will be another inconclusive post mortem.


----------



## killer b (Jun 6, 2017)

I think there's such a spread that one will surely be close...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> I think there's such a spread that one will surely be close...


in the same way the tabloids link e.g. arsenal with every player going so they can say, for example, 'as we reported back in july, klinghoffer has signed for arsenal' or similar.

one of them MUST be right


----------



## killer b (Jun 6, 2017)

And theyll all model their weighting on whoever gets closest. Until next time it goes horribly wrong (2022?)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> And theyll all model their weighting on whoever gets closest. Until next time it goes horribly wrong (2022?)


there's every chance it could go horribly wrong on thursday


----------



## Wilf (Jun 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> there's a big one on thursday


Is it that weird one, where there's no methodology and they just... _count them_? Wtf?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 6, 2017)

"And we can exclusively announce that the exit poll shows the pollsters have been making it up for the last 5 weeks and are useless nob ends"


----------



## J Ed (Jun 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> there's every chance it could go horribly wrong on thursday



For them, I hope...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 6, 2017)

J Ed said:


> For them, I hope...


yeh well we'll find out how shit it is on friday


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 6, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Is it that weird one, where there's no methodology and they just... _count them_? Wtf?



That one on Thursday could be way off the mark if people don't vote for the parties they claim to support.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 6, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> That one on Thursday could be way off the mark if people don't vote for the parties they claim to support.


I just hope spunking cock doesn't get squeezed.


----------



## Old Spark (Jun 6, 2017)

Well they can only all be wrong if Labour wins a majority.

Yougov,Survation -Hung Parliament

Opinium,Mori -As you were ish

ICM,ORB,Kantar,Comres-Increased Tory majority,maybe big


----------



## brixtonblade (Jun 6, 2017)

Wilf said:


> "And we can exclusively announce that the exit poll shows the pollsters have been making it up for the last 5 weeks and are useless nob ends"


Stupid question... How come the exit poll is more accurate? Is it a lot bigger? Does it model for turnout better?


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 6, 2017)

brixtonblade said:


> Stupid question... How come the exit poll is more accurate? Is it a lot bigger? Does it model for turnout better?


"It's who did you vote for?" vs "Who might you vote for?"

No chance to change your mind after the fact.

You might lie, however. But it seems people don't...?


----------



## killer b (Jun 6, 2017)

It's just a lot bigger, and there's no undecideds.


----------



## where to (Jun 6, 2017)

And they're only asking people who *have* just voted, as opposed to people speculating over how likely they are to vote, which seems the hardest thing for pollsters to cut through these days.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 6, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> "It's who did you vote for?" vs "Who might you vote for?"
> 
> No chance to change your mind after the fact.
> 
> You might lie, however. But it seems people don't...?


They did in 1992, famously. The exit polls vastly underestimated the Tory share.


----------



## phillm (Jun 6, 2017)

There are new kids in town , with apps and beards and newspeak .....who are going to change the world

Newspeak House


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 6, 2017)

phillm said:


> There are new kids in town , with apps and beards and newspeak .....who are going to change the world
> 
> Newspeak House


This made me want to stop reading:

"I am trying to set up a hackspace for politics".

Why should I read further?


----------



## phillm (Jun 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> This made me want to stop reading:
> 
> "I am trying to set up a hackspace for politics".
> 
> Why should I read further?



The younger folk , with their apps and iphones and snapchat and the like would know what it all means - I beleive we are on v 4.0 of the web. Folk over on U75 are still on web 2.0 (or old skool in old money).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> This made me want to stop reading:
> 
> "I am trying to set up a hackspace for politics".
> 
> Why should I read further?


If you have swallowed poison in error it may help you vomit it out your system


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 6, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I just hope spunking cock doesn't get squeezed.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Interesting blog from John Curtice suggesting Scottish Labour is benefitting from the Corbyn effect. His title is well-chosen: it's an overflow effect, not something locally generated.
> 
> There's a number of reasons we know this is overspill, but chiefly: 1. there really is no Labour campaign in Scotland, as the party activist base is completely demoralised. 2. The party in Scotland is anti Corbyn anyway. (Their sole MP has been vocally anti Corbyn, and has, for example, left previous anti Corbyn remarks up on his social media even through the election campaign). 3. As Curtice notes, it is Corbyn's stance and policies that people cite, rather than Dugdale's or the Scottish party's performance.
> 
> ...


It'd be interesting to see similar stuff from Wales, where Welsh Labour is claiming that it's increase in the polls is all about its campaign and noting to do with that Jeremy Corbyn bloke (and I've got a bridge to sell)


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 6, 2017)

Carwyn James is allowed to exist here, Jeremy Corbyn isn't (officially  ).


----------



## Cid (Jun 6, 2017)

It's all down to Jonathan Bishop in Wales, let's be honest.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 6, 2017)

Just seen there's to be an IPSOS Mori exit poll released at 10 p.m.  Worst of all worlds really, you tune in at 10 to find it's going to be bad and then stay up another 4 hours to get it confirmed.


----------



## mx wcfc (Jun 6, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Just seen there's to be an IPSOS Mori exit poll released at 10 p.m.  Worst of all worlds really, you tune in at 10 to find it's going to be bad ......



and then you know you may as well go to bed, and turn up for work on Friday


----------



## bendeus (Jun 6, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Carwyn James is allowed to exist here, Jeremy Corbyn isn't (officially  ).


With Carwyn's electrifying charisma and legendary decisiveness it's small wonder that they're downplaying Corbnobi.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 6, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> It'd be interesting to see similar stuff from Wales, where Welsh Labour is claiming that it's increase in the polls is all about its campaign and noting to do with that Jeremy Corbyn bloke (and I've got a bridge to sell)



The fucking Welsh Labour ad going on about the achievements of the fucking Blair government for Wales. There aren't enough fucking facepalms.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 6, 2017)

Seriously? Which idiot thought that was a good idea. I mean when even people like Umunna is quite n that score it shows the electoral poison of the man.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 6, 2017)

mx wcfc said:


> and then you know you may as well go to bed, *and turn up for work on Friday*


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 6, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Seriously? Which idiot thought that was a good idea. I mean when even people like Umunna is quite n that score it shows the electoral poison of the man.




Behold the inspiring genius of the sensible implementation of austerity cuts.


----------



## JimW (Jun 6, 2017)

YouGov's updated aggregator, could be worse. {Edited due to various cock-ups]


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 6, 2017)

JimW said:


> View attachment 108666 YouGov's updated aggregator, could be worse
> 
> 
> Could be worse.



Conservative numbers are cropped from that image.


----------



## JimW (Jun 6, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Conservative numbers are cropped from that image.


Just trying to sort that


----------



## tim (Jun 6, 2017)

JimW said:


> View attachment 108666
> YouGov's updated aggregator, could be worse. {Edited due to various cock-ups]


Yes, the Tories could win some seats


----------



## JimW (Jun 6, 2017)

tim said:


> Yes, the Tories could win some seats


Total wipe-out, bet the house!


----------



## Raheem (Jun 6, 2017)

Based on that, it will be down to Tim Farron what happens, won't it?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 6, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Based on that, it will be down to Tim Farron what happens, won't it?


If the 12 Lib Dems went with the Tories there'd be Hell Up. That'd be fun!


----------



## Raheem (Jun 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> If the 12 Lib Dems went with the Tories there'd be Hell Up. That'd be fun!



I think it's more likely they wouldn't, because of last time and because of Brexit. But they don't strike me as especially hard to bribe, either.


----------



## tim (Jun 6, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Based on that, it will be down to Tim Farron what happens, won't it?



 No, because there are also the parties in the north of Ireland, which Yougov hasn't bothered counting. The DUP and presumably any other Unionists will support the Tories in return for favours.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 6, 2017)

tim said:


> No, because there are also the parties in the north of Ireland, which Yougov hasn't bothered counting. The DUP and presumably any other Unionists will support the Tories in return for favours.



If the Tories are on 304, the DUP and UUP won't be enough. They will also need the Lib Dems.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 6, 2017)

I would not underesTIMate the ability of the libdem lice to heed a call from mayhem


----------



## tim (Jun 7, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I would not underesTIMate the ability of the libdem lice to heed a call from mayhem



I reckon that they'd support the Tories if they were offered a second referendum as part of the deal.


----------



## Cid (Jun 7, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I would not underesTIMate the ability of the libdem lice to heed a call from mayhem



I have to admit I'd get at least a grain of pleasure round the Christmas table as I pointed out to my anti-Corbyn relatives how exactly they ended up voting for hard brexit. Not much, but a little compensation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 7, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> If the 12 Lib Dems went with the Tories there'd be Hell Up. That'd be fun!


Very different politically from 2010. Then they were riding a 25 % share of the vote and more seats than they'd had for decades. Plus Labour were the tired govt who'd lost their majority. On those yougov numbers, Labour + SNP is bigger than the tories, and libdem brokering on its own wouldn't give the tories a majority. tbh if those exact numbers happen, I can't see anyone being able to form a government. It'll be another election this year for sure.


----------



## tim (Jun 7, 2017)

Anyway, this is all nonsense, we all really know that the Tories will have a reasonable majority whatever this poll says.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 7, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbh if those exact numbers happen, I can't see anyone being able to form a government. It'll be another election this year for sure.



The Unionist parties would support the Tories. SNP, PC, Green and SDLP would support Labour. So, it would be down to the Lib Dems to pick one or other option, or force a re-run. YouGov also seem to be projecting one independent MP, but I've no idea where that is going to happen.

Mind you, I think another election this year is odds on in any event.


----------



## tim (Jun 7, 2017)

The Speaker is the  independent.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 7, 2017)

tim said:


> The Speaker is the  independent.



They have two in their projection.


----------



## Rimbaud (Jun 7, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Very different politically from 2010. Then they were riding a 25 % share of the vote and more seats than they'd had for decades. Plus Labour were the tired govt who'd lost their majority. On those yougov numbers, Labour + SNP is bigger than the tories, and libdem brokering on its own wouldn't give the tories a majority. tbh if those exact numbers happen, I can't see anyone being able to form a government. It'll be another election this year for sure.



Yeah, that would actually be the most hilarious outcome possible, if "strong and stable" May, after calling an election to (supposedly) show how united we are going into Brexit negotiations, instead plunges the country into a constitutional crisis.


----------



## where to (Jun 7, 2017)

Raheem said:


> YouGov also seem to be projecting one independent MP, but I've no idea where that is going to happen.



Independent Claire Wright in East Devon.  No straightforward explanation tbh, she must have worked incredibly hard to build up the support she has. 

Claire Wright
'One of the biggest electoral upsets in UK history' could be on in East Devon


----------



## emanymton (Jun 7, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> This made me want to stop reading:
> 
> "I am trying to set up a hackspace for politics".
> 
> Why should I read further?


I got as far as 'I own a building'.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Very different politically from 2010. Then they were riding a 25 % share of the vote and more seats than they'd had for decades. Plus Labour were the tired govt who'd lost their majority. On those yougov numbers, Labour + SNP is bigger than the tories, and libdem brokering on its own wouldn't give the tories a majority. tbh if those exact numbers happen, I can't see anyone being able to form a government. It'll be another election this year for sure.


Lib dems actually lost seats in 2010.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2017)

Raheem said:


> They have two in their projection.


That's because there's two. Speaker and deputy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Very different politically from 2010. Then they were riding a 25 % share of the vote and more seats than they'd had for decades. Plus Labour were the tired govt who'd lost their majority. On those yougov numbers, Labour + SNP is bigger than the tories, and libdem brokering on its own wouldn't give the tories a majority. tbh if those exact numbers happen, I can't see anyone being able to form a government. It'll be another election this year for sure.


Well, I was just speculating on what Raheem said.  But despite the differences from 2010, actually I wouldn't bet on the Lib Dems not going in with the Tories should YouGov-like figures be the result (again, I doubt this.  But again, who the fuck knows?)

Here's the scenario: May, being the sitting PM and by convention getting the first crack at forming a government, calls up the Lib Dems.  "We need a stable government of National Unity because Brexit.  That simply can't be the Troika, don't you agree?"  Lib Dems come out saying "We'll ensure a soft Brexit deal is put before the public.  Lib Dem peer, Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Optimal, will be on the Brexit negotiating team.  We want an advisory referendum to ratify the deal or not".  Tories neuter the referendum thing somehow, but leave some sort of format in place.  Coalition goes through.

Who'd put that past them?  (Especially since Labour + SNP are unlikely to form a formal coalition.  That arrangement would more likely be a minority government plus support.  That suits both parties better). 
_
*This has been a fun speculation based on one set of figures which may not even be close._


----------



## JTG (Jun 7, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> That's because there's two. Speaker and deputy.


Doesn't work like that does it? Primarolo was deputy but Bristol South remained a Labour seat

*also, there's two deputies


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, I was just speculating on what Raheem said.  But despite the differences from 2010, actually I wouldn't bet on the Lib Dems not going in with the Tories should YouGov-like figures be the result (again, I doubt this.  But again, who the fuck knows?)
> 
> Here's the scenario: May, being the sitting PM and by convention getting the first crack at forming a government, calls up the Lib Dems.  "We need a stable government of National Unity because Brexit.  That simply can't be the Troika, don't you agree?"  Lib Dems come out saying "We'll ensure a soft Brexit deal is put before the public.  Lib Dem peer, Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Optimal, will be on the Brexit negotiating team.  We want an advisory referendum to ratify the deal or not".  Tories neuter the referendum thing somehow, but leave some sort of format in place.  Coalition goes through.
> 
> ...


This is the exact scenario I envisage, should the lib dems hold the balance of power.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 7, 2017)

I don't see how the Lib Dems are going to hold the balance of anything unless they've quietly put up a big barrel of gunpowder as the candidate in one of their few remaining safe seats, the Rt Hon Quentin Saltpeter-Hogshead MP. Even then I'm sure it could be negotiated down with, say, a discounted Saga holiday.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2017)

JTG said:


> Doesn't work like that does it? Primarolo was deputy but Bristol South remained a Labour seat
> 
> *also, there's two deputies


You're right yes, though it seems there's three deputies now. Which must mean, I think, that the other independent will be sylvia hermon in north down.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jun 7, 2017)

where to said:


> Independent Claire Wright in East Devon.  No straightforward explanation tbh, she must have worked incredibly hard to build up the support she has.
> 
> Claire Wright
> 'One of the biggest electoral upsets in UK history' could be on in East Devon



wow



> "The local conservative candidate Hugo Swire has been heavily criticised for being an absentee MP who has claimed (on his blog) that the role of MP isn't a job and it is part time. This is costing him dear as many of his core voters look to Claire's track record of action in the community.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 7, 2017)

On the lib dems willingness to go into coalition with the tories the thing that has struck me is their justification for the original coalition is still there. Locally (labour are a distant third here) they have been going heavy on the "only the lib dems can stop the heartless tories" approach. I'm now even getting targeted you tube ads about living in a marginal where Labour can't win.

The thing is the problem with this approach is it gives them the wriggle room to say the best way to stop the "heartless" tory cuts is to stop them from within, be part of the government and influence decisions rather than shouting from the sidelines.   I remain convinced that they would join a coalition with the tories again given the chance, I've no doubt about it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 7, 2017)

initially farron said they would, then ruled it out. But yes, they would. Not they are a relevance this time round


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

mauvais said:


> I don't see how the Lib Dems are going to hold the balance of anything


Well, there's 8 of them currently.  YouGov says there may be 12 of them on Friday.  It'll be a small number.  But all it needs to be is enough to mean that Tory MPs + Lib Dem MPs > Labour MPs + SNP MPs + (others if necessary).  Or indeed that Tory + Lib Dem > 50% of seats.

My instinct is that they won't be needed to put the Tories over the 50% of seats mark.  But WTFK?

Here's what Political Betting says: politicalbetting.com  » Blog Archive   » Breaking the chain. Can the Lib Dems defy history?


----------



## mauvais (Jun 7, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, there's 8 of them currently.  YouGov says there may be 12 of them on Friday.  It'll be a small number.  But all it needs to be is enough to mean that Tory MPs + Lib Dem MPs > Labour MPs + SNP MPs + (others if necessary).  Or indeed that Tory + Lib Dem > 50% of seats.


9 of em. But not 2010's 57. I mean, the DUP has 8, and noone's been floating them as the same kind of kingmaker, AFAIK.


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

I've already factored the DUP into my calculations tbf.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 7, 2017)

mauvais said:


> 9 of em. But not 2010's 57. I mean, the DUP has 8, and noone's been floating them as the same kind of kingmaker, AFAIK.



That's because they can just be relied upon to prop up the Tories. But, if the Tories got between 309 and 319 seats, they would need some or all Unionist MPs in order to get to a working majority (assuming the number of Unionist MPs stays they same).

It's only when you get below 309 that things start to depend on what the Lib Dems choose to do.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 7, 2017)

Raheem said:


> That's because they can just be relied upon to prop up the Tories.


Fair point.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 7, 2017)

I'll start with my obligatory 'there isn't going to be a fucking coalition' post - I keep saying that because I'm daring the universe to prove me wrong.  I'll be happy to have people laughing and pointing at me as the Holy Corbyn Emperor is anointed.

But anyway, joining in the fun: relying on the DUP would entirely fuck up her strong and stable mantra generally, but what would it do to the brexit negotiations specifically i.e. what would the DUP demand from her?  They'd presumably be happy with the full array of border controls _politically_, but not economically?


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> But anyway, joining in the fun: relying on the DUP would entirely fuck up her strong and stable mantra generally, but what would it do to the brexit negotiations specifically i.e. what would the DUP demand from her?  They'd presumably be happy with the full array of border controls _politically_, but not economically?



I don't think the DUP in coalition would make any difference to the Brexit negotiations, its her own party she would have the problem with.  The idea that having a big majority would somehow strengthen her hand in Brussels is patent nonsense.  Its always been about getting her will past her own party which, with the current majority would be tough. She would be beholden to the headbangers on the back rows.


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

The Ashcroft model today has the tories up 4 seats - a 64 majority:

Dapresy


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> The Ashcroft model today has the tories up 4 seats - a 64 majority:
> 
> Dapresy



Not a bad result for Labour that.  Your link needs an account to see it btw.


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

Does it? I don't have an account, just followed the link from Ashcroft's site. 

Ashcroft Model update: potential majorities and seat-by-seat estimates - Lord Ashcroft Polls


----------



## chilango (Jun 7, 2017)

Just got YouGov'd again


----------



## chilango (Jun 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> Does it? I don't have an account, just followed the link from Ashcroft's site.
> 
> Ashcroft Model update: potential majorities and seat-by-seat estimates - Lord Ashcroft Polls


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 7, 2017)

chilango said:


> Just got YouGov'd again


that makes it sound vaguely rude  'oooh suits you guv'


----------



## Ungrateful (Jun 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> Does it? I don't have an account, just followed the link from Ashcroft's site.
> 
> Ashcroft Model update: potential majorities and seat-by-seat estimates - Lord Ashcroft Polls


 Any chance we can use this to confuse Tory voters. "According to Lord Ashcroft the lower the voter turn out the more chance of a Tory majority. So potential Tory voters should stay at home in order to reduce turn out."


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2017)

I'm sure I remember Ashcroft getting the last election utterly wrong, to be fair.

Having looked into YouGov's methodology, I think it's by far and away the most sound, statistically speaking.  It uses the same principles that are rather successfully used to price motor insurance and maximise supermarket profitability from club card data.  It's the next generation of polling -- YouGov are using 10 year-old techniques where the others are stuck on 50 year-old techniques.

It is much more data-dependent than ordinary polling, though, which is why I guess they survey 50,000 people.  Even with this many, though, I'm still not utterly convinced it is enough -- the equivalent motor insurance analysis would tend to have millions of data points if it was trying to cover the whole population, rather than 50,000.  But then, motor pricing is trying to predict rarer events, not make a best estimate guess at a poll result.


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 7, 2017)

YouGov's methodology for its seat prediction thingy is supposed to be really cutting edge, something I totally don't understand called MRP - but apparently Ashcroft is using a very similar methodology too. Suspect YouGov have the larger dataset though.


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

The latest yougov model update has it very tight... 

Follow the 2017 UK General Election with YouGov


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 7, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I'm sure I remember Ashcroft getting the last election utterly wrong, to be fair.
> 
> Having looked into YouGov's methodology, I think it's by far and away the most sound, statistically speaking.  It uses the same principles that are rather successfully used to price motor insurance and maximise supermarket profitability from club card data.  It's the next generation of polling -- YouGov are using 10 year-old techniques where the others are stuck on 50 year-old techniques.
> 
> It is much more data-dependent than ordinary polling, though, which is why I guess they survey 50,000 people.  Even with this many, though, I'm still not utterly convinced it is enough -- the equivalent motor insurance analysis would tend to have millions of data points if it was trying to cover the whole population, rather than 50,000.  But then, motor pricing is trying to predict rarer events, not make a best estimate guess at a poll result.



That's the spirit.


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

BTW, unless my maths are out, the Yougov model gives the lib dems the balance of power.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> The latest yougov model update has it very tight...
> 
> Follow the 2017 UK General Election with YouGov



The seat by seat map is very interesting on that.  It certainly rings true with how it feels on the ground in the places I know. Interestingly they've also got East Devon down as an independent win.


----------



## JimW (Jun 7, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> The seat by seat map is very interesting on that.  It certainly rings true with how it feels on the ground in the places I know. Interestingly they've also got East Devon down as an independent win.


Though it places Stroud south of Bristol  (yes, I know it's just a data visualisation)


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2017)

For those who didn't see it on the Corbyn thread, this is my little model that allows you to specify Labour managing to engage a certain % of those who previously were no shows and then try out various cross-party swings.

The following is one parameter set that roughly fits the current polls:
10% previous no-shows become Labour
20% Greens become Labour
0% Lib Dems become Labour
50% UKIP become Tory
15% UKIP become Labour
10% SNP become Tory
0% SNP become Labour

That gives the Tories 335 seats and Labour 237, which is +5 for both of them versus 2015.  Lib Dems and SNP lose 4 each on that basis (UKIP also lose 1 and Greens lose theirs)


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2017)

I was trying to work out where the Lib Dem swings were hitting them in my swing model and comparing this to YouGov.

Some of the YouGov predictions seem surprising. YouGov have Twickenham as "safe Liberal Democrat" with 53% (45-61%) of the vote compared to Tories at 35% (29-41%).  I have no reason to think they are wrong in this, particularly.  But in 2015, the Tories won the seat with 41% of the vote to the Lib Dem's 38%.  So that's an ENORMOUS swing to the Lib Dems away from the Tories, with the LDs also picking up all the residual party votes that aren't standing this time.

That could be right (as I say, I have no idea) -- if it is, it really demonstrates the limitations of a uniform swing model and shows why YouGov could be onto something big.  Their modelling, they would claim, can pick up on the regional demographic causes for different types of swing.

ETA: they also have the LDs taking seats off the SNP.  Also an interesting element to the election that their model can predict, but which other models cannot.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 7, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I was trying to work out where the Lib Dem swings were hitting them in my swing model and comparing this to YouGov.
> 
> Some of the YouGov predictions seem surprising. YouGov have Twickenham as "safe Liberal Democrat" with 53% (45-61%) of the vote compared to Tories at 35% (29-41%).  I have no reason to think they are wrong in this, particularly.  But in 2015, the Tories won the seat with 41% of the vote to the Lib Dem's 38%.  So that's an ENORMOUS swing to the Lib Dems away from the Tories, with the LDs also picking up all the residual party votes that aren't standing this time.



Yes but before that a safe seat for Vince Cable.  If you see 2015 more of an outlier then that makes sense.  Throw in Brexit and Heathrow expansion and it seems a fairly clear win for the orange slime.


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

Twickenham is Vince Cable isn't it? He seems bullish about taking it back, and the greens have stepped aside and endorsed him (fwiw)


----------



## belboid (Jun 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> BTW, unless my maths are out, the Yougov model gives the lib dems the balance of power.


Not quite enough of them. Even with the Ulster unionists and them the scum would be a couple of seats short.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2017)

That (the Vince Cable thing) makes more sense, although I'm not sure that I do see 2015 as an outlier.  The Liberal Democrats have stayed on the same single figure polling in 2017 than they had in 2015.  It's more that they've refocused on a dozen or so seats rather than seriously fighting for 50+ of them, which has allowed them a fighting chance in those seats.

It's definitely feasible that the Libs do end up with even fewer seats than they got in 2015 though.  Everything they won in 2015 was still pretty tight as far as I can see, and we've had a lot of retrenchment of the big two since then.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> Twickenham is Vince Cable isn't it? He seems bullish about taking it back, and the greens have stepped aside and endorsed him (fwiw)



Yes he's standing again.  It's the lib dems number one target and the whole place is covered in lib dems posters.  I would be very surprised if he didn't win comfortably.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 7, 2017)

kabbes said:


> That (the Vince Cable thing) makes more sense, although I'm not sure that I do see 2015 as an outlier.  The Liberal Democrats have stayed on the same single figure polling in 2017 than they had in 2015.  It's more that they've refocused on a dozen or so seats rather than seriously fighting for 50+ of them, which has allowed them a fighting chance in those seats.
> 
> It's definitely feasible that the Libs do end up with even fewer seats than they got in 2015 though.  Everything they won in 2015 was still pretty tight as far as I can see, and we've had a lot of retrenchment of the big two since then.



I'm not sure how much can be extrapolated from what is going on in this corner of SW London.  It looks like next door in Richmond Park the race is neck and neck.  I think the specifics around Brexit and Heathrow make any analysis difficult.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 7, 2017)

belboid said:


> Not quite enough of them. Even with the Ulster unionists and them the scum would be a couple of seats short.



Don't think that's right. The target is 322 (give or take). 302 con + 12 lib dem + 11 NI = 325


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2017)

Here are the Lib Dem's top results in 2015.  Beyond this, they are too far behind except Southport where they won in 2015 on a Tory/UKIP split vote:



Anything where UKIP + Tory is bigger than Lib Dem must surely be forfeit.  So that's Southport, Norfolk North and Carshalton gone to the Tories, dropping them to 5.  They've picked up Richmond park in a bizarre by-election that was 58% Tory, 19% Lib Dem in 2015, so 6 seats and proof that you CAN get big swings sometimes.  I still find it surprising to think they could double that, though, based on their clear struggle in this campaign and the above demonstration of their lack of safe seats and their vulnerability to a Labour surge across a number of their targets.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2017)

Anyone know why YouGov might be predicting a win for the Lib Dems in Bath, for example?  They lost to the Tories by 38 to 30 in 2015, with UKIP taking another 6.  YouGov have them winning by an estimated 44 to 34.  All the extra Lib Dem votes seem to be coming from the Greens -- have the Greens stood aside or something?


----------



## Raheem (Jun 7, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Anyone know why YouGov might be predicting a win for the Lib Dems in Bath, for example?  They lost to the Tories by 38 to 30 in 2015, with UKIP taking another 6.  YouGov have them winning by an estimated 44 to 34.  All the extra Lib Dem votes seem to be coming from the Greens -- have the Greens stood aside or something?



Fairly strong remain vote + the Tory was investigated by the police over a sexual assault allegation (no charges). Not speaking for YouGov obvs, but those are going to be factors. The Green candidate seems to be standing.


----------



## belboid (Jun 7, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Don't think that's right. The target is 322 (give or take). 302 con + 12 lib dem + 11 NI = 325


Target is 324 (assuming 3 or 4 SF seats), and the Tory supporting unionists are unlikely to win 11.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Fairly strong remain vote + the Tory was investigated by the police over a sexual assault allegation (no charges). Not speaking for YouGov obvs, but those are going to be factors. The Green candidate seems to be standing.


The prediction doesn't have much of a Tory drop though -- 38 to 34.  It's Green -10 and Lib Dem +14 that is doing it.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2017)

belboid said:


> Target is 324 (assuming 3 or 4 SF seats), and the Tory supporting unionists are unlikely to win 11.


Sinn Fein never take their place at Westminster though, which is why the target is normally given as 322. 

I suppose it isn't impossible that if they saw that the UUP would be kingmakers, they might turn up to block that.


----------



## belboid (Jun 7, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Sinn Fein never take their place at Westminster though, which is why the target is normally given as 322.
> 
> I suppose it isn't impossible that if they saw that the UUP would be kingmakers, they might turn up to block that.


I know they don't. The target is usually given as 326, not 322. Removing four MPs drops it down to 324, or 323 since the speaker actually stood as Speaker last time.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 7, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Sinn Fein never take their place at Westminster though, which is why the target is normally given as 322.
> 
> I suppose it isn't impossible that if they saw that the UUP would be kingmakers, they might turn up to block that.



Surely that would never happen? That would mean recognizing the sovereignty of the British Parliament. I know the GF agreement kind of did that anyway but still....


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2017)

belboid said:


> I know they don't. The target is usually given as 326, not 322. Removing four MPs drops it down to 324.


Good point.

Although since there are 650 MPs and one of them is the speaker, should the target not ACTUALLY be 325?  But take off four SF and the speaker and you get to 645, meaning the target would be 323.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Surely that would never happen? That would mean recognizing the sovereignty of the British Parliament. I know the GF agreement kind of did that anyway but still....


We live in a world where anything is possible, my friend.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 7, 2017)

belboid said:


> Target is 324 (assuming 3 or 4 SF seats), and the Tory supporting unionists are unlikely to win 11.


 
You have to take into account the speaker's seat as well. Based on 3 SF, that would be 323. And there are currently 11 unionists (8 DUP, 2 UUP, 1 independent).


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Sinn Fein never take their place at Westminster though, which is why the target is normally given as 322.
> 
> I suppose it isn't impossible that if they saw that the UUP would be kingmakers, they might turn up to block that.


That would be fucking hilarious. The IRA swinging in behind Corbo.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> That would be fucking hilarious. The IRA swinging in behind Corbo.



Even I'd buy the Mail the following day, probably frame it on my wall as well.


----------



## belboid (Jun 7, 2017)

Raheem said:


> You have to take into account the speaker's seat as well. Based on 3 SF, that would be 323. And there are currently 11 unionists (8 DUP, 2 UUP, 1 independent).


The independent doesn't vote with the tories. The uup are unreliable too.


----------



## belboid (Jun 7, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Good point.
> 
> Although since there are 650 MPs and one of them is the speaker, should the target not ACTUALLY be 325?  But take off four SF and the speaker and you get to 645, meaning the target would be 323.


The Speaker isn't always an incumbent. Therefore 326 is traditionally used as if each 'side' for 325, they'd both be desperately fighting against one of theirs becoming Speaker.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 7, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Anyone know why YouGov might be predicting a win for the Lib Dems in Bath, for example?  They lost to the Tories by 38 to 30 in 2015, with UKIP taking another 6.  YouGov have them winning by an estimated 44 to 34.  All the extra Lib Dem votes seem to be coming from the Greens -- have the Greens stood aside or something?


Bath was originally supposed to be a Green target seat, but I've seen nothing about it since the election started. I suspect they've all gone to support the Bristol West campaign but don't think they've actually stood down.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> That would be fucking hilarious. The IRA swinging in behind Corbo.



I literally can't think of a more fitting end to this entire campaign.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> That would be fucking hilarious. The IRA swinging in behind Corbo.


That would bring the Maquis to heel.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 7, 2017)

"We'll back you, but only if you get Hilary Benn bellowing out The Boys of the Old Brigade on Westminster Green"


----------



## J Ed (Jun 7, 2017)

ouch


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 7, 2017)

I think its been established that the YouGov one is the only reliable one.


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)




----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 7, 2017)

Summary of different predictions from the Guardian feed (I'm not sticking it in quotes as you'll have that silly thing were it won't all fit)

==========================================================

*15 Election result predictions*

As this interview with Prof John Curtice, the BBC’s elections expert and the mastermind behind the exit poll, reveals, by this time tomorrow afternoon - well before the polls have closed - Curtice will probably know the election result.

Unfortunately he won’t be telling me.

But, as the next best thing, here is a round-up of 15 of the most compelling election forecasts around. They range from a hung parliament to a Conservative majority of 122. At the start of the campaign, before the Tory social care U-turn and the Jeremy Corbyn surge, the figure at the top would have been even higher.

On the assumption that reporters are generally best sticking to reporting, and that when they get into the prediction business, they often get it wrong, I won’t be offering my own. So you will just have to stick with these. But reader predictions are, of course, more than welcome BTL.


_Hung parliament _- the YouGov model

This is the most recent forecast (from yesterday) from the YouGov model, a forecasting model devised using multilevel regression and post-stratification (MRP). This involves taking polling data and, using data about the demographic composition of constituencies, and how different demographics vote, developing a seat-by-seat forecast. The Conservatives (304) would have the most seats, but even with Northern Ireland unionists (around 10) they could be outvoted by a coalition of Labour (266), the SNP (46), the Lib Dems (12) and the Greens (1).






YouGov model. Photograph: YouGov


_Conservative majority of 22_ - electionpolling.co.uk forecast

This is the most recent forecast on electionpolling.co.uk, based on what would happen on the basis of the swing implied by the most recent polls.


_Conservative majority of 28 _- New Statesman

This is the majority implied by the seat forecasts in the New Statesman’s model, which takes the latest polling figures and produces a forecast using the RegVar forecasting model.

_Conservative majority of around 40 _- Peter Kellner’s prediction

This is the prediction that Peter Kellner, the leading pollster and former YouGov president, set out in an Evening Standard column yesterday.


_Conservative majority of 48_ - Local election projection

This is the forecast that Sky New elections expert Prof Michael Thrasher produced straight after the local elections, judging what would happen in a general election based on voting in the locals. It does not take into account developments since the campaign started.


_Conservative majority of 52_ - Projection based on Opinium’s final poll

Opinium’s final poll suggests the Tories are on 43%, Labour 36%, the Lib Dems 8% and Ukip 5%, and Electoral Calculus says this would give the Tories a majority of 52.


_Conservative majority of 58 _- Projection based on “poll of polls” in Guardian poll tracker

The Guardian’s poll tracker currently has the Tories on 44%, Labour on 36%, the Lib Dems on 8%, Ukip on 4% and the Greens on 2%, and Electoral Calculus says this would give the Tories a majority of 58.


_Conservative majority of 64 _- the Ashcroft Model

This is the central forecast of the Ashcroft Model, a forecasting model devised by Lord Ashcroft also using MRP. But his forecast is different from YouGov’s.


_The Conservatives remain on course to win a majority in the general election, according to new figures from the Ashcroft Model. Our “combined probabilistic model”, which calculates the sum of each party’s win chances in all the seats in which it is standing, estimates 357 Tory seats, or a potential majority of 64 (up four from the previous update published last Friday). However, this central estimate, based on an update survey conducted over the weekend, combines the data from three different turnout scenarios: including all those who currently say they will vote on Thursday (giving a Conservative majority of 70); including all those who say they voted in the EU referendum (a Conservative majority of 48); and assuming turnout matches that of the 2015 election (a Conservative majority of 78)._






Ashcroft model. Photograph: Lord Ashcroft/Ashcroft model forecast


_Conservative majority of 71_ - Elections Etc combined forecast

Elections Etc is an elections website run by Stephen Fisher, an Oxford academic who is part of the team working on the BBC/Sky/ITV exit poll. The combined forecast is a forecast that produces an average of all forecasts available based on a system: using polling, and forecasting models; betting trends; and wisdom-of-the-crowd exercises. Here are their most recent figures, from five days ago.






Combined forecast for election. Photograph: Elections Etc


_Conservative majority of 72 _- Electoral Calculus forecast

This is the current forecast on the Electoral Calculus website, which is calculated using an average of recent polls.


_Conservative majority of 75 to 99 - _Betfair’s central forecast

According to figures from the bookmakers Betfair today, the Tories winning a majority of 75 to 99 is their most popular option with punters. Their odds on this are 5/1.


_Conservative majority of 84 - _Projection based on latest Guardian/ICM poll

The latest Guardian/ICM poll has the Tories on 45%, Labour 34%, the Lib Dems 8%, Ukip 5% and the Greens 3%, which Electoral Calculus says would give the Tories a majority of 84. A final Guardian/ICM poll is due out tomorrow.


_Conservative majority of 100 _- the electionforecast.co.uk model

This is a model run by Chris Hanretty at the University of East Anglia, using polling data but adjusting for trends in voting behaviour. Its most recent forecast has the Tories getting 375 seats.


_Conservative majority of 105_ - Nigel Marriott’s prediction

This is the prediction from the statistician Nigel Marriott, who explains his methodology here.


_Conservative majority of 122_ - Iain Dale’s prediction

This is the prediction from Iain Dale, the broadcaster, publisher and onetime chief of staff to David Davis. On his blog he has made predictions for every seat in the country.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 7, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> I think its been established that the YouGov one is the only reliable one.


There should be a separate YouGov State Opening of Parlaiment. Make it a bit like boxing, 'oh, yeah, Theresa won the WBC and IBF, but Corbyn holds the Grimsby Over 65s Non-Contact Middleweight belt".


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 7, 2017)

Fuck me those polls are all over the shop. Well I'm getting drunk tomorrow night whatever happens.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 7, 2017)




----------



## J Ed (Jun 7, 2017)




----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

we've missed Panelbase.



Possibly the least interesting poll of the season anyway...


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

are we just waiting for Yougov now?


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

Here's an article about how exit polling works for you to read while we wait.

Exit polling explained


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 7, 2017)

SurveyMonkey for Sun
CON 42%(-2),
LAB 38%(nc),
LDEM 6%(nc),
UKIP 4%(nc).

Like the low LD vote there


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 7, 2017)

So now the final polls are out who's going to start the prediction thread?


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

Yougov isn't out yet...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 7, 2017)

> *Kantar*‘s final poll has topline figures of CON 43%(nc), LAB 38%(+5), LDEM 7%(-4), UKIP 4%(nc)



so we have some polls showing quite big movements for labour, whilst others are showing no change. fuck knows what's going on.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 7, 2017)

I predict that some of the polls will prove to be closer to the actual result than others.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 7, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> so we have some polls showing quite big movements for labour, whilst others are showing no change. fuck knows what's going on.


Don't know about the Kantar one but the TNS poll with Labour up 5 is from 1-7 June, so showing a similar increase in the Lab vote to others just with a bit of a "time lag" because they don't poll as often as YouGov/Survation etc


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

We got all these?

Looks like a big Tory majority, doesn't it?


----------



## J Ed (Jun 7, 2017)




----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)




----------



## Fez909 (Jun 7, 2017)

Has a party ever won* without being ahead in the polls even once?

*I'm defining won here as _either _the largest party in terms of seats or the highest vote share nationwide.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 7, 2017)

J Ed said:


>





that looks like the survation one from a few days ago. and i dont think the you gov one is out yet


----------



## J Ed (Jun 7, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> that looks like the survation one from a few days ago. and i dont think the you gov one is out yet



You are right, thanks.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 7, 2017)

As an aside, the girl in the banner of Survation twitter account sat in a call centre holding her hair in an anxious way is seriously disturbing. What sort of message are they trying to send with that?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)




----------



## J Ed (Jun 7, 2017)

fuck


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 7, 2017)

Jesus have those front pages actually worked.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

J Ed said:


> fuck


YouGov back in the middle of the field, then. Looks like a hung parliament is a forlorn hope.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 7, 2017)

fuck fuck fuck.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)




----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 7, 2017)

God I hate libdems.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

*Final call poll: Tories lead by seven points and set to increase majority*

*YouGov |  Final call poll: Tories lead by seven points and set to increase majority*


----------



## chilango (Jun 7, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> View attachment 108738



"Only" 302 seats though. All is not lost, yet.


----------



## Carvaged (Jun 7, 2017)

Looks like the Tories will get in with an increased majority after all. Bummer.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

chilango said:


> "Only" 302 seats though. All is not lost, yet.


"YouGov’s final call for the 2017 election is for a seven point Conservative lead, leading to an increased Conservative majority in the Commons."

So. Maybe an early night tomorrow after all.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 7, 2017)

It's margin of error stuff, eh


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 7, 2017)

I knew this would happen. I got my hopes up and the universe is punishing me for it. We all need to start thinking really pessimistically so as to balance out the Karma. Come on everyone, just think about how terrible the result will be. We can do this. We can do it!


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 7, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> "YouGov’s final call for the 2017 election is for a seven point Conservative lead, leading to an increased Conservative majority in the Commons."
> 
> So. Maybe an early night tomorrow after all.



whats on bbc2 tomorrow night ....?


----------



## chilango (Jun 7, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> "YouGov’s final call for the 2017 election is for a seven point Conservative lead, leading to an increased Conservative majority in the Commons."
> 
> So. Maybe an early night tomorrow after all.



Yet their seat by seat predictions aren't for a increased majority .


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 7, 2017)

The seat by seat predictions use a different methodology and got updated about lunchtime today.


----------



## Carvaged (Jun 7, 2017)

YouGov did change their methodology for their final poll though, which would have suppressed the Labour VI. I'd have to see the tables to see how much.


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 7, 2017)

Yes, sounds as though they've decided to change their minds about how 'don't knows' will split between parties. Fishy. Don't want to be different to everyone else.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

Carvaged said:


> YouGov did change their methodology for their final poll though, which would have suppressed the Labour VI. I'd have to see the tables to see how much.


They allocated don't knows this time, apparently. 

(Not seen the tables myself: repeating a report).


----------



## mauvais (Jun 7, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I knew this would happen. I got my hopes up and the universe is punishing me for it. We all need to start thinking really pessimistically so as to balance out the Karma. Come on everyone, just think about how terrible the result will be. We can do this. We can do it!


We can't do it! We're hopeless!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 7, 2017)

mauvais said:


> We can't do it! We're hopeless!



Most likely we'll see the sort of result predicted before the election campaign. Twenty point Tory lead anyone? Probably.


----------



## Cid (Jun 7, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> "YouGov’s final call for the 2017 election is for a seven point Conservative lead, leading to an increased Conservative majority in the Commons."
> 
> So. Maybe an early night tomorrow after all.



Bah. Not really after all... I think it was there in the back of all our minds.

Though there's still that bloody temporarily indestructible egg of hope. Why? Just let me sulk in peace egg of hope, you know your shell will be broken.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 7, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Most likely we'll see the sort of result predicted before the election campaign. Twenty point Tory lead anyone? Probably.



Naah, we have to get the vote out because worse case scenario is fucking dreamland from a month ago, and has at least got policies and ideas on the table that would have been unthinkable not long ago. C'mon, we've got more fight in us than that, no?


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

jeez, put away those gloomy smilies. we've had a laugh haven't we?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 7, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> They allocated don't knows this time, apparently.
> 
> (Not seen the tables myself: repeating a report).



It would be interesting (but probably tough to get your head around) to see exactly _how_ they allocated the don't knows ....


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> jeez, put away those gloomy smilies. we've had a laugh haven't we?



Yous lot dont understand the laws of karma. Pessimism now == optimism later. Never expect anything good, ever! Things are going to be shit. REALLY REALLY shit!


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> It would be interesting (but probably tough to get your head around) to see exactly _how_ they allocated the don't knows ....


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 7, 2017)

It's like a seesaw. If we can get a last minute surge of miserableness in now, it might just tip the balance in our favour tomorrow.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

William of Walworth
From the YouGov blog:

"we have reallocated those respondents who say don’t know, but who also say they are very likely to vote (voters who my colleague Adam McDonnell described earlier in the campaign as “true undecided”). We assume uncertain voters who say they “don’t know” at this stage won’t actually vote, but those who say they are 8+/10 certain to vote we have reallocated back to the party they voted for in 2015"


YouGov |  Final call poll: Tories lead by seven points and set to increase majority


----------



## Carvaged (Jun 7, 2017)

However the polls go, it's always worth remembering that the vast majority of Britons do what the papers/media (ie a few billionaires) tell them to. It's almost always been that way, except for a few exceptional occasions (eg 1945). So don't expect them to suddenly wake up and realise they're turkeys voting for Christmas - they just don't see it.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 7, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> William of Walworth
> From the YouGov blog:
> 
> "we have reallocated those respondents who say don’t know, but who also say they are very likely to vote (voters who my colleague Adam McDonnell described earlier in the campaign as “true undecided”). We assume uncertain voters who say they “don’t know” at this stage won’t actually vote, but those who say they are 8+/10 certain to vote we have reallocated back to the party they voted for in 2015"
> ...




Thanks for that -- it explains the 'how' they re-allocate, but what about 'why' have they decided to make that change? Are not their assumptions in doing so open to question? I haven't the foggiest ...


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 7, 2017)

J Ed said:


>



Ha, Ha LD 1% fuck I really hope Survation are right


----------



## Carvaged (Jun 7, 2017)

YouGov are probably concerned that their experimental model shows Labour doing well (a big risk), yet their regular poll is also effectively an outlier. Bringing the regular poll lead in line with the average (herding) gives them a boot in both camps.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 7, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Thanks for that -- it explains the 'how' they re-allocate, but what about 'why' have they decided to make that change? Are not their assumptions in doing so open to question? I haven't the foggiest ...



I think the orthodox thing is to split the DKs according to the general split, so that they don't have any skewing effect. Apparently, that's what almost always happens in actual elections.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Thanks for that -- it explains the 'how' they re-allocate, but what about 'why' have they decided to make that change? Are not their assumptions in doing so open to question? I haven't the foggiest ...


ICM do it the same way. YouGov are basically herding. Is there evidence of pollsters herding? – Number Cruncher Politics

ETA Carvaged beat me to it while I was googling the link.


----------



## Carvaged (Jun 7, 2017)

Overall the Tory poll lead hasn't really shifted at all over the last week (mostly MOE stuff). We still have IPSOS poll in the morning to come.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 7, 2017)

IIRC YouGov traditionally don't generally split the DKs but they have done for other pre-election polls

The reasoning being that they generally aren't trying to sample "How people would vote in a GE" but "what party do you most support", but as a pre-election poll will be read as the former anyway they do split the DKs for those.


----------



## Carvaged (Jun 7, 2017)

FWIW in the extremely unlikely event that youth turnout matched 1992 levels, Labour would probably win outright. I don't honestly anticipate them (youth turnout) bettering 2015 levels though.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 7, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Ha, Ha LD 1% fuck I really hope Survation are right


Fake


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 7, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Fake



All polls are bollicks. Corbs is gunna crush the Tory cunts


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Fake


Yup.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

Drum roll!


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 7, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Fake


I can but dream


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

98!!!


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 7, 2017)

Look at the huge uncertainty bars on the Lab and Con figs though


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Look at the huge uncertainty bars on the Lab and Con figs though


Indeed, but the pink between the bars is as big as the bars.


----------



## SovietArmy (Jun 7, 2017)

We don't believed Trump win, we surprised UK voted out European Union as well Scottish referendum.  I hope polls are wrong.


----------



## Carvaged (Jun 7, 2017)

First poll putting Labour ahead was just published. Never heard of Qriously, or if they're part of the BPC, but anyway, here's their result:

Lab: 41.3%
Con: 38.5%
LD: 6%
UKIP: 3%
SNP: 3.8%

(4 Jun – 7 Jun; sample: 2213; weighted by “gender, age, region and income”)

Final election polls give Jeremy Corbyn the lead over Theresa May for the first time


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

Survation finally out:


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

Survation tables: http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Survation-GE2017-Final-Poll-2d7l9l8.pdf


----------



## JimW (Jun 7, 2017)

Carvaged said:


> First poll putting Labour ahead was just published. Never heard of Qriously, or if they're part of the BPC, but anyway, here's their result:
> 
> Lab: 41.3%
> Con: 38.5%
> ...


That would be the only one with the Tories below 40% wouldn't it? Seems far too good to be true sadly.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

JimW said:


> That would be the only one with the Tories below 40% wouldn't it? Seems far too good to be true sadly.


Survation has one point in it.


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

I'm switching allegiance from yougov to survation anyway.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 8, 2017)




----------



## JimW (Jun 8, 2017)

killer b said:


> I'm switching allegiance from yougov to survation anyway.


Prognosticators of distinction, I always said.


----------



## JimW (Jun 8, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Survation has one point in it.


I was thinking the dip below 40 for the Cons was significant too in seats but might have that round my neck


----------



## Calamity1971 (Jun 8, 2017)

Who's yougov when they're at home


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 8, 2017)

With the polls varying so wildly, it seems prudent to wear our sensible hats and expect the result to fall somewhere in the middle, while our pessimist hats expect the largest 100 seat tory majority. That way we can start commiseration drinking tonight and be entirely out of it so we don't give a shit either way by the time the exit polls come at 10pm tomorrow.


----------



## Calamity1971 (Jun 8, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> With the polls varying so wildly, it seems prudent to wear our sensible hats and expect the result to fall somewhere in the middle, while our pessimist hats expect the largest 100 seat tory majority. That way we can start commiseration drinking tonight and be entirely out of it so we don't give a shit either way by the time the exit polls come at 10pm tomorrow.


I'm celebrating and commiserating in equal measures already. Both sides covered


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 8, 2017)

Calamity1971 said:


> Who's yougov when they're at home


Really?

A polling company.


----------



## Carvaged (Jun 8, 2017)

Qriously got the Brexit referendum right, and have had a few successes in South Korea, the Netherlands and France.


----------



## JimW (Jun 8, 2017)

So do I take Friday off for an all-nighter at the local or not? This lot aren't helping.


----------



## Calamity1971 (Jun 8, 2017)

Taking the piss. I'm being loyal to best poll outcome silly. Like a fairweather footie fan?


----------



## The Pale King (Jun 8, 2017)

Fuck these tory cunts I'm done with electoral politics lets just leave not one alive eh

See youse canvassing tomorrow!


----------



## killer b (Jun 8, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> With the polls varying so wildly, it seems prudent to wear our sensible hats and expect the result to fall somewhere in the middle, while our pessimist hats expect the largest 100 seat tory majority. That way we can start commiseration drinking tonight and be entirely out of it so we don't give a shit either way by the time the exit polls come at 10pm tomorrow.


Unfortunately there's a Labour leadership challenge planned to kick off around then. No rest for the wicked.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 8, 2017)

killer b said:


> Unfortunately there's a Labour leadership challenge planned to kick off around then. No rest for the wicked.



McTernan was asked about what Corbynism means for the Labour Party now and he seemed to have taken a different tack on it. In that he's aware it's changed the game and can't be ignored. I didn't read the thing - it was Alex Nunns and Stephen Bush chatting on twitter about an interview Bush did with him. I meant to dig it out and take a look but then the rest of twitter happened and I forgot, lost in a flurry of angry retweets and snide comments.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 8, 2017)

Calamity1971 said:


> Taking the piss. I'm being loyal to best poll outcome silly. Like a fairweather footie fan?


Ah, I don't understand football.  Or irony, it seems.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 8, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> With the polls varying so wildly, it seems prudent to wear our sensible hats and expect the result to fall somewhere in the middle, while our pessimist hats expect the largest 100 seat tory majority. That way we can start commiseration drinking tonight and be entirely out of it so we don't give a shit either way by the time the exit polls come at 10pm tomorrow.



For some reason my unstudied gut feeling has been they'll get a majority of about 90 seats. I think I'm telling myself this so that if they *only* get sixty or seventy it won't feel so bad.  When it comes in at 131 I'll be tearfully hugging the nearest hospital.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 8, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> McTernan was asked about what Corbynism means for the Labour Party now and he seemed to have taken a different tack on it.


I saw a video clip.  But he can't even be trusted to give his opinion. 

I'll see if I can find the clip.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 8, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> For some reason my unstudied gut feeling has been they'll get a majority of about 90 seats. I think I'm telling myself this so that if they *only* get sixty or seventy it won't feel so bad.  When it comes in at 131 I'll be tearfully hugging the nearest hospital.



My local hospital (Royal Stoke) half burnt down today so I can't even do that.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 8, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> My local hospital (Royal Stoke) half burnt down today so I can't even do that.



Mind you, I remember last time there was a Labour govt going to the Royal Stoke to give Hewitt a fucking ear-full. 

Fun story: we organised a march, and this is Stoke, home of zero political engagement. But we got the RCN and Unite and various other sorts all working together and we got this march off the ground. We told the police that we'd be marching from the hospital into Hanley (a good couple of miles down a couple of main roads) on the Saturday and they didn't think it'd be much of anything so they sent one copper to take a look once we'd got to the city centre.

There were a good couple of thousand of us and we shut down the city. No fucker could get into Hanley  Good times.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 8, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> McTernan was asked about what Corbynism means for the Labour Party now and he seemed to have taken a different tack on it. In that he's aware it's changed the game and can't be ignored. I didn't read the thing - it was Alex Nunns and Stephen Bush chatting on twitter about an interview Bush did with him. I meant to dig it out and take a look but then the rest of twitter happened and I forgot, lost in a flurry of angry retweets and snide comments.




Shorter than I'd remembered.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 8, 2017)

Peston saying Blairism dead:




We'll see.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 8, 2017)

Should probably sort it out like this rather than all that voting shite:


----------



## killer b (Jun 8, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> McTernan was asked about what Corbynism means for the Labour Party now and he seemed to have taken a different tack on it. In that he's aware it's changed the game and can't be ignored. I didn't read the thing - it was Alex Nunns and Stephen Bush chatting on twitter about an interview Bush did with him. I meant to dig it out and take a look but then the rest of twitter happened and I forgot, lost in a flurry of angry retweets and snide comments.


I'm not sure how relevant mcternan is anymore. A gobby talking head the journalists call when they need a gobby talking head, sure. Dunno if he has much sway tho


----------



## Calamity1971 (Jun 8, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Ah, I don't understand football.  Or irony, it seems.


Maybe I should of used this  instead of this  for in ya face irony.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 8, 2017)

Carvaged said:


> Qriously got the Brexit referendum right, and have had a few successes in South Korea, the Netherlands and France.



Nate Silver thought they were serious enough to be worth including in his round-up:


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 8, 2017)

I need to go to bed.  This is like a shit version of Christmas Eve.  Rudolf's been hit by a snow plough and Santa's off the wagon.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 8, 2017)

My prediction: the tories are going to win with 40+ majority. A sickly-feeling place in my gut thinks it'll be an even bigger majority than that. The anxiety disorder part of me needs to find a coping strategy because this is all too much. Am awaiting Sturgeon to announce plans to draw up another indy ref and I think I'm going to officially change my name to Brenda.


----------



## JimW (Jun 8, 2017)

Scottish Westminster voting intention:

SNP: 39%
LAB: 29%
CON: 26%
LDEM: 6%

(via @Survation / telephone)


----------



## JimW (Jun 8, 2017)

Just to keep danny up


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 8, 2017)

JimW said:


> Scottish Westminster voting intention:
> 
> SNP: 39%
> LAB: 29%
> ...


What?

Glad to see the Tories falling back into 3rd, but what will that mean for seats?  I'm hoping it fucks up East Renfrewshire for Labour _and_ Tories.  (YouGov modelling had it as "lean Tory")


----------



## discokermit (Jun 8, 2017)

a little bit on the qriously poll, Final election polls give Jeremy Corbyn the lead over Theresa May for the first time


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 8, 2017)




----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 8, 2017)

discokermit said:


> a little bit on the qriously poll, Final election polls give Jeremy Corbyn the lead over Theresa May for the first time



So they're not weighting on some of the stuff other more traditional polling companies do, like past voting record and self-reported likelihood to vote.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 8, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> So they're not weighting on some of the stuff other more traditional polling companies do, like past voting record and self-reported likelihood to vote.



Which means you need to add at least 8 points on to the Tories to make it comparable to other polls. Or leave it as it is to make it accurate.


----------



## Supine (Jun 8, 2017)

Calamity1971 said:


> Who's yougov when they're at home



That bloke Dave, from down the pub.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 8, 2017)

Well, this thread has been fun but now back to the crushing reality.  When does the inquiry into _how did they all get it wrong_ start?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 8, 2017)

them getting it wrong would be a labour win.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 8, 2017)

I know everyone's been correctly suspicious of polls showing Labour too close, but that BMG one posted by Fez909 above, seems a fair bit out of line with most others bar ICM (and even the most recent one of ICM's showed a _slightly_ narrowing Tory lead).

I'm sure the Tories will win, but by ten %age points plus? Several very recent polls think it'll be closer.

Then again, BMG might be picking up a very late swing back to the Tories that others haven't detected


----------



## killer b (Jun 8, 2017)

in summary: who the fuck knows?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 8, 2017)

It's actual polling day now -- these last minute polls have little interest for me.  I'll know the actual answer within 24 hours.  I'll have a good idea within 12 hours


----------



## chilango (Jun 8, 2017)

Final internal email forwarded to me from the bowels of the City somewhere contains undisguised glee at Goodwin's prediction of a majority close to 90.

Still hanging onto


local election results
leadership ratings
UKIP votes winning the Tories seats in places like Stoke and Wakefield.


----------



## bemused (Jun 8, 2017)

chilango said:


> Final internal email forwarded to me from the bowels of the City somewhere contains undisguised glee at Goodwin's prediction of a majority close to 90.
> 
> Still hanging onto
> 
> ...



I think the local election results are pretty compelling.


----------



## chilango (Jun 8, 2017)

bemused said:


> I think the local election results are pretty compelling.



Not here they're not.

Maybe in some places, maybe in most places. But most people I know are voting differently in the GE than they did in the last locals. Which were in 2016. Not everywhere has just had them either.


----------



## bemused (Jun 8, 2017)

chilango said:


> Not here they're not.
> 
> Maybe in some places, maybe in most places. But most people I know are voting differently in the GE than they did in the last locals. Which were in 2016. Not everywhere has just had them either.



Goodwins thesis is that no party that hasn't had a double digit lead in the preceeding local election has gone on to overturn an encumbent  in the last 40 years:







That does seem pretty compelling, I'm sure we'll all know in the next 5 hours or so.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 8, 2017)

bemused said:


> Goodwins thesis is that no party that hasn't had a double digit lead in the preceeding local election has gone on to overturn an encumbent  in the last 40 years:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But the preceding local elections this time barely had any urban areas in it at all as it was a fallow year for most urban areas because it was a county council election year.


----------



## bemused (Jun 8, 2017)

free spirit said:


> But the preceding local elections this time barely had any urban areas in it at all as it was a fallow year for most urban areas because it was a county council election year.



The 2014 election was London and the other metropolitian areas. Labour got ~31%, Tories ~30%.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 8, 2017)

bemused said:


> Goodwins thesis is that no party that hasn't had a double digit lead in the preceeding local election has gone on to overturn an encumbent  in the last 40 years:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't need it to overturn, as such.  A hung parliament will feel like victory.

Anyway, 8 data points is so laughably few that I laugh at it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 8, 2017)

bemused said:


> Goodwins thesis is that no party that hasn't had a double digit lead in the preceeding local election has gone on to overturn an encumbent  in the last 40 years:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And before those 40 years? Why choose 40 years? Beware of the cherry-picked stat. 

Also, 40 years may sound like a long time, but that represents just two changes in government. The stats are based on fuck-all, as kabbes says above.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 8, 2017)

chilango said:


> Final internal email forwarded to me from the bowels of the City somewhere contains undisguised glee at Goodwin's prediction of a majority close to 90.
> 
> Still hanging onto
> 
> ...



My own polling station anecdote from here in Stoke Central is the man at the desk said turnout has been at least as busy as for the EU Ref. We were, of course, one of, if not the, lowest turnout in the 2015 GE.

I'll add, they've (the local party) been relatively confident of holding Central. Not so the other two Stoke seats.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 8, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> My own polling station anecdote from here in Stoke Central is the man at the desk said turnout has been at least as busy as for the EU Ref. We were, of course, one of, if not the, lowest turnout in the 2015 GE.
> 
> I'll add, they've (the local party) been relatively confident of holding Central. Not so the other two Stoke seats.


All that is Solid dude says this:


----------



## J Ed (Jun 8, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> All that is Solid dude says this:
> 
> View attachment 108824



Is this good or bad for Labour?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2017)

Good for bleurgh devices


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2017)

Democracy.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 8, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> All that is Solid dude says this:
> 
> View attachment 108824



Yes. We had the same conversation with the same guy. Because we went there together.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 8, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Is this good or bad for Labour?


No idea. We'll see, I suppose.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 8, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Yes. We had the same conversation with the same guy. Because we went there together.


Really?   I'm not stalking you, honest!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 8, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Really?   I'm not stalking you, honest!



LIES!



It's sometimes a race to see who can get the talking point out on twitter first.

During question time I've been known to utter "don't you dare tweet that, I said it."


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 8, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Well, this thread has been fun but now back to the crushing reality.  When does the inquiry into _how did they all get it wrong_ start?


Not to mention why do they even bother


----------



## Knotted (Jun 9, 2017)

Survation got it right.


----------



## chilango (Jun 9, 2017)

Gonna compose a gloating email to my city contact


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 9, 2017)

So the new YouGov model was broadly right?  Shame they bottled it at the last minute.


----------



## bemused (Jun 9, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> So the new YouGov model was broadly right?  Shame they bottled it at the last minute.



To be fair they had to hedge their bets giving they were on their own. I'm sure now they are trolling all other polling companies.


----------



## killer b (Jun 9, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> So the new YouGov model was broadly right?  Shame they bottled it at the last minute.


they didn't adjust their model, just their final poll.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 9, 2017)

killer b said:


> they didn't adjust their model, just their final poll.


Half right.

They were running two polling methods in parallel. The new one, that seems to have been correct, and did not change throughout. And the trad one - which they _did _adjust the modelling on for the final poll. And was wrong with or without the change - actually the change made the prediction worse.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 9, 2017)




----------



## kabbes (Jun 9, 2017)

The lesson from all this should be that there are now only two reliable polling methods: a multi-dimensional regressional analysis of demographics based on 50,000+ people and a thorough or a statistically controlled exit poll.  Anything else is just pissing around.


----------



## chilango (Jun 9, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Dare we go there?
> 
> OK...here goes (dons kevlar flak jacket)...
> 
> ...


  



> The Times’s first YouGov poll since the election was called has topline figures of CON 48%(+4), LAB 24%(+1), LDEM 12%(nc), UKIP 7%(-3). The Conservative lead of twenty-four points is the highest they’ve recorded from YouGov since way back in 2008. In terms of a starting position for an election campaign this is a huge gap – to put it in context, when the 1997 election was called, polls in the first week put Labour between 21 and 29 points ahead of the Tories. The Tory lead now isn’t as large as Blair’s huge Labour lead then… but you can see we’re in the same sort of territory.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 9, 2017)

kabbes said:


> The lesson from all this should be that there are now only two reliable polling methods: a multi-dimensional regressional analysis of demographics based on 50,000+ people and a thorough or a statistically controlled exit poll.  Anything else is just pissing around.



Yes even 'gut feeling of pessimistic urbanites' needs a bit of fine tuning.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 9, 2017)

chilango said:


>


47 days; a long time in politics.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 9, 2017)

kabbes said:


> The lesson from all this should be that there are now only two reliable polling methods: a multi-dimensional regressional analysis of demographics based on 50,000+ people and a thorough or a statistically controlled exit poll.  Anything else is just pissing around.


or the the raw data actually has at least as much validity as the adjusted data, because the raw data on most of the polls has been showing labour pretty close to the tories for weeks.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 10, 2017)

NEW POLLING

(Thank god, I was getting withdrawal symptoms.)

On who would make best Prime Minister: 
 T. May: 39% (-4) 
J. Corbyn: 39% (+7) 
 (via @YouGov & @ShippersUnbound / 09 - 10 Jun) 
Chgs. w/ 07 Jun


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 10, 2017)

And more:


----------



## moochedit (Jun 11, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Half right.
> 
> They were running two polling methods in parallel. The new one, that seems to have been correct, and did not change throughout. And the trad one - which they _did _adjust the modelling on for the final poll. And was wrong with or without the change - actually the change made the prediction worse.


I read somewhere that you govs new method correctly predicted brexit and trump as well but they didnt release them at the time as they were testing it out.


----------



## agricola (Jun 11, 2017)

free spirit said:


> or the the raw data actually has at least as much validity as the adjusted data, because the raw data on most of the polls has been showing labour pretty close to the tories for weeks.



Exactly - this was a failure of interpretation, in that everyone bar Yougov and Survation (and Ashcroft, to an extent - his polling did show that the more turnout was up the closer it would be) didn't take into account what would happen if turnout was up, especially the youth turnout.  There were plenty of reasons to suggest that it might have been (hot weather, Corbyn deliberately going after the youth vote, there being an actual choice at this election etc) and yet many firms persisted in assuming it would be a "normal" election for which the normal rules would apply.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 11, 2017)

Haven't seen this posted.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 11, 2017)

agricola said:


> Exactly - this was a failure of interpretation, in that everyone bar Yougov and Survation (and Ashcroft, to an extent - his polling did show that the more turnout was up the closer it would be) didn't take into account what would happen if turnout was up, especially the youth turnout.  There were plenty of reasons to suggest that it might have been (hot weather, Corbyn deliberately going after the youth vote, there being an actual choice at this election etc) and yet many firms persisted in assuming it would be a "normal" election for which the normal rules would apply.


yep, as I pointed out multiple times in the election run up.

The key bit I didn't expect was the scale of the SNP losses in Scotland.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 12, 2017)

That survation poll has loads of detail, including a statistic that 45% of people expect that Labour would win a 2nd election vs 33% for the tories.

Also 47% oppose a tory/DUP government vs 33% approve. 38.5% approve of a lab / lib / snp / green alliance to govern with 47% opposing it. (not sure why they've not got plaid in there).


----------



## kabbes (Jun 12, 2017)

I don't approve of an alliance with the libs.  There's many reasons people can have for disapproval for that, not just being right wing,


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 12, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I don't approve of an alliance with the libs.  There's many reasons people can have for disapproval for that, not just being right wing,



That's the problem I've got with these polls. It grinds my gears when I do a YouGov poll and it asks something and I want to be able to qualify it: "yes, but I'm dissenting from a left-wing point of view, not from the right as this will be spun in the press."


----------



## magneze (Jun 12, 2017)

That last poll is interesting and seems to potentially validate a conversation I had over the weekend, where it was claimed that some will only vote for a party who they think can win.


----------



## newbie (Jun 12, 2017)

magneze said:


> That last poll is interesting and seems to potentially validate a conversation I had over the weekend, where it was claimed that some will only vote for a party who they think can win.


Uncertainty doesn't appeal to everyone: as a sentiment "_I don't care who wins so long as it's decisive_" has some merit as a vote driver for those that aren't ideological and just want a quiet life.


----------



## killer b (Jun 12, 2017)

A lot of voters want strength and stability from the party they vote for, rather than looking to back a winner. Which of the two main parties most fulfils that brief has reversed completely in the last week. 

Much criticism I've encountered of Corbyn is of his incompetence and inability to control his party - I think the popular view of that will have been changed substantially by Thursday's result - this is what we're seeing reflected in the polls (as well as a change in weighting to reflect the reality of new voting patterns).


----------



## strung out (Jun 12, 2017)

Is this a good thread to point out that the tories probably didn't blow a 20+ point lead? The fact is that their lead was never as big as people thought it was in the first place, because the polls were all being weighted incorrectly.

The final gap in the election was a couple of percentage points, and although Labour significantly closed it over the course of the campaign, the polls being so misleading in the the first place are probably to thank for May thinking she had it sewn up and calling the election so early.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 12, 2017)

strung out said:


> Is this a good thread to point out that the tories probably didn't blow a 20+ point lead? The fact is that their lead was never as big as people thought it was in the first place, because the polls were all being weighted incorrectly.
> 
> The final gap in the election was a couple of percentage points, and although Labour significantly closed it over the course of the campaign, the polls being so misleading in the the first place are probably to thank for May thinking she had it sewn up and calling the election so early.


Although you have a point here, of sorts, your comment is a bit contradictory.

Either they have a huge lead and Labour "significantly closed it" or they didn't and the polls were wrong. It can't be both.

Unless you're saying they had something like a 10pt lead, not 20? Think the final result was 2.5% lead to Tories. 

Even if that's true, blowing a 10 pt lead in 6 weeks is ridiculous.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 12, 2017)

The difference between the polls and the reality on election day was pretty much purely turnout. If the people that made the difference were largely only motivated to vote by the campaigns, then that does indeed mean that a gap of 20-odd points was closed. We'll never know, of course, but Corbyn's personal ratings shot up massively in the weeks following the manifesto leak, which suggests that a large number of people were inspired to support Labour after that.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 12, 2017)

With the usual caveat about Anthony working for YG...here's his snap judgement written the day after. It's obviously brief and a little rough but gets to the nub of the methodological challenges facing the pollsters:-



> I’ve only had a couple of hours sleep so this is a very short comment on lessons from the polls at the election. The two best performing traditional polls seem to be those from Survation and Surveymonkey. Survation had a one point Con lead in their final GB poll, Surveymonkey had a four point lead in their final UK poll. The actual lead is 2 or 3 points depending on if you look at UK or GB figures. Congratulations to both of them. While it wasn’t a traditional poll, YouGov’s MRP model also came very close – it’s final GB figures were a four point lead (and some of the individual seat estimates that looked frankly outlandish, like Canterbury leaning Labour and Kensington being a tossup, actually turned out to be correct).
> 
> Looking across the board the other companies all overstated the Tory lead to one degree or another. The actual share of the Tory vote was broadly accurate, rather it was that almost everyone understated Labour support. I have a lot of sympathy with Peter Kellner’s article in the Standard earlier – that *to some degree it was a case of pollsters “trying too hard”. Companies have all been trying to correct the problems of 2015, and in many cases those changes seem to have gone too far.*
> 
> ...


----------



## strung out (Jun 12, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Although you have a point here, of sorts, your comment is a bit contradictory.
> 
> Either they have a huge lead and Labour "significantly closed it" or they didn't and the polls were wrong. It can't be both.
> 
> ...


I'm just making the point that many of the polls that gave the Tories a lead of 20+ points in the 6 weeks running up to the election (e.g. Ipsos Mori at 23% on 21st April, ICM at 22% on the 22nd April) were still giving large leads the day before the election (Ipsos Mori 8% on 7th June, ICM 12% on 7th June).

Given that we know the actual gap ended up on 2.5%, I think it's fair to say that the gap was never as large as 20+ points because presumably the methodological inaccuracies were present for companies like ICM, Ipsos Mori etc. throughout their polling in the run-up to the election, rather than only in their final polls.

As Raheem points out, the difference between the polls and reality was based on turnout, meaning firstly that polling companies need to devise a model to take into account potential turnout more effectively (Survation were most accurate and had a poll question based on likelihood to vote), and secondly that Labour had a larger core of supporters whose willingness to vote hardened as the campaign went on. I suspect the raw data before adjustment supports this theory.


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 12, 2017)

Survation had Tory leads of 17/18 points in mid May so I'm not sure the theory that the lead wasn't really that big stacks up.


----------



## Ole (Jun 12, 2017)

YouGov also had a Tory lead of 24 points 6 or 7 weeks away.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 12, 2017)

strung out said:


> Given that we know the actual gap ended up on 2.5%, I think it's fair to say that the gap was never as large as 20+ points because presumably the methodological inaccuracies were present for companies like ICM, Ipsos Mori etc. throughout their polling in the run-up to the election, rather than only in their final polls.


It depends on what your poll is measuring. Are you trying to measure _what % of people say they will vote X_ or what _% of people *will* vote X_? 

I think before/at the start of the campaign there could have easily been ~20pp more people saying they'd vote Tory than Lab, so from that respect the polls could have been sampling the population correctly. But once the election was called and people began thinking about it many people went back to Labour, as they were always going to do.

Basically people aren't very good with hypotheticals and they interpret polls in different ways, the poll above that puts Labour in the lead is an excellent example, I can quite believe that's an (relatively) accurate sample, but I think if there was another election tomorrow it'd be closer than that. In part people are answering the question 'Who would you vote for' with 'Teresa May is a wanker'.


----------



## JTG (Jun 12, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> It depends on what your poll is measuring. Are you trying to measure _what % of people say they will vote X_ or what _% of people *will* vote X_?
> 
> I think before/at the start of the campaign there could have easily been ~20pp more people saying they'd vote Tory than Lab, so from that respect the polls could have been sampling the population correctly. But once the election was called and people began thinking about it many people went back to Labour, as they were always going to do.
> 
> Basically people aren't very good with hypotheticals and they interpret polls in different ways, the poll above that puts Labour in the lead is an excellent example, I can quite believe that's an (relatively) accurate sample, but I think if there was another election tomorrow it'd be closer than that. In part people are answering the question 'Who would you vote for' with 'Teresa May is a wanker'.


I've been at Download festival for the last week. They showed the BBC coverage in the cinema tent there all night, in front of a raucous cheering crowd of young heavy metal fans (knowing Download, largely from the north and midlands I should think). Got talking to a lad from Middlesbrough who said exactly this - that he knew people who'd said they wouldn't vote Labour again etc etc but when it came to it they couldn't vote Tory. They walked into the booth and heard their old mum/dad etc shaking their head and saying how disappointed they were in them and so forth.

Tribalism does matter. Takes a lot to pull people away from ingrained behaviour and even then they don't always follow through.

Incidentally, the only group that night who didn't seem overwhelmingly pro-Labour were the Scots who seemed largely SNP. They weren't happy.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 13, 2017)

strung out said:


> Is this a good thread to point out that the tories probably didn't blow a 20+ point lead? The fact is that their lead was never as big as people thought it was in the first place, because the polls were all being weighted incorrectly.
> 
> The final gap in the election was a couple of percentage points, and although Labour significantly closed it over the course of the campaign, the polls being so misleading in the the first place are probably to thank for May thinking she had it sewn up and calling the election so early.



Looks like YouGov had the lead at ~10pt (need to go to the link to see the relevant chart)


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 13, 2017)

Two interesting sets of statistics:



and


----------



## free spirit (Jun 13, 2017)

survation got it as 73.8% in the 18-34 age bracket. 
But then they got the proportion of voters who voted in total as being 83.9% when the reality was 69%, so something was obviously amiss.


----------



## killer b (Jun 15, 2017)

I hear Alton Towers are opening a new ride called 'British opinion polls 2017'


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 15, 2017)

broken legs all round then


----------



## newbie (Jun 15, 2017)

killer b said:


> I hear Alton Towers are opening a new ride called 'British opinion polls 2017'


wow, -34 and that's before she wouldn't talk to anyone who survived the tower block or had lost people they loved  

interesting that Labour's more favoured than Corbyn.


----------



## where to (Jun 16, 2017)

I think Labour will be on close to 50% right now. Will be interesting if there are any new polls this weekend.


----------



## JTG (Jun 16, 2017)

newbie said:


> interesting that Labour's more favoured than Corbyn.


Yeah, there's still a fair few Labourites who hate him, I see them bellyaching away still on my social media


----------



## JTG (Jun 16, 2017)

Reminds me of 1992 - Tories scraped in and almost immediately (though not the following week admittedly) crashed in the polls, never to recover.

Major still managed five years - hopefully the fact that May doesn't even have the small majority he did means they won't even make five months


----------



## Ole (Jun 16, 2017)

killer b said:


> I hear Alton Towers are opening a new ride called 'British opinion polls 2017'



Funny as fuck. The trends started immediately upon calling the general election  stupid Tory twats.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 16, 2017)

I know this isn't the US where they seem to have an opinion poll ready for every possible event but it would be interesting to see some sort of approval rating for how the Maybot has handled the last couple of days.


----------



## killer b (Jun 19, 2017)

latest from Yougov. Crikey.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 19, 2017)

killer b said:


> latest from Yougov. Crikey.


Just came to post that. Amazing/surprising!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 19, 2017)

Survation have Labour on 44 and Cons on 41. I just can't wrap my head around how they're still above 40% after this past couple of weeks. And the fact she's actually been getting lots of negative press, which hasn't been seen for a very long time.

It's going to be a damn tough fucking battle.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 19, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Survation have Labour on 44 and Cons on 41. I just can't wrap my head around how they're still above 40% after this past couple of weeks. And the fact she's actually been getting lots of negative press, which hasn't been seen for a very long time.
> 
> It's going to be a damn tough fucking battle.


Makes me worried that whoever replaces her is gonna wipe the floor with Corbyn


----------



## Ptolemy (Jun 19, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Survation have Labour on 44 and Cons on 41. I just can't wrap my head around how they're still above 40% after this past couple of weeks. And the fact she's actually been getting lots of negative press, which hasn't been seen for a very long time.
> 
> It's going to be a damn tough fucking battle.



I was thinking the same thing. Still, it's early days yet, and the lasting damage for the Tories has yet to be done. Still, if Corbyn's "baggage" with the right-wing media is influencing enough people to stick with the Tories, it just underlines the need for further reform in the Labour party.

Get that nomination threshold among MPs down from 15% to 5% and the party can stave off sabotage by the right-wing of the PLP. Ensure that any successor can be selected from the left-wing of the party and carry on the current programme. At the end of the day, it's not just about Corbyn, it's about the long-term future of the party, as I'm sure he'd agree.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 19, 2017)

once the tories inevitably betray the brexiters by having to agree to some sort of transitional arrangement (like norway) for an indefinite period then a chunk of their support may well desert - possibly back to ukip. It will also bring the tory civil war back out into the open. 
On top of that - if the economy continues to slide (again - hello brexit) more support will ebb away.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 21, 2017)

Excellent data here on the surge for the conservatives (the more working class people in a constituency the higher their vote) and the labour surge (the more middle class, remain, students in a constituency the higher their vote. Ditto for ethnic minority voters).

Under Corbyn labour are building a coalition of younger, better educated, middle class, pro EU people:

Does the working class need to ask for its Labour Party back?


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 21, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Excellent data here on the surge for the conservatives (the more working class people in a constituency the higher their vote) and the labour surge (the more middle class, remain, students in a constituency the higher their vote. Ditto for ethnic minority voters).
> 
> Under Corbyn labour are building a coalition of younger, better educated, middle class, pro EU people:
> 
> Does the working class need to ask for its Labour Party back?



Don't really buy their analysis and the agenda is very transparent  - they're being careful to chose the numbers and comparisons to suit their agenda, particularly in the anti-Corbyn digs in the introduction to the article (Tory lead in seats over Corbyn being higher than under Brown - without the explanation of the collapse of other parties giving them that lead, and the situation in Scotland which has been influenced by factors other than Corbyn). Also the analysis appears to focus on vote share rather than total votes, so not necessarily representing a collapse in votes - more to do with the collapse of UKIP and where those votes have moved, which will reduce the share but not necessarily the number voting Labour.


----------



## chilango (Jun 21, 2017)

God, they're desperate to make it about "Remainers" aren't they?


----------



## Rimbaud (Jun 21, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Excellent data here on the surge for the conservatives (the more working class people in a constituency the higher their vote) and the labour surge (the more middle class, remain, students in a constituency the higher their vote. Ditto for ethnic minority voters).
> 
> Under Corbyn labour are building a coalition of younger, better educated, middle class, pro EU people:
> 
> Does the working class need to ask for its Labour Party back?



I can't open the article so apologies if it is addressed within, (in China, my vpn on my laptop won't work because the hard drive is damaged and it thinks the system time is wrong, and my phone doesn't have the vpn password autosaved and the reminder is sent to my gmail which is blocked... only here another month so not going to bother sorting it out) but could this not also be explained by age rather than class? Younger people are far more likely to have a higher education level, and more likely to move towards economically active regions for jobs etc - London is the youngest part of the country for this reason. 

A lot of people who may be seen as working class by profession or education became homeowners through right to buy. This demographic are probably skewing the figures.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 21, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Don't really buy their analysis and the agenda is very transparent  - they're being careful to chose the numbers and comparisons to suit their agenda, particularly in the anti-Corbyn digs in the introduction to the article (Tory lead in seats over Corbyn being higher than under Brown - without the explanation of the collapse of other parties giving them that lead, and the situation in Scotland which has been influenced by factors other than Corbyn). Also the analysis appears to focus on vote share rather than total votes, so not necessarily representing a collapse in votes - more to do with the collapse of UKIP and where those votes have moved, which will reduce the share but not necessarily the number voting Labour.



I pointed towards the data and not the analysis. What is abundantly clear from all of the emerging data is that the biggest surge towards labour was middle class and not working class.

Age, ethnicity and remain were also factors. There is also a split between the cities and elsewhere.

I accept the number of people aged 18-30 in higher education or who have been through is higher now and therefore who is categorised as middle class needs further analysis. But it's  absolutely clear - the people voting Corbyn were not those in the left behind deindustrialised areas or the youth not benefiting from further or higher education or their families for that matter.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 21, 2017)

chilango said:


> God, they're desperate to make it about "Remainers" aren't they?



Remain voter voting patterns are significant. Labour became the party of the remain vote and did relatively badly in pro peace areas. The data is overwhelming on this point.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 21, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> But it's  absolutely clear - the people voting Corbyn were not those in the left behind deindustrialised areas or the youth not benefiting from further or higher education or their families for that matter.


So which are the constituencies you are referring to here that did _not_ get an increase in the Labour vote?  Because whilst I saw some areas in which the Conservative vote went up more than the Labour vote, I can't recall on the night a single constituency in which the Labour vote failed to rise.


----------



## chilango (Jun 21, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Remain voter voting patterns are significant. Labour became the party of the remain vote and did relatively badly in pro peace areas. The data is overwhelming on this point.



...but, that's making assumptions about there being such a thing as a "Remain voter". YouGov are always asking me about whether I voted Remain or not. I did. But I could easily have not. It was touch n go. They'll now be linking that to my Labour vote - which was equally touch n go. Making a connection that isn't there. My vote for Labour had absolutely nothing to do with Brexit. Nobody I know voted on the basis of Brexit, it was all about the manifesto - education, health care etc.


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 21, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> But to be absolutely clear - the people voting Corbyn were not those in the left behind deindustrialised areas or the youth not benefiting from further or higher education or their families for that matter.



I think that is simplifying things to some extent given that Labour held most of those deindustrialised areas with some exceptions and that can't have come solely through 'middle class' votes. 

I guess the 'networked worker' as defined by Paul Mason etc - are likely defined as 'middle class' in the stats - I guess the question is whether they should be viewed as a new part of the working class or not. I'm not sure the traditional ABCDE class definitions are always very helpful these days.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 21, 2017)

chilango said:


> ...but, that's making assumptions about there being such a thing as a "Remain voter". YouGov are always asking me about whether I voted Remain or not. I did. But I could easily have not. It was touch n go. They'll now be linking that to my Labour vote - which was equally touch n go. Making a connection that isn't there. My vote for Labour had absolutely nothing to do with Brexit. Nobody I know voted on the basis of Brexit, it was all about the manifesto - education, health care etc.


This is exactly why I've been trying to get everyone to write to their MP stating precisely why they voted the way they did. Not doing a very good job, though 

Everyone's trying to guess and interpret polls and trends - just bloody ask people!


----------



## chilango (Jun 21, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> This is exactly why I've been trying to get everyone to write to their MP stating precisely why they voted the way they did. Not doing a very good job, though
> 
> Everyone's trying to guess and interpret polls and trends - just bloody ask people!



Yeah.

I suspect that there are common demographic factors that can be found in common in both the remain vote and the upswing in the Labour vote. But that's not the same as Remain=Labour.


----------



## killer b (Jun 21, 2017)

None of this polling is a unexpected is it? The working classes voting for the tories in Labour heartlands was expected to win the tories the election by a landslide - that this demographic shift didn't happen in the numbers that was expected is one of the main reasons we don't currently have a government: but of course it happened. Labour managed to hold back the tide somewhat - the question now (one which I'm sure they're giving some serious thought to) is can they turn it around?

My own conversations suggest that one of Labour's biggest issues with that demographic was simply that they had no confidence in the Labour leadership or the wider Labour party - they thought Corbyn was a clown, the party hopelessly divided (it's no coincidence that these things formed a main plank of the Tory election campaign). I think the election campaign changed some minds (hence the move to tory not being as pronounced as expected), the result and what's happened since will do still more - which is what I expect we're seeing in post-election polling. There's still a  long way for them to go though.


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 21, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> I think that is simplifying things to some extent given that Labour held most of those deindustrialised areas with some exceptions and that can't have come solely through 'middle class' votes.
> 
> I guess the 'networked worker' as defined by Paul Mason etc - are likely defined as 'middle class' in the stats - I guess the question is whether they should be viewed as a new part of the working class or not.* I'm not sure the traditional ABCDE class definitions are always very helpful these days.*



According to this definition, people categorised as C1 (29%, the lowest clerical administrative category) and C2 (21%, skilled manual workers) are middle class. Between them they represent half the population and each account for about the same number of people as the combined total of D (17%, semi-unskilled manual workers) and E (8%, not working). A social categorisation developed by market researchers turns the working class into a quarter of the population and a fifth of the workforce.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 21, 2017)

eoin_k said:


> According to this definition, people categorised as C1 (29%, the lowest clerical administrative category) and C2 (21%, skilled manual workers) are middle class. Between them they represent half the population and each account for about the same number of people as the combined total of D (17%, semi-unskilled manual workers) and E (8%, not working). A social categorisation developed by market researchers turns the working class into a quarter of the population and a fifth of the workforce.


I don't want to say it, but it hurts my maths.

It turns the working class into a sixth of the workforce.

Now I feel better.


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 21, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I don't want to say it, but it hurts my maths.
> 
> It turns the working class into a sixth of the workforce.
> 
> Now I feel better.



I was approximating D/(A+B+C+D) and rounding up, not D/100.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 21, 2017)

eoin_k said:


> I was approximating D/(A+B+C+D) not D/100.


So you were.  I stand corrected.

I'm getting old.  I should retire before someone gets hurt.


----------



## belboid (Jun 21, 2017)

C2 is generally taken as working class. Although the whole thing is bollocks and totally unmarxist definition. I think it says quite a lot about what kind of jobs have disappeared too, automation either destroying  C2 jobs or turning them into minimum wage versions. 

Labour still has a lot of work to do in those areas, like Mansfield or Grimsby, where the former industries have been destroyed and not replaced. Vague talk about big data and coworking doesn't really cut it.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 21, 2017)

killer b said:


> None of this polling is a unexpected is it? The working classes voting for the tories in Labour heartlands was expected to win the tories the election by a landslide - that this demographic shift didn't happen in the numbers that was expected is one of the main reasons we don't currently have a government: but of course it happened. Labour managed to hold back the tide somewhat - the question now (one which I'm sure they're giving some serious thought to) is can they turn it around?
> 
> My own conversations suggest that one of Labour's biggest issues with that demographic was simply that they had no confidence in the Labour leadership or the wider Labour party - they thought Corbyn was a clown, the party hopelessly divided (it's no coincidence that these things formed a main plank of the Tory election campaign).



Yes. I think that's pretty accurate. But the narrative being spun by Momentum and Owen Jones types is that the result indicates a mass return of the working class to the ranks of labour. The data and our own eyes tell us that this isn't the case or at the very least is a very partial reading of the data.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 21, 2017)

belboid said:


> Labour still has a lot of work to do in those areas, like Mansfield or Grimsby, where the former industries have been destroyed and not replaced. Vague talk about big data and coworking doesn't really cut it.



Yes absolutely. The National Investment Bank was a potentially good idea but was undersold and poorly explained during the campaign. A missed opportunity


----------



## chilango (Jun 22, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Yes. I think that's pretty accurate. But the narrative being spun by Momentum and Owen Jones types is that the result indicates a mass return of the working class to the ranks of labour. The data and our own eyes tell us that this isn't the case or at the very least is a very partial reading of the data.



There's an element of truth in this though.

And a very important one.

It's people who used to see themselves (or older generations doing the same jobs) as comfortably middle-class and vote accordingly are beginning doubt this...


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 22, 2017)




----------



## killer b (Jun 22, 2017)

The first time a Labour leader has been ahead on that poll since 2007 apparently


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 22, 2017)

killer b said:


> The first time a Labour leader has been ahead on that poll since 2007 apparently



But of course, we should replace him with a moderate middle manager to really appeal to ordinary, hard working people.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 24, 2017)

Returning to the question of who voted for labour in the GE this research by Paula Surridge at Bristol University delves deeper into questions of class, identity and political attitudes (and finds youth voters less radical on economic issues but more socially liberal than other groups)

Who’s left? – Paula Surridge – Medium


----------



## J Ed (Jun 25, 2017)




----------



## Ptolemy (Jun 25, 2017)

Great to see that Corbyn is so far ahead of May on approval ratings - but those Conservative party numbers just don't want to fall below 40%. Still, fair play to Corbyn and Labour - who could have predicted this at the start of the election campaign?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 25, 2017)

Lol, I can't wait for Dan Hodges to soil himself in rage.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 25, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Lol, I can't wait for Dan Hodges to soil himself in rage.



Just don't tell Mark Oaten when it happens.


----------



## mather (Jun 25, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Just don't tell Mark Oaten when it happens.



LOL!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 25, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Lol, I can't wait for Dan Hodges to soil himself in rage.


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 25, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Excellent data here on the surge for the conservatives (the more working class people in a constituency the higher their vote) and the labour surge (the more middle class, remain, students in a constituency the higher their vote. Ditto for ethnic minority voters).
> 
> Under Corbyn labour are building a coalition of younger, better educated, middle class, pro EU people:
> 
> Does the working class need to ask for its Labour Party back?


The data / analysis in this is carefully examined here: All That Is Solid ...: Corbynism and the Middle Class

It seems that the working class conservative surge only really applies to the over 55s. The bulk of the working age working class voted Labour.


----------



## Ole (Jun 26, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Excellent data here on the surge for the conservatives (the more working class people in a constituency the higher their vote) and the labour surge (the more middle class, remain, students in a constituency the higher their vote. Ditto for ethnic minority voters).
> 
> Under Corbyn labour are building a coalition of younger, better educated, middle class, pro EU people:
> 
> Does the working class need to ask for its Labour Party back?



On the other hand, this data shows that the more working-class voters were, in every age group, the more likely they were to vote Labour and the less likely they were to vote Conservative.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 26, 2017)




----------



## kabbes (Jun 26, 2017)

Ole said:


> On the other hand, this data shows that the more working-class voters were, in every age group, the more likely they were to vote Labour and the less likely they were to vote Conservative.


And in every age group, the less working class, the more likely to vote Lib Dem, I note.


----------



## Ole (Jun 26, 2017)

Even split on that Marxist rag the FT.


----------



## JimW (Jun 26, 2017)

Twelve percent of Labour-voting Torygraph readers buy it for the cricket?


----------



## Ole (Jun 26, 2017)

JimW said:


> Twelve percent of Labour-voting Torygraph readers buy it for the cricket?


I buy it for the football occasionally


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 26, 2017)

JimW said:


> Twelve percent of Labour-voting Torygraph readers buy it for the cricket?


its all Frank Fields subscriptions


----------



## kabbes (Jun 26, 2017)

Ole said:


> Even split on that Marxist rag the FT.


Hey, even pinkos need to avoid going bankrupt.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 26, 2017)

JimW said:


> Twelve percent of Labour-voting Torygraph readers buy it for the cricket?



Sometimes WH Smith's at train stations have a promotion whereby you get a free bottle of water with the telegraph (which costs less than the bottle of water), leading to the situation where you go to buy a bottle of water and at the till the person helpfully lets you know that you get the water free if you buy the telegraph, and the telegraph is cheaper than the water, leaving you having to decide if you're willing to pay more not to take the telegraph and that you can't really justify not taking it and so you end up reading some of it on the train and telling yougov you've read the telegraph in the last 7 days.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 26, 2017)

Look at that sliver of purple reading the Graun, lol.


----------



## Ptolemy (Jul 1, 2017)

Not sure if anyone's posted this yet.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 1, 2017)

Wow, survation has really taken their eye off the ball lately it seems.


----------



## JTG (Jul 1, 2017)

Have there been any methodology changes do we know?

Survation were close to the actual GE result so I'm assuming they haven't changed much


----------



## Ole (Jul 2, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Wow, survation has really taken their eye off the ball lately it seems.


----------



## JTG (Jul 2, 2017)

Not sure where to put this but it's from UK Polling Report so here it is.

Analysis of how the recent GE results may have looked under the proposed new boundaries (which look less and less likely to be implemented). I'd caution that with new boundaries some people may be inclined to vote differently (tactical votes etc) anyway, but it shows how although both big parties would lose a similar number of seats (19/18), it would leave the Tories closer to a majority and probably able to get away without doing deals. 

Some numbers in there around how the current distribution of votes makes it easier for the Tories to win than Labour (ie Labour need to be over seven points ahead to win an overall majority compared to the Tories' 3+) - this used to be the other way around until 2015. I assume this reflects Labour's relative loss of support in Middle England type seats and gains in the cities, piling up massive majorities in already safe seats. Also gains in places they may never win (Weston super Mare - 18,000 votes, highest there since 1945, still way behind the Tories).

Anyway: UK Polling Report


----------



## Ole (Jul 2, 2017)

JTG said:


> Not sure where to put this but it's from UK Polling Report so here it is.
> 
> Analysis of how the recent GE results may have looked under the proposed new boundaries (which look less and less likely to be implemented). I'd caution that with new boundaries some people may be inclined to vote differently (tactical votes etc) anyway, but it shows how although both big parties would lose a similar number of seats (19/18), it would leave the Tories closer to a majority and probably able to get away without doing deals.
> 
> ...



When it comes time to ratify the changes in Autumn 2018 the DUP won't vote for it because it will work in Sinn Fein's favour  couldn't happen to a nicer set of cunts


----------



## JimW (Jul 2, 2017)

JTG said:


> Not sure where to put this but it's from UK Polling Report so here it is.
> 
> Analysis of how the recent GE results may have looked under the proposed new boundaries (which look less and less likely to be implemented). I'd caution that with new boundaries some people may be inclined to vote differently (tactical votes etc) anyway, but it shows how although both big parties would lose a similar number of seats (19/18), it would leave the Tories closer to a majority and probably able to get away without doing deals.
> 
> ...


I see from that Stroud would have stayed Tory which was what you'd expect with  couple of Labour towns being shifted out.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jul 2, 2017)

I doubt that the boundary changes will get done in the current Parliament (however long it lasts), it's expending far too much limited political capital on something that isn't worth  much. The idea isn't dead but it will probably wait till whenever we next have another Tory majority.
The Tories have 2 advantages, they're already the biggest party with the most votes and seats and being the actual government they can try and manipulate events in their favour, though they're limited in this by being a minority govt and that on the biggest issue of all they have to negotiate, they can't just dictate what they want.
Labour's advantages are that not being the government they aren't tainted by however big a pile of shit the Brexit deal is and whilst a lot of people may not love them, there's plenty hate the Tories. 
The next election (next year is my guess) could go either way, The Tories need a smaller swing to win than Labour do but a swing either way is well within the margins we saw at the last election. 
As for polls remember the predictions of a Tory landslide? (I'm down from hysterical laughing to good natured chuckling now but it's still funny) their methodologies obviously are increasingly disconnected from reality and have been for some years since this isn't their first big miss.
I'm a lot more positive today than I was on 7th June.


----------



## JTG (Jul 2, 2017)

Yeah, they're really struggling to keep up with things just now. How to contact enough of certain demographics, rapid swings of opinion in a more connected world etc etc


----------



## yield (Jul 2, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> on that note -
> The election shows why a new centrist party would struggle
> 
> 
> > a week after the EU referendum, an ally of George Osborne approached Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron and suggested the creation of a new centrist party called “the Democrats” (the then chancellor had already pitched the idea to Labour MPs). For nearly two years, conversations such as this one have been taking place among senior politicians. Peter Mandelson, according to Labour figures, is one of those "serious" about creating a new party. This week's _Economist _endorses the Liberal Democrats as a "down payment" on such a project.





danny la rouge said:


> Christ, that article gave me sick in my mouth. "Liberals have to colonise existing parties". Anyone on these boards who still moans about "liberal" being a swear word should be forced to read that filth.


Not sure it's worth a thread of its own but I'm still uneasy about this. So many remainer social liberal Tories and Corbyn hating Labour MPs in safe seats that this could have potential.

Maybe I'm worrying about nothing.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jul 2, 2017)

yield said:


> Not sure it's worth a thread of its own but I'm still uneasy about this. So many remainer social liberal Tories and Corbyn hating Labour MPs in safe seats that this could have potential.
> 
> Maybe I'm worrying about nothing.


I don't see any appetite for a new centrist party from the voters, people seem to be responding better to the two wings than they have for ages. 

If there was one I imagine it would take votes from the Tories and Labour put only as the Libdems do now...


----------



## yield (Jul 2, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> I don't see any appetite for a new centrist party from the voters, people seem to be responding better to the two wings than they have for ages.
> 
> If there was one I imagine it would take votes from the Tories and Labour put only as the Libdems do now...


Yeah I get all that as well. Feel there's some sort of gap with the Brexit negotations that are going to be protracted & painful.

Just trying to grasp at what might be happening within the sickening Westminster bubble.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 3, 2017)

I imagine Macron has re-energised them somewhat. But it's a non-starter, and they surely have to realise that?


----------



## Raheem (Jul 3, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> I imagine Macron has re-energised them somewhat. But it's a non-starter, and they surely have to realise that?



Macron because total collapse of the Socialist Party. Although they might have hoped for it, the equivalent thing has not happened in the UK.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 3, 2017)

I know. Different conditions. Which is why I said surely they have to realise that.


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2017)

Latest ICM

_Labour:_ 43% (up 5)
_Conservatives: _41% (down 2)
_Lib Dems:_ 7% (down 1)
_Ukip:_ 3% (down 1)
_Greens: _3% (up 1)
_Labour lead: _2 points (up 7)

The changes are, confusingly, from the ICM eve of election poll, if that poll was weighted using the 2015 weighting methodology (as the 2017 weighting was way out).


----------



## J Ed (Jul 6, 2017)

8 point lead.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2017)

Why the jeff are respect in there


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 6, 2017)

YouGov/Times:

CON 38 (-6)
LAB 46 (+5)
LD 6 (-2)
UKIP 4 (+2)
OTH 7 (+1)

Changes vs election result excluding NI
5th-6th July

(simpler version of the above)


----------



## J Ed (Jul 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Why the jeff are respect in there



Maybe Yougov think that Galloway's alt right turn will bear fruit soon.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Maybe Yougov think that Galloway's alt right turn will bear fruit soon.


Lot of political gangsta at it right now - only need one to breakthrough....


----------



## JTG (Jul 6, 2017)

Eight points is overall majority territory


----------



## Raheem (Jul 6, 2017)

JTG said:


> Eight points is overall majority territory



And things are not looking up for the Tories...


----------



## JTG (Jul 6, 2017)

JTG said:


> Have there been any methodology changes do we know?
> 
> Survation were close to the actual GE result so I'm assuming they haven't changed much


Just seen on UKPR that ICM have dropped the turnout model that led to enormous Tory leads ie assuming lots of people who said they were going to vote Labour weren't going to turn out.


----------



## JTG (Jul 6, 2017)

Raheem said:


> And things are not looking up for the Tories...


Both parties moving in opposite directions now across more than one poll


----------



## JimW (Jul 6, 2017)

Tory share still stubbornly high. State of them should see it finally start to crumble soon.


----------



## JTG (Jul 6, 2017)

JimW said:


> Tory share still stubbornly high. State of them should see it finally start to crumble soon.


It's below 40, that's a landmark


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2017)

No country for third parties


----------



## JTG (Jul 6, 2017)

What was the highest share Blair polled between 1994 & 1997? Seem to remember a 50 in there somewhere


----------



## lazythursday (Jul 6, 2017)

46 is highest ever Labour score in a YouGov poll apparently.


----------



## Ptolemy (Jul 7, 2017)

JTG said:


> What was the highest share Blair polled between 1994 & 1997? Seem to remember a 50 in there somewhere



Week beginning 4th December, 1995, Gallup/Telegraph had Labour on 62 points (and Cons on 23).


----------



## JTG (Jul 7, 2017)

Ptolemy said:


> Week beginning 4th December, 1995, Gallup/Telegraph had Labour on 62 points (and Cons on 23).


Cheers, just looking it all up here

First Labour lead was recorded 28/7/92 when MORI/Sunday Times had 43/39
After 17/9/92 there was only one Tory lead before the General Election in 1997 - a weird looking outlier of an ICM/Guardian poll on 9/1/93 that showed a Tory lead of 39/37. ICM seem to have regularly found the lowest Labour totals.
First time Labour passed the 46% of the other day was 19/10/92 when Gallup recorded a 51/29 Labour lead
Next four and a half years was spent with Labour regularly polling in the high 40s, 50s and even low 60s.
No Tory lead was recorded between January 1993 and September 2000

Long way to go then. Hopefully not the full five years like 92-97 mind


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2017)

this poll about people's impressions of the general election campaign has some quite interesting numbers. Look at the % of those who's main impression was a positive view of May....







YouGov |  What people recall about the Tory and Labour election campaigns


----------



## JTG (Jul 17, 2017)

Two on Sunday:
Opinium: CON 41%(+2), LAB 43%(-2), LDEM 5%(nc), UKIP 5%(nc)
Survation/Mail on Sunday: CON 39%(nc), LAB 41%(-4), LD 8%(+1), UKIP 6%(+2)

One out today but with fieldwork 10/11 July:
YouGov: Con 40% (+2), Lab 45% (-1), LD 7%, Oth 8%


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 17, 2017)

The anti-Brexit LibDem surge continues unabated I see.


----------



## mather (Jul 17, 2017)

JTG said:


> Two on Sunday:
> Opinium: CON 41%(+2), LAB 43%(-2), LDEM 5%(nc), UKIP 5%(nc)
> Survation/Mail on Sunday: CON 39%(nc), LAB 41%(-4), LD 8%(+1), UKIP 6%(+2)
> 
> ...



It seems that the momentum that Labour has been enjoying in the polls is starting to come to a halt. Is it temporary or have we reached peak Corbyn?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 17, 2017)

There's not a great deal of anything happening at the moment, it's all a kind of stalemate now the DUP thing is worked out and while the Brexit talks are in their infancy and not really doing anything, and while the twunts in the PLP continue their sniping (albeit mildly more subdued in nature than previously).

Hopefully this fucking stupid public sector pay thing from Hammond will get more coverage and shift things again, but then public sector workers aren't automatically feted (in the way they are when something like Grenfell happens) like you might expect after decades of treating them like scum in the press.


----------



## JTG (Jul 25, 2017)

ICM/Guardian 14-16/7: Con 42% (+1), Lab 43% (nc), LD 7% (nc), UKIP 3% (nc) changes from two weeks previous
YouGov/Times 18-19/7: Con 41% (+1), Lab 43% (-2), LD 6% (-1), UKIP 3%
IpsosMORI/Standard 14-18/7: Con 41%, Lab 42%, LD 9%, UKIP 3%

All showing a small Labour lead, Tories still won't drop below 40. Only One Tory lead since GE (Survation end of June)


----------



## JTG (Jul 25, 2017)

Preferred PM is still May by 5-8% in these. Corbyn has only had one lead since GE (YouGov/Times 21-22/6 by one point)


----------



## Wilf (Jul 25, 2017)

mather said:


> It seems that the momentum that Labour has been enjoying in the polls is starting to come to a halt. Is it temporary or have we reached peak Corbyn?


Good question - and it gets us right to the question of what the Labour/Corbyn surge at the election was. Given that I thought the Tories would increase their majority, I'm not going to suggest anything with confidence, but there certainly were 'special circumstances' going on last month.  It was a weird election that was supposed to be about brexit and leadership and ended up being about the tory manifesto and multiple campaign trail fuck ups. It also seems to have produced an unusual coalition, labour doing better amongst working class voters but in a very patchy way + the influx of younger voters. We don't know whether that will hold and we don't know how a future campaign would run when there would be a genuine focus on Corbyn as a potential prime minister.  The other issue of course - more helpful for Labour - is that the next election will probably be after a shit brexit deal has been reached, unless May is replaced and the new PM calls a snap election.  As I said on the Corbyn thread I think the chances of May being booted out pre-brexit have probably receded a bit - and you'd imagine even if she was was, the incoming leader wouldn't call an election before the deal was done. That would be 2 elections amid the negotiations, the voters would think the govt were taking the piss.

That's all a ramble and an extended version of saying we don't really know what the underlying trends in the electorate are (or indeed the _kind of_ election the next one will be).  The obvious point is that Labour are in a stronger position than they've been since about 2012, when they were setting the agenda in terms of opposing the 'fast and deep' version of austerity.  But things are so messy that I'm not convinced they could get a majority or even become the largest party, even now.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 19, 2017)

Professor John Curticr (the crazy haired pollster professor  from the BBC election night coverage) just gave a talk at the conference I’m at.  It was good — want went wrong and right in 2015, Brexit, 2017.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2017)

Speaking of Brexit polling, this piece from Kellner is interesting (maybe)

Crunching the numbers: Are voters really turning against Brexit?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 19, 2017)

killer b said:


> Speaking of Brexit polling, this piece from Kellner is interesting (maybe)
> 
> Crunching the numbers: Are voters really turning against Brexit?


I think this is the key bit:


> That said, even if YouGov’s latest poll is exactly right, we are some way from seeing the degree of change in public opinion that will have a big impact at Westminster. Not unless we see a run of polls showing “wrong” leading “right” by close to 60-40 per cent will Remainers have a strong case for citing public opinion as a reason to overturn the referendum result.


 to me, the interesting trend is that several months of mounting omnishambles in the tory party/cabinet, along with a press narrative that there will either be no deal or a bad deal has only produced a small shift. My pure guess is that if there was another ref it could go either way.  There would be a lot of outrage about rerunning the will of the people, to get the elite's 'right result' balanced against the growing notion that brexit is going badly. Maybe Remain would win it, but on a lower turnout.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2017)

Well, all the polls are moving glacially atm, but I think there's a clear direction of movement in all of them. Corbyn/May now on level, Labour 4-6 points ahead... The slowness of movement is IMO probably down to just how poisonous Corbyn and the EU are to huge swathes of the population as much as anything else.


----------



## bemused (Oct 19, 2017)

Wilf said:


> But things are so messy that I'm not convinced they could get a majority or even become the largest party, even now.



I'm reasonably confident that by the next election the Tories will have a new leader and a much better campaign. Although May seems to be a rather good manager as a campaigner she's got the media presence of an unlikable teacher. The question is what leader they end up with? Ruth Davidson would make it the most interesting fight, but she's not in Parliment and Rudd who appears the saner choice of frontbenchers is sitting on a majority of 300ish.

The Tory Party have the same problem Labour did at their last serious leadership election - none of the established candidates has any personal charm. Corbyn is if you like him or not most will accept he has a personality and degree of charm.

I'm hoping we're election free until after Brexit, I've had enough of voting.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2017)

You'd rather the biggest diplomatic challenge the country has faced in your lifetime was carried out by a gang of warring inbred clownshoed cunts than stroll to your local primary school on a thursday afternoon and put a cross in a box _again_? 

ok.


----------



## bemused (Oct 19, 2017)

killer b said:


> You'd rather the biggest diplomatic challenge the country has faced in your lifetime was carried out by a gang of warring inbred clownshoed cunts than stroll to your local primary school on a thursday afternoon and put a cross in a box _again_?
> 
> ok.



I'd rather not have another election. We had one, there was a winner.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 19, 2017)

bemused said:


> I'd rather not have another election. We had one, there was a winner.


The DUP.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2017)

Ha! indeed.


----------



## agricola (Oct 19, 2017)

bemused said:


> I'm reasonably confident that by the next election the Tories will have a new leader and a much better campaign. Although May seems to be a rather good manager as a campaigner she's got the media presence of an unlikable teacher. The question is what leader they end up with? Ruth Davidson would make it the most interesting fight, but she's not in Parliment and Rudd who appears the saner choice of frontbenchers is sitting on a majority of 300ish.
> 
> The Tory Party have the same problem Labour did at their last serious leadership election - none of the established candidates has any personal charm. Corbyn is if you like him or not most will accept he has a personality and degree of charm.
> 
> I'm hoping we're election free until after Brexit, I've had enough of voting.



They will certainly present it better and will almost certainly have a more effective leader, but the problems the 2017 Tory campaign faced with regards to policies will be even worse next time around.  The status quo is going to be vomit and its very hard to see any of them (leaders or otherwise) even proposing credible solutions to the very real crises in the military, housing, student finance, social care, the NHS and the rest; there isn't any real evidence that many of them actually acknowledge these crises exist - something perhaps proved by the fact that the only thing they have really been outraged about since the election is Uber losing its licence.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 19, 2017)




----------



## Silas Loom (Nov 19, 2017)

Why would internal polling be more trustworthy? Surely the samples are less stable and the weighting less reliable?


----------



## JimW (Nov 19, 2017)

Fez909 said:


>



True or some sort of three-dimensional chess?


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 19, 2017)

Silas Loom said:


> Why would internal polling be more trustworthy? Surely the samples are less stable and the weighting less reliable?


According to the Reddit thread on this, the parties are using the more expensive and accurate polling methods that YouGov used in the election run up. The media won't run these polls so far off an election due to cost so they're still using the old, inaccurate methods.


----------



## Silas Loom (Nov 19, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> According to the Reddit thread on this, the parties are using the more expensive and accurate polling methods that YouGov used in the election run up. The media won't run these polls so far off an election due to cost so they're still using the old, inaccurate methods.




Ashcroft must still be spunking his ill-gotten cash, though.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 19, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> According to the Reddit thread on this, the parties are using the more expensive and accurate polling methods that YouGov used in the election run up. The media won't run these polls so far off an election due to cost so they're still using the old, inaccurate methods.


The new YouGov methodology wasn’t about producing a percentage point lead, though.  That was the whole point.  It was about producing a demographic factor analysis that allowed each constituency to be separately predicted direct from its demographic make up.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 19, 2017)

kabbes said:


> It was about producing a demographic factor analysis that allowed each constituency to be separately predicted direct from its demographic make up.


From which you could infer a % lead, no?


----------



## kabbes (Nov 19, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> From which you could infer a % lead, no?


What would be the point?  The only reason you estimate a % lead is to guess the overall election result.  The new methodology jumps straight to the result.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 19, 2017)

kabbes said:


> What would be the point?  The only reason you estimate a % lead is to guess the overall election result.  The new methodology jumps straight to the result.


True.

It's possible that the 12% thing isn't even true, and it's also possible that the discrepancy _isn't _because of a different polling method.

Just passing on what I read...


----------



## ska invita (Dec 17, 2017)

killer b said:


> I read an interesting article about why there's such a wide range of figures on the polls atm - in Alabama they had a spread of 20 points or something. Basically no-one knows how to weigh anymore.





killer b said:


> Here's the piece - almost everything in it is applicable to polls here I reckon
> Why polls showing a 20-point spread in Alabama aren't actually 'wrong'


What has changed that means they used to be able to weigh and now they can't? Is it a social factor?


----------



## killer b (Dec 17, 2017)

They can't get to enough younger voters or people who aren't politically engaged, and there's a high level of volatility between elections.


----------



## belboid (Dec 17, 2017)

Basically, they just can’t work out who is actually likely to vote.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> Basically, they just can’t work out who is actually likely to vote.


i just dont see what has changed historically that up until recently polls used to be a lot better and are unpredictable now. How come they could tell before who would turn out and not anymore.


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2017)

ska invita said:


> i just dont see what has changed historically that up until recently polls used to be a lot better and are unpredictable now. How come they could tell before who would turn out and not anymore.


It was steadier. You could pretty much draw a straight line from young to old, and working class to middle class, and predict the turnout. The last couple of votes (EU & GE) have seen massively increased turnout from the expected in wc & youth votes.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 18, 2017)

belboid said:


> It was steadier. You could pretty much draw a straight line from young to old, and working class to middle class, and predict the turnout. The last couple of votes (EU & GE) have seen massively increased turnout from the expected in wc & youth votes.


and i guess the point is this is true in Alabama and the last US general election also, which i think activated and deactivated people from voting in not usual patterns. seems likely this is a reflection of a changed political landscape with candidates standing who make appeals to previously sidelined groups, who buck trends of earlier models.  ?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 29, 2018)

Interesting piece here on the supposed increase in youth turnout


> The Labour ‘youthquake’ explanation looks to become an assumed fact about the 2017 election. The Oxford English Dictionary even declared ‘youthquake’ their word of the year. But people have been much too hasty. There was no surge in youth turnout at the 2017 election.





> the age-turnout relationship barely changed between 2015 and 2017. The shaded grey areas represent the margin of error that surrounds the estimated level of turnout at each age. There is no evidence of a surge in voter turnout amongst the youngest eligible voters (indeed turnout in the youngest age group is actually slightly _lower _in our 2017 survey).


----------



## krink (Feb 2, 2018)

There was an interesting poll last night here in Sunderland! Seat came up in Pallion ward (solid poor, working class area) after leader of the council Paul Watson died. Libs won quite easily with a big drop for the Labour, tory, green and ukip candidates. 32% turnout which I think  is probably  normal for this area. This is the second safe labour council seat the libs have taken lately and it seems to be down to general pessimism with the usual suspects and the libs actually doing stuff in the area. I have trouble with this phone so I have no links but here is a screenshot of a results sheet


33% swing to libs I heard


----------



## NoXion (Feb 2, 2018)

Jesus fucking Christ why won't the Lib Dems just fuck off and die already?


----------



## Voley (Jul 15, 2018)

Opinium 10/7/18

LAB: 40%
CON: 36%
LD: 8%
UKIP 8%

Political Polling 10th July 2018 - Opinium

Biggest Labour lead since the general election but that's just because people have turned to UKIP according to The Guardian:

Labour opens up biggest lead over Tories since general election


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Jul 15, 2018)

NoXion said:


> Jesus fucking Christ why won't the Lib Dems just fuck off and die already?


I seem to remember reading that following their emm ah um achievements 2010 to 2015 the fib-dimotwats said they would be happy to jump into bed with the conservatives again if it was required. any one comfirm this.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 15, 2018)

SikhWarrioR said:


> I seem to remember reading that following their emm ah um achievements 2010 to 2015 the fib-dimotwats said they would be happy to jump into bed with the conservatives again if it was required. any one comfirm this.



I haven't read them saying so, but yes - I can confirm that they would do it again.


----------



## newbie (Sep 28, 2018)

Ever wondered why we get so many polls published, and in whose interests they're conducted? 



> Nicky Morgan, a Conservative MP and chair of the powerful Treasury select committee, has written to British Polling Council president, Sir John Curtice, warning that the use of private polling data during election and referendum campaigns could risk the integrity of financial markets.
> 
> It follows a Bloomberg report earlier this year into private polling data sold by companies such as YouGov, Survation and ICM in the run-up to the 2016 Brexit vote.
> 
> ...





> The Tory MP is calling on the British Polling Council to modify its rules so pollsters are forced to inform respondents to polls that the information they supply may be used to help private clients make money.
> 
> In addition, polling firms would have to disclose, when publishing or discussing published polls, whether they have conducted similar work on behalf of private clients.
> 
> Under her proposals they would have to disclose whether published polls have been conducted free of charge, or at a discount to the usual fee such work would attract.


Hedge funds' purchase of Brexit vote polling data under scrutiny


----------



## marty21 (Sep 28, 2018)

newbie said:


> Ever wondered why we get so many polls published, and in whose interests they're conducted?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


#grubby


----------



## brogdale (Oct 22, 2018)

In YG's latest...18% of those questioned thought the Government were doing "well" at negotiating Britain's exit from the EU. 18%; extraordinary.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 22, 2018)

TBF, no one knows how well the negotiations are actually going, none of us have that inside knowledge. 

Although, according to both the EU & our government, we are 95% there.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 22, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> TBF, no one knows how well the negotiations are actually going, none of us have that inside knowledge.
> 
> Although, according to both the EU & our government, we are 95% there.


Yep, but pollsters ask 'how well/badly do you think'...sentiment, innit.


----------



## Poi E (Oct 22, 2018)

brogdale said:


> In YG's latest...18% of those questioned thought the Government were doing "well" at negotiating Britain's exit from the EU. 18%; extraordinary.
> 
> View attachment 150362



I know. That high!


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 22, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Yep, but pollsters ask 'how well/badly do you think'...sentiment, innit.



Which makes the poll totally fucking pointless.


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Which makes the poll totally fucking pointless.


It isn't though is it? They aren't polling to find out how well the talks are going - that would be pointless. They're polling to find out how well people think they're going, which is a fairly key measure of 'national mood' right now.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 22, 2018)

killer b said:


> It isn't though is it? They aren't polling to find out how well the talks are going - that would be pointless. They're polling to find out how well people think they're going, which is a fairly key measure of 'national mood' right now.



Unless we are about to have a general election, measuring the 'national mood', over something no one actually knows the detail about, is pointless IMO.


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2018)

The workings of government in general is pretty opaque to the majority of the public. I don't think that means polling in general is pointless does it?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 22, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Which makes the poll totally fucking pointless.


Polling has it's critics and many faults, but asking a sample of the electorate how they feel about the effectiveness of a Govt/policy etc. does have a point. Sampling like this is the 'dynamic' data that helps to fill some of the gaps between the (static) snapshot glimpses offered by episodes of formal political democracy.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 22, 2018)

Poi E said:


> I know. That high!


Nearly 1 in 5, FFS.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 22, 2018)

Polling has failed time & time again when it's important, as in attempting to predict the outcome of elections or the bloody EU referendum, and has therefore proved to be fairly pointless.

Trying to measure people's mood over something they have no inside knowledge of whatsoever is beyond laughable.


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Polling has failed time & time again when it's important, as in attempting to predict the outcome of elections or the bloody EU referendum, and has therefore proved to be fairly pointless.


when were they outside the margin of error?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 22, 2018)

killer b said:


> when were they outside the margin of error?



You are seriously asking that?


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2018)

Ha, I should have checked first, I had them all much closer in my memory. All of them seem to have got the tory vote pretty much nailed mind - just the Labour vote underestimated...


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 22, 2018)

killer b said:


> Ha, I should have checked first, I had them all much closer in my memory. All of them seem to have got the tory vote pretty much nailed mind - just the Labour vote underestimated...





And...

 

All so fucking pointless.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2018)

Wrong doesn't mean pointless


----------



## brogdale (Oct 22, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Polling has failed time & time again when it's important, as in attempting to predict the outcome of elections or the bloody EU referendum, and has therefore proved to be fairly pointless.
> 
> Trying to measure people's mood over something they have no inside knowledge of whatsoever is beyond laughable.



Which is clearly your strongly held view...perhaps best to leave threads about polling to those who do see some value in attempting to gauge public political sentiment?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2018)

Polls aren't predictions. Betting odds aren't predictions either. They are both accurate measures of what they're measuring.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2018)

_Hey, yougov have never asked me!

et bleedin cetera_


----------



## kabbes (Oct 22, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Polls aren't predictions. Betting odds aren't predictions either. They are both accurate measures of what they're measuring.


Although the published result is an adaptation of the original raw data, in an attempt to allow for some difference between what is being measured and what the pollsters are actually trying to measure.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 27, 2018)

Interesting.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 15, 2018)

Season's greetings my fellow psephology geeks; fill yer boots!

Courtesy the HoC Library : here 

First graph is a good'un...


----------



## ska invita (Dec 15, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Season's greetings my fellow psephology geeks; fill yer boots!
> 
> Courtesy the HoC Library : here
> 
> ...


Blair


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Although the published result is an adaptation of the original raw data, in an attempt to allow for some difference between what is being measured and what the pollsters are actually trying to measure.


Indeed, and the various weighting methodologies can account for significant differences in polling outcome:


----------



## Knotted (Jan 7, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Polls aren't predictions. Betting odds aren't predictions either. They are both accurate measures of what they're measuring.



When the polling companies were (with the exception of Survation) using turn out models they were diluting their polling with an attempt at predicting turn out. So you had a mish mash of polling and predictions based on past data. And it was shameful. Even more shameful that they only stopped when it didn't bare predictive fruits.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 5, 2019)

Tory Brexit 'handling' going down like a bucket of cold sick...



Enlarged graphic:


----------



## brogdale (Mar 17, 2019)

Worth watching...


----------



## ska invita (Mar 17, 2019)

No Tinge on there?

I don't think last week's display looks that good for the Tories. This week should be funner.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 17, 2019)

ska invita said:


> No Tinge on there?
> 
> I don't think last week's display looks that good for the Tories. This week should be funner.


I think TInGe are appearing under 'others' at present.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> I think TInGe are appearing under 'others' at present.


Previous entry on polling report
11th March....

Most polling companies are not, at present, including the Independent Group in polls – something that will presumably change as they take steps towards actually forming a party and clarifying their future intentions. 

Weird - should at least be other, as you say. The one poll with them on from 5th March doesnt have them in Other
https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Brexit-Express-Poll-March-2019_updated3.pdf
and has them on 8%


----------



## brogdale (Mar 17, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Previous entry on polling report
> 11th March....
> 
> Most polling companies are not, at present, including the Independent Group in polls – something that will presumably change as they take steps towards actually forming a party and clarifying their future intentions.
> ...


They don't come anywhere near requiring a separate listing at present.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> They don't come anywhere near requiring a separate listing at present.


8% is equal to lib dems and more than ukip in that 5th March poll in the PDF?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 17, 2019)

ska invita said:


> 8% is equal to lib dems and more than ukip in that 5th March poll in the PDF?


Yes, but that polling number came just after they were all over the media; they were the news. The other 2 parties are political parties recognised by the Electoral Commission and both with (varying degrees of) national infrastructure. As yet, TInGe have none of this and I don't really think that 8% of the electorate will get the chance to vote for them, let alone actually do so.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 5, 2019)

Almost as though Tommeh ain't in there at all...


----------



## brogdale (Apr 5, 2019)

'kinnel


----------



## brogdale (Apr 17, 2019)

lol


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> lol
> 
> View attachment 168089



Chickens coming home to roost.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 17, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Chickens coming home to roost.


Quite something really that fully 15% of those who reckon that they'll bother voting will do so for the party responsible for the (unwanted?) vote.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 17, 2019)

YouGov EU Poll: 

UKIP/Brexit 34% v Labour 22%

Working Class C2DE
•Labour 20% 
•UKIP/Brexit 42% 

MIdlands/Wales
•Labour 19% 
•UKIP/Brexit 45% 

North England
•Labour 33% 
•UKIP/Brexit 32% 

Scotland
•Labour 16% 
•UKIP/Brexit 17% 

London
•Labour 25% 
•UKIP/Brexit 23%


----------



## Benjamin F (Apr 17, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> YouGov EU Poll:
> 
> UKIP/Brexit 34% v Labour 22%
> 
> ...



F*ck those really are scary figures, especially the hold of Brit' nationalism within the English working classes. The Scottish figure is slightly misleading, for in most regards the SNP has taken the place of the Labour Party and the SNP is polling, I guess, at about 40+%. Nonetheless the UKIP/Brexit here beats the far-right vote in 2014 (just under 13% with UKIP, BNP and Britain First)


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Apr 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> lol
> 
> View attachment 168089



Chuka Umunna on on six percent?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 17, 2019)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Chuka Umunna on on six percent?



Centrist remoan for the loss!


----------



## Balbi (Apr 18, 2019)

Benjamin F said:


> F*ck those really are scary figures, especially the hold of Brit' nationalism within the English working classes. The Scottish figure is slightly misleading, for in most regards the SNP has taken the place of the Labour Party and the SNP is polling, I guess, at about 40+%. Nonetheless the UKIP/Brexit here beats the far-right vote in 2014 (just under 13% with UKIP, BNP and Britain First)



It's not that scary tbh. The UK has always treated EU elections differently to General Elections - sending the BNP and Farage off to Brussels as a sort of weird fuck you to it all, while all the main parties sort of ignores their reps in the EU Parliament because it was handy to blame shit on the EU even though they had party members there.


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2019)

I don't think there's anything in that poll that we don't already know (although I'd be cautious of assuming those are solid number for the brexit party, which has had a lot of press this week - yougov have done a second poll a day later with a drop of 4 points). If you add up the remainish poll results vs the leavish results it's about 50/50.

I think it does tell you how unwilling to compromise each set of voters are though, and it's not looking great for the hard remain lot.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 18, 2019)

killer b said:


> I don't think there's anything in that poll that we don't already know (although I'd be cautious of assuming those are solid number for the brexit party, which has had a lot of press this week - yougov have done a second poll a day later with a drop of 4 points). If you add up the remainish poll results vs the leavish results it's about 50/50.
> 
> I think it does tell you how unwilling to compromise each set of voters are though, and it's not looking great for the hard remain lot.


All the above - and I've not seen much in any of these polls that suggest Labour would do better if it came out for a 2nd ref in the Euro polls. Of course they play out regionally with PR and party lists, so there will be some fine margins as to whether any party gets say 3 out of the 7 seats or 2. Also, a more remain minded Labour might do better in London for example.

Almost certainly this will be a shouty election. Farage's lot will manage that and probably do well. Labour's best response would be an equally shouty response that pushed public services, living wage, scrapping universal credit and the rest, _regardless of brexit_. Dare I say it, a lexit.


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2019)

Need to see some more EU polling tbh, check this one out.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 18, 2019)

Think the YouGov one excluded don’t knows, which there were apparently quite a lot of, so that might make things a bit variable between polls. More people likely to make their mind up nearer the time I guess so it might converge a bit more.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2019)

killer b said:


> Need to see some more EU polling tbh, check this one out.



The ComRes Westminster one is interesting; feels like the _Great brexit betrayal _narrative is cutting through and driving some real polling change. Corbyn's game plan looking (politically) very sound at this stage.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2019)

Solid labour - shows the madness of the beckett/people's vote stuff. Stick with who has stuck by you if you want to survive.


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2019)

If they had a competent leader with a pro-EU message they'd be ten points ahea- oh.


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2019)

Anyway, I know were only a few days and a couple of polls into the EP campaign, but it looks to me like TIG are toast. Theres already a narrative baked in - only Labour can save us from the farragist hordes - and I can't see what's going to shift that.

I thought Labour would want to avoid EP elections happening, as it could result in some easy wins and a political base to work from for TIG: whereas its actually going to be the exact opposite, the first opportunity for Labour to crush them at the ballot box, and reassert themselves as the only electoral alternative to the Tories.

Made me laugh to see uber-remain nutcase Andrew Adonis is standing for election as an MEP for Labour: I fucking hate him but that's a really smart move IMO.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2019)

_I'm labour - i want the chaos. _They literally can come out the unsullied ones.

Adonis never going to get away with it. The shit they've been electing here there and everywhere. cantsin - what you doing?


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2019)

I dont imagine he'll win - second on the list in the south west and theres a lot of ground for labour to make up before he could be in with a chance - but his candidature helps with the kneecapping of TIG. Deep in FBPE territory calling for a labour vote, and a lot of people who might consider TIG or the lib dems might well look at the polling and agree with him.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2019)

Oh no, this is hard leave area.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2019)

Labour will get their normal, tories will as pigs will


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2019)

There is no lesson beyond the one that the labour party endures and can't be controlled.


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Oh no, this is hard leave area.


Sorry, I meant FBPE territory metaphorically/ nationally: I know he's unlikely to win. I think he's a really smart choice as far as holding the labour remain/leave coalition together is concerned.


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2019)

Actually I take it all back.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2019)

You may have missed his piece arguing that history will judge leave voters as 'traitors' as well.


----------



## Sue (Apr 20, 2019)

Is it not a bit....unusual...telling voters not to vote for your party..?


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> You may have missed his piece arguing that history will judge leave voters as 'traitors' as well.


I had, but I dont think that really matters - people can hold in their head the idea that there is a range of views across a political party, especially when the frother in question has a long held and well known animosity to the leadership. Explicitly telling them not to vote for for them is different though.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2019)

killer b said:


> I had, but I dont think that really matters - people can hold in their head the idea that there is a range of views across a political party, especially when the frother in question has a long held and well known animosity to the leadership. Explicitly telling them not to vote for for them is different though.


I reckon calling a reasonable chunk of your 'core' vote _traitors _does matter, tbh.


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2019)

brogdale said:


> I reckon calling a reasonable chunk of your 'core' vote _traitors _does matter, tbh.


Struggling to find this speech tbh. Could you link us up butchersapron?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2019)

killer b said:


> Struggling to find this speech tbh. Could you link us up butchersapron?


Can't find it after a quick look - it was jointly written piece, maybe with Will Hutton, but when i try to visualise it i keep coming up with a byline with him and a female face. I'll have a proper look after getting some grub.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2019)

Back OT (  ) 

Here's the Westminster polling tracker up to this week:



Getting a bit crowded down there with the 'bottom feeders'.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2019)

Looks like Farage's growing exposure & the growing reality of the Euro elections are having a 'spill-over' impact on the Westminster polling. 
Tories continuing to take a hit and ChUK pegged on 4%.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 29, 2019)

I think Labour have been shit over brexit - no real sign of a lexit, no real direct engagement with leave voters/places. But they've come to the point where they might as well let this play out, electorally at least. Keep well away from second ref promises and let the Tories die screaming in the local and euro elections. They also need to keep well away from supporting May's deal for the same kind of reasons. It's a shit deal anyway and they might as well let May fail on mv4. That really should be the end of the road for May - let the civil war begin. Anything could follow from that but, cynically perhaps, Labour need to remain in favour of honouring the brexit vote, but do everything they can to stop the _Tories_ delivering it.

Edit: where I'm going with that is Labour should probably be saying 'the tories can't deliver brexit. When they've destroyed themselves, we'll do it'.  It's not a particularly consistent of logical line, but it's the best there is. If a few more MPs go and join the chunks, so be it.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 29, 2019)

> CHUK - 4%.



En Marche!


----------



## marty21 (Apr 29, 2019)

Surprised that the Lib Dems haven't had much of a 'remain bounce' - I'm guessing that the coalition years are still battering them.


----------



## killer b (Apr 29, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I think Labour have been shit over brexit - no real sign of a lexit, no real direct engagement with leave voters/places. But they've come to the point where they might as well let this play out, electorally at least. Keep well away from second ref promises and let the Tories die screaming in the local and euro elections. They also need to keep well away from supporting May's deal for the same kind of reasons. It's a shit deal anyway and they might as well let May fail on mv4. That really should be the end of the road for May - let the civil war begin. Anything could follow from that but, cynically perhaps, Labour need to remain in favour of honouring the brexit vote, but do everything they can to stop the _Tories_ delivering it.
> 
> Edit: where I'm going with that is Labour should probably be saying 'the tories can't deliver brexit. When they've destroyed themselves, we'll do it'.  It's not a particularly consistent of logical line, but it's the best there is. If a few more MPs go and join the chunks, so be it.


I don't think anyone can sensibly look at those numbers and say that Labour need to come out for a second ref - they might pick up at best a couple of points from TIG and the Lib Dems, and lose at least as many from the other flank - it's just not worth it. Likewise though, a more solid pro-lexit/brexit delivery position would see them losing a lot to the FBPE parties, and I can't see them picking that much up from the faragists or tories.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I think Labour have been shit over brexit - no real sign of a lexit, no real direct engagement with leave voters/places. But they've come to the point where they might as well let this play out, electorally at least. Keep well away from second ref promises and let the Tories die screaming in the local and euro elections. They also need to keep well away from supporting May's deal for the same kind of reasons. It's a shit deal anyway and they might as well let May fail on mv4. That really should be the end of the road for May - let the civil war begin. Anything could follow from that but, cynically perhaps, Labour need to remain in favour of honouring the brexit vote, but do everything they can to stop the _Tories_ delivering it.
> 
> Edit: where I'm going with that is Labour should probably be saying 'the tories can't deliver brexit. When they've destroyed themselves, we'll do it'.  It's not a particularly consistent of logical line, but it's the best there is. If a few more MPs go and join the chunks, so be it.


I suspect that a large part of labour's current solid polling (domestically and european) is, as daft as it sounds, an equally solid strong remain bloc that has decided that the labour party is the only possible path to a second referendum, to a withdrawal of A50 or any other method of stopping brexit. They know full well that the lib-dem and chuk lot have no power and no chance of being anything but an irritant and that there is no way to pressure the tories - that is now all about internal stuff. But Corbyn, with his demand that the leadership do what the party membership/wider support wants has dug himself a nice little bevan sized hole and jumped right into it (and remember that bevan stuff split the labout left for what, the next 10 years?). If this is the case then the political equation for labour may well turn out to be based on a) externally  - who do we want to lose least - the solid voters in the leave seats or the remain voters in the seats we don't win so often but does contain a lot of swing seats that are key to winning a national election - and b) internally how to deal with the fallout of either choice. Because they simply cannot appease both sides forever. But they can for now. In the hope another path opens up or presents itself.


----------



## killer b (Apr 29, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> they simply cannot appease both sides forever. But they can for now.


the gnashing of teeth from those who thought that time had come looking at the polls and realising it hasn't is quite funny.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 29, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I suspect that a large part of labour's current solid polling (domestically and european) is, as daft as it sounds, an equally solid strong remain bloc that has decided that the labour party is the only possible path to a second referendum, to a withdrawal of A50 or any other method of stopping brexit. They know full well that the lib-dem and chuk lot have no power and no chance of being anything but an irritant and that there is no way to pressure the tories - that is now all about internal stuff. But Corbyn, with his demand that the leadership do what the party membership/wider support wants has dug himself a nice little bevan sized hole and jumped right into it (and remember that bevan stuff split the labout left for what, the next 10 years?). If this is the case then the political equation for labour may well turn out to be based on a) externally  - who do we want to lose least - the solid voters in the leave seats or the remain voters in the seats we don't win so often but does contain a lot of swing seats that are key to winning a national election - and b) internally how to deal with the fallout of either choice.* Because they simply cannot appease both sides forever. But they can for now. In the hope another path opens up or presents itself*.


That sounds interesting - and convincing - in terms of what Labour's vote is made up of at the moment. I think the Bevan analogy is also right in terms of who Corbyn is looking to, regards as sovereign in the party and the rest and indeed where it may lead him. Most of all I'm thinking along the lines of the bolded bit. Corbyn and the labour left/momentum haven't done the hard work to build an alternative, probably don't have the political inclinations to construct any kind of engaged working class politics. In the absence of that, their best bet strategically is maintain their ambiguity/passivity through to at least the Euro elections.  The draft leaflet and response to it shows how little room for manoeuvre this is with this strategy, but their probable victory in the local elections holds things together for a bit longer.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Looks like Farage's growing exposure & the growing reality of the Euro elections are having a 'spill-over' impact on the Westminster polling.
> Tories continuing to take a hit and ChUK pegged on 4%.



not the last time chuk pegged i'll be bound


----------



## killer b (Apr 29, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Corbyn and the labour left/momentum haven't done the hard work to build an alternative, probably don't have the political inclinations to construct any kind of engaged working class politics.


I think they'd fucking love to be able to construct an engaged working class politics. They don't have the resources or the roots, rather than the inclination.


----------



## killer b (Apr 29, 2019)

How _do_ you construct an engaged working class politics? I'd guess it would most effectively be done through community organising around resisting cuts to services, or creating groups and activities within working class communities that fill a gap left by the state retreating from them. On a local level, for the vast majority of working class communities, the people doing the cutting, and the state retreating from them is run by... The Labour Party. That, more than anything else, is what hamstrings Labour from making more inroads back into the working class.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 29, 2019)

killer b said:


> How _do_ you construct an engaged working class politics? I'd guess it would most effectively be done through community organising around resisting cuts to services, or creating groups and activities within working class communities that fill a gap left by the state retreating from them. On a local level, for the vast majority of working class communities, the people doing the cutting, and the state retreating from them is run by... The Labour Party. That, more than anything else, is what hamstrings Labour from making more inroads back into the working class.


Yes, I absolutely agree with this. And while I accept it's a hard issue for Labour members to resolve a lot of the time there doesn't even seem to be a recognition of the problem or a discussion of how to deal with it. At least not one beyond, elect a Labour gov at Westminster and the Tory cuts will be stopped.


----------



## killer b (Apr 29, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> there doesn't even seem to be a recognition of the problem or a discussion of how to deal with it.


I don't think this is really true, though. There's a lot of discussion and debate about what Labour councils can do (cf. the recent heavy pushing of the Preston Model etc), and internal battles between party factions (cf. Haringey). It just moves very slowly.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 29, 2019)

killer b said:


> I don't think this is really true, though. There's a lot of discussion and debate about what Labour councils can do (cf. the recent heavy pushing of the Preston Model etc), and internal battles between party factions (cf. Haringey). It just moves very slowly.


I was going to mention Preston as a counter example. But whenever I've tried to discuss this issue with Labour members either on here or offline I've got nowhere. I admit that YMMV though.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 29, 2019)

killer b said:


> How _do_ you construct an engaged working class politics? I'd guess it would most effectively be done through community organising around resisting cuts to services, or creating groups and activities within working class communities that fill a gap left by the state retreating from them. On a local level, for the vast majority of working class communities, the people doing the cutting, and the state retreating from them is run by... The Labour Party. That, more than anything else, is what hamstrings Labour from making more inroads back into the working class.


Well, I agree with that, which is pretty much my/a reply to your earlier post.

If you take resources as simply people and money there have certainly been enough to make a difference and to do some organising. Hundreds of thousands came in as supporters/members and little was done to create something different with/through them (and now many have left). But there's also your point about roots. Not just these new members, but the membership more generally are more middle class. But I suppose my point was really about the still dominant Labourism and what Corbyn _thinks of_ as an engaged working class party. That still seems to be 'join a union, join the labour party, win elections and do A-B marches'. A party where the working class are invited to come to Labour, not the other way round.

Edit: when I've made similar points to the underlined on here before, Labour members have reminded me it's been hard to shift the old bureaucracy and lots of time gets spent just ticking the machine over. I accept all of that. Same time, as redsquirrel says, there doesn't seem to be _acceptance_ on the Labour left of the need to build something different, something beyond labourism.  Equally, if you want to go out and resist evictions or closures, just get on and do it (even if, that would often be closures undertaken by your own councillors).  Get the issue right, get the politics right and use _that_ to change the structures/party.


----------



## killer b (Apr 29, 2019)

I'll be watching carefully to see what happens here on Thursday, and if Preston's national profile as a creative cuts resisting council has much purchase locally, and where.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 29, 2019)

killer b said:


> I'll be watching carefully to see what happens here on Thursday, and if Preston's national profile as a creative cuts resisting council has much purchase locally, and where.


Whole of Preston is up for election this time right?


----------



## killer b (Apr 29, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> I was going to mention Preston as a counter example. But whenever I've tried to discuss this issue with Labour members either on here or offline I've got nowhere. I admit that YMMV though.


As with many other things it's an institutional issue. Individual members for the most part don't have a clue how to deal with it. Why would they?


----------



## Wilf (Apr 29, 2019)

I suspect I've dragged this thread away from the issue of polling. However I think this discussion is relevant. As Butchers said, Labour's current poll rating may represent a soggy mixture of remainists and traditional Labour voters. The party needs to think about what it can do to attract positive votes, inspired by a new politics for the post-brexit era, but also one that escapes from and goes beyond remain vs leave.


----------



## chilango (Apr 29, 2019)

Are Labour's % numbers up? or just holding well in comparison to the Tories right now?


----------



## killer b (Apr 29, 2019)

down about 7 I think? they were both hovering around the 40 mark until TIG happened.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 29, 2019)

chilango said:


> Are Labour's % numbers up? or just holding well in comparison to the Tories right now?


Depends when you are going from. There's been a downward trend since the aftermath of the 2017 GE but that's not to be unexpected. Current lead over Tories is mostly due to sharp drop in Tory vote rather than a increase in Labour support.


----------



## treelover (Apr 29, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Well, I agree with that, which is pretty much my/a reply to your earlier post.
> 
> If you take resources as simply people and money there have certainly been enough to make a difference and to do some organising. Hundreds of thousands came in as supporters/members and little was done to create something different with/through them (and now many have left). But there's also your point about roots. Not just these new members, but the membership more generally are more middle class. But I suppose my point was really about the still dominant Labourism and what Corbyn _thinks of_ as an engaged working class party. That still seems to be 'join a union, join the labour party, win elections and do A-B marches'. A party where the working class are invited to come to Labour, not the other way round.
> 
> Edit: when I've made similar points to the underlined on here before, Labour members have reminded me it's been hard to shift the old bureaucracy and lots of time gets spent just ticking the machine over. I accept all of that. Same time, as redsquirrel says, there doesn't seem to be _acceptance_ on the Labour left of the need to build something different, something beyond labourism.  Equally, if you want to go out and resist evictions or closures, just get on and do it (even if, that would often be closures undertaken by your own councillors).  Get the issue right, get the politics right and use _that_ to change the structures/party.




This is very salient, I found this particularly with Momentum and more recently the Labour Party local membership: many are quite affluent and don't really know what is it now like to struggle(regardless of possibly WC origins.) While they will vote on motions on say Universal Credit, or Social Care, it is not largely their interests or what motivates them, IMO, it has been Palestine, Refugees, increasingly Climate which engages them, though the L/P structures ensure mundane issues like local transport gets a hearing. But, overall not so much. One motion on social care while voted unamiously in support was pushed to the end of a CLP meeting(meaning no discussion just a vote), due to various 'emergency motions which could only really be gestures,in some ways, many of the new members seem to be replicating the ways of the SWP, jumping on media friendly issues, etc. Unite Community also crashed here, partly because it spread its resources too thinly, global issues, etc, when its focus at first should have been on basic issues where people are hurthing badly.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 30, 2019)

For the lols...



That 79% (only) of respondents thinking the Brexit party are pro-Brexit would seem to speak of some issues around political literacy.


----------



## killer b (Apr 30, 2019)

I think around 80% as close you'll ever get to 100% on a political poll tbh. Even that is a very impressive tally. 

Everyone is laughing that only 38% of people know CUK are anti-brexit, but I'd say those are solid numbers for a recently launched minor party.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 30, 2019)

I think the worse outcome is probably for Plaid. 60% of people don't know where they stand despite their strong opposition to Leaving. It would be interesting to see the breakdown of those figures for Wales.


----------



## killer b (Apr 30, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> I think the worse outcome is probably for Plaid. 60% of people don't know where they stand despite their strong opposition to Leaving. It would be interesting to see the breakdown of those figures for Wales.


I don't think it really matters nationally tbh, and I think that it's a national poll is all that's reflected in those numbers.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2019)

I think the Labour figures are interesting. Mushy as things are, Corbyn's line is still one of honouring the 2016 vote, improving the deal etc. But the figures above show that most people haven't got a clue what he/the party stands for.


----------



## killer b (Apr 30, 2019)

those are great numbers for Labour tbh.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 30, 2019)

killer b said:


> I don't think it really matters nationally tbh, and I think that it's a national poll is all that's reflected in those numbers.


Well the fact this is a UK rather than Welsh poll clearly doesn't help PC, but the level of the difference between them and the SNP does say something. I do think the data above reflect the fact that PC seem a bit devoid of a home at present.


Wilf said:


> I think the Labour figures are interesting. Mushy as things are, Corbyn's line is still one of honouring the 2016 vote, improving the deal etc. But the figures above show that most people haven't got a clue what he/the party stands for.


I guess its how you interpret "Neither". You can argue that Labour's message is much clearer to than the LDs, Grn, SNP, PC and ChUK


----------



## killer b (Apr 30, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Well the fact this is a UK rather than Welsh poll clearly doesn't help PC, but the level of the difference between them and the SNP does say something. I do think the data above reflect the fact that PC seem a bit devoid of a home at present.


All is says is the SNP have a much larger presence in Wesminster, and get a _lot _more coverage as a result. Scottish independence also remains a live issue which is regularly in the papers and in the news bulletins, and right now it's all related to their Brexit position. Whereas PC have close to zero purchase outside Wales.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 30, 2019)

I think we'll have to agree to differ on this KB, certainly that's a large part of it but I'm not sure its the whole story.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 30, 2019)

killer b said:


> those are great numbers for Labour tbh.


Indeed; the D/K figure of 25% is amazingly low given the media narrative.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2019)

killer b said:


> those are great numbers for Labour tbh.


How so? These figures are obviously about what people _think_ the party stances are, not whether they _agree_ with them. But they don't suggest Labour has a clear position, which in turn suggests they are not well placed to push a particular solution, particularly to go for any kind of lexit (or perhaps socdemexit...).  There's certainly no sign there that Labour have been connecting with leave voters/areas. Some of the other parties have a similar perceived lack of clarity, but the Labour figures reflect their ducking and diving non-committal approach - as well as the genuinely split membership.


----------



## killer b (Apr 30, 2019)

Labour don't want people to think they have a clear position. The polling demonstrates their strategy is working.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2019)

killer b said:


> Labour don't want people to think they have a clear position. The polling demonstrates their strategy is working.


I get that, really. But that's also the problem isn't it? They _don't_ have a clear position, which may be good for getting occasional victories in brexit votes in the commons, but it's pretty dreadful when it comes to actually relating to leave voters and leave areas. It's a poor politics and does nothing to develop an engaged working class politics.  It's probably something Butchers was alluding to yesterday, Labour's polling numbers being based on them being seen as the remainers best hope. It's not enough and it's not a good politics.


----------



## killer b (Apr 30, 2019)

Their unclear position is about holding together their coalition in the country, not in the commons - which they're doing more or less.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2019)

killer b said:


> Their unclear position is about holding together their coalition in the country, not in the commons - which they're doing more or less.


It's in the commons in as much as they want to maintain the line that they wish to honour the ref, whilst also voting against May's deal, whilst never committing themselves to a 2nd ref. When they edge in one direction, as with the draft leaflet, they then get the response of 100 MPs/MEPs sending an open letter.  It's there when Corbyn and Starmer come out with different views on referenda in real time. It's a fairly successful exercise in creative stonewalling, but again, in terms of a more ambitious left politics, that's the problem.


----------



## killer b (Apr 30, 2019)

They don't really have any choice I don't think - full engagement with leave or remain would destroy them.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 30, 2019)

Is it even necessary for Labour to have an absolutist Brexit/remain belief?  Both positions are a means to an end, they shouldn’t be a thing in themselves.  Labour could reasonably have a position about what they want to achieve and be happy to use either being in or out of the EU to achieve that aim.

Not saying that’s what’s happening, but I don’t think it’s inherently unreasonable


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2019)

killer b said:


> They don't really have any choice I don't think - full engagement with leave or remain would destroy them.


Not really disagreeing with you. In the absence of any bigger political project by Labour/Corbyn/Momentum, fully committing the party would be a _tactical_ mistake. It's the absence of that wider project that's the problem...

... which takes mo to actually agreeing with kabbes above. If the starting point was a wider politics, whether it be anticapitalist or just a more robust social democracy, leave/remain should become a second order question.  Can the left project best be achieved in or out, but the left project/working class politics is the starting point.


----------



## killer b (Apr 30, 2019)

Brexit eats up everything and it's a bit difficult to see through the noise of it, but Labour _has_ been rolling out new policy constantly - in the last week they've announced plans to spend a billion quid on buses & cancelling SATs that I can remember, but there's loads more. Maybe one of the reasons they're able to do this is because their position on brexit opens up some space for them to talk about other things. I think that's certainly what they're trying to do.


----------



## killer b (Apr 30, 2019)

(also, their new party political broadcast is a slammer)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2019)

I really thought they were going to turn to the rich bloke and go "but this twat here"...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2019)

Which they did really.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2019)

It's good line drawing politics that vid.

(Obv usual stuff applies blah blah)


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2019)

killer b said:


> (also, their new party political broadcast is a slammer)



Quite biblical really, the Parable of the Talents. Which, if I remember correctly, ends with the useless servant billionaire being cast into the outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.


----------



## chilango (Apr 30, 2019)

Interesting You give poll for the Euros in London.

Chuk on 17%

Greens, LibDems on 10% only 1% behind the Tories.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2019)

chilango said:


> Interesting You give poll for the Euros in London.
> 
> Chuk on 17%
> 
> Greens, LibDems on 10% only 1% behind the Tories.



That would give the chuks a seat.


----------



## killer b (Apr 30, 2019)

Wilf said:


> That would give the chuks a seat.


Not sure it would - London is in the south east region, they'd need to replicate these numbers right across the region to get a seat (labour got one on 14% last time)


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2019)

killer b said:


> Not sure it would - London is in the south east region, they'd need to replicate these numbers right across the region to get a seat (labour got one on 14% last time)


Nah, they are separate. It would give Gavin Esler a seat as the lead London candidate.

edit, assuming these lists are in the right order:
European Election Candidates: Change UK - LBC


----------



## killer b (Apr 30, 2019)

Oh yeah. I was looking earlier and somehow didn't see London


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2019)

So they'll have done worse than the BNP - in their key/only area.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 30, 2019)

killer b said:


> Not sure it would - London is in the south east region, they'd need to replicate these numbers right across the region to get a seat (labour got one on 14% last time)


London is actually a discrete European constituency returning 8 MEPs, quite separate from the South East's 10.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2019)

The formula was mentioned upthread I think, but it's not fully proportional. It's something like a series of 'rounds' which allocate seats to the highest vote rather than re-allocating losing candidate's votes.  Lab may get 2 or 3 seats, brexit and chuks 2? Libdems or Greens may well miss out on those figures.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 30, 2019)

Wilf said:


> The formula was mentioned upthread I think, but it's not fully proportional. It's something like a series of 'rounds' which allocate seats to the highest vote rather than re-allocating losing candidate's votes.  Lab may get 2 or 3 seats, brexit and chuks 2? Libdems or Greens may well miss out on those figures.


Yep; D'Hondt, innit?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2019)

We can do it any way we like. This pathetic system was forced on us. Not voted on by any of us of course.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Yep; D'Hondt, innit?
> 
> View attachment 169429


Yep. In my shaky maths, I presume they have to do it like that because it's a party list system. Other PR systems require there to be individual votes for individual candidates.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 30, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Yep. In my shaky maths, I presume they have to do it like that because it's a party list system. Other PR systems require there to be individual votes for individual candidates.


Yep, does not effect the most proportional outcome, but does work to give whole seat totals with no fractions etc. and favoured by the Eurocrats as it slightly privileges big parties & groupings...keeping out the riff raff.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Yep, does not effect the most proportional outcome, but does work to give whole seat totals with no fractions etc. and favoured by the Eurocrats as it slightly privileges big parties & groupings...keeping out the riff raff.


Similar to those more straightforward PR systems in the past which had a minimum 'threshold', to stop 'extremists' getting in.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 30, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> It's good line drawing politics that vid.
> 
> (Obv usual stuff applies blah blah)


Yeah, regardless of what you think about Labour's politics, they've done a really good job on political broadcasts/adverts for a while now.

EDIT: On D'Hondt, this chart showing lowest % vote for seats might of some use. From twitter so apologies if not accurate.


HnH predicting 3 seats for ChUK BTW - London, SE and Eastern England


----------



## binka (Apr 30, 2019)

chilango said:


> Interesting You give poll for the Euros in London.
> 
> Chuk on 17%
> 
> Greens, LibDems on 10% only 1% behind the Tories.



Confusing for them to miss UKIP off as the pluses and minuses don't add up


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 30, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Yep. In my shaky maths, I presume they have to do it like that because it's a party list system. Other PR systems require there to be individual votes for individual candidates.


Nah, the Australian senate election is STV where you can still vote for a party


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Nah, the Australian senate election is STV where you can still vote for a party


My hurried dash to Wikipedia suggests they now have a system where you can vote by _either_ party or candidate - and also that none of their systems work that well.  Must work though*, not read it properly.
Australian Senate - Wikipedia

* I mean _I_ must do some work, not that I endorse Aussie electoral systems.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 30, 2019)

Wilf said:


> My hurried dash to Wikipedia suggests they now have a system where you can vote by _either_ party or candidate - and also that none of their systems work that well. Australian Senate - Wikipedia


TBF that's pretty accurate on all counts. But STV party vote is (approximately) proportional.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 30, 2019)

killer b said:


> (also, their new party political broadcast is a slammer)



That’s a great ad.

I’m struggling to see what it’s got to do with local elections though.  Last I checked, the district councillors had very little ability to reverse tax cuts for billionaires.


----------



## killer b (Apr 30, 2019)

Mood music I guess. Let's be honest, the story they could tell about local government would be less compelling. All parties do the dogshit work equally well, so the only thing they can really point to is administering cuts with less of a smile on their faces.


----------



## Poi E (Apr 30, 2019)

So no story of devolving more decision making to local communities?


----------



## brogdale (May 11, 2019)

Notable.


----------



## brogdale (May 11, 2019)

Yes, you did read that right..._Westminster._


----------



## brogdale (May 11, 2019)

*If* it came to pass...


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2019)

brogdale said:


> *If* it came to pass...
> 
> View attachment 170684


It won't come to pass, of course, but it might cut a few more of the strands holding up the sword that sits over May's neck.


----------



## brogdale (May 11, 2019)

Wilf said:


> It won't come to pass, of course, but it might cut a few more of the strands holding up the sword that sits over May's neck.


Doubt that it will, but the wounds inflicted will dog the vermin for a long while.


----------



## hot air baboon (May 12, 2019)




----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2019)

Today's YG *London *Westminster polling:

L 35 (down from 49 in December)
C23 (33)
LD 21 (11)
G 7 (3)
Brexit 10 (Ukip was 3 in Dec)


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2019)

Kantar kan't find the CHuKs...


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2019)

Party of the 1%


----------



## killer b (May 15, 2019)

Survation are in:


----------



## treelover (May 15, 2019)

Would the L/D's go into coalition with Labour?


----------



## chilango (May 15, 2019)

treelover said:


> Would the L/D's go into coalition with Labour?



It's for the Euros. I suspect GE figures would be different.


----------



## killer b (May 15, 2019)

The LDs would support whatever party suited their factional advantage, so if the numbers were right and the offer big enough, then of course they'd support a Labour government.


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2019)

killer b said:


> Survation are in:



That 6% point Brx lead over Lab fitting nicely (between BMG & Opinium) into the wide range of poll leads suggested by the pollsters' recent numbers:



Graphic from Smithson's recent post about the lack of pollster 'herding' wrt the Euros and the impact of (differential) turnout(s).


----------



## William of Walworth (May 15, 2019)

That 18% "Brexit Party" lead from YouGov is surely the freakiest, and i still think it's an outlier


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> That 18% "Brexit Party" lead from YouGov is surely the freakiest, and i still think it's an outlier


OTWT, but if they're calling the differential turnout correctly...who knows...they may be on to something. I mean, are Lab supporters really going to be arsed to get off down to the polling station to support their Leavy/Remainy party?


----------



## William of Walworth (May 15, 2019)

brogdale said:


> OTWT, but if they're calling the differential turnout correctly...who knows...they may be on to something. I mean, are Lab supporters really going to be arsed to get off down to the polling station to support their Leavy/Remainy party?




Fair point, and tbh, when I posted the above, I was actually thinking about differential turnout, and wondering how much that would have an effect next week -- in this particular election.

On the other hand though, Labour must still be _reasonably_ OK at the traditional, old style  "getting the vote  out" thing, even in the most unpromising of elections??


----------



## William of Walworth (May 15, 2019)

And with Smithson's graphic, it might be sensible to aim for the boring medium as a guess -- ten-per-centish "Brexit Party" lead??


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> Fair point, and tbh, when I posted the above, I was actually thinking about differential turnout, and wondering how much that would have an effect next week -- in this particular election.
> 
> On the other hand though, Labour must still be _reasonably_ OK at the traditional, old style  "getting the vote  out" thing, even in the most unpromising of elections??


Hmmm...I hearing quite a few tales of Lab activist attitudes/behaviour not too dissimilar to the tory activist strike going on atm. Not sure the fabled ground-war will be as effective as normal.


----------



## killer b (May 15, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> On the other hand though, Labour must still be _reasonably_ OK at the traditional, old style  "getting the vote  out" thing, even in the most unpromising of elections??


There isn't any on-the-ground campaigning or door knocking for the euros. everyone is still fucked from the locals last week.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 15, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Hmmm...I hearing quite a few tales of Lab activist attitudes/behaviour not too dissimilar to the tory activist strike going on atm. Not sure the fabled ground-war will be as effective as normal.



Oh true, nothing like the 2017 GE or anything. But the Tory strike will be near to all-out which will slightly help Labour ....maybe?


----------



## William of Walworth (May 15, 2019)

killer b said:


> There isn't any on-the-ground campaigning or door knocking for the euros. everyone is still fucked from the locals last week.



Is that your direct knowledge locally? I was just guessing there, to be honest


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2019)

killer b said:


> There isn't any on-the-ground campaigning or door knocking for the euros. everyone is still fucked from the locals last week.


Londoners & other Metro CLPs don't have that excuse, though. I just don't think that the troops are too keen to go over the top for this push.


----------



## killer b (May 15, 2019)

The _ground war_ rotates around council wards and parliamentary constituencies. There's never been much done on the ground for the euros.


----------



## killer b (May 15, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> Is that your direct knowledge locally? I was just guessing there, to be honest


I've had a reasonably overview of the Labour ground war for pretty much every election campaign - local or general - since I was 6. They never do anything for the euros.


----------



## treelover (May 16, 2019)

MY MP is sending emails almost daily, Blomfield,shadow brexit minister, lots of canvassing dates, they are shaken after local council results.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 16, 2019)

I had labour  on my door the other day for the euros. They're opening spiel was "we're sorry this vote is happening  -but not our fault - we're trying to bring the country together". A pretty dismal appeal - remainers will go with green or lib dem - leavers with brexit party, labour are only going to get their hardcore loyalists. I cant see that labour going for 2nd ref now will hurt them - the damage is already done - cant see any brexit supporters leaving labour  now who haven't already left.


----------



## killer b (May 16, 2019)

I guess Preston labour must just be idle bastards then...


----------



## redsquirrel (May 16, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> I had labour  on my door the other day for the euros. They're opening spiel was "we're sorry this vote is happening  -but not our fault - we're trying to bring the country together". A pretty dismal appeal - remainers will go with green or lib dem - leavers with brexit party, labour are only going to get their hardcore loyalists. I cant see that labour going for 2nd ref now will hurt them - the damage is already done - cant see any brexit supporters leaving labour  now who haven't already left.


So Labours strategy should be to hope the damage done to the Tory Party will put them into government? That's similar to the strategy they used in the run up to 2015, that UKIP would take enough votes off the Tories to stop them forming a government, didn't work too well them.

If Labour want to win marginals like Shipley, and they should, they need to appeal to at least some of those that voted Leave, coming out and backing a 2nd referendum hurts that. A Labour Party aiming for a majority government should not be backing a 2nd referendum.

EDIT: If anything would encourage me to vote Labour its the sliming back of "Remainers"s to the LDs.


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2019)

killer b said:


> I guess Preston labour must just be idle bastards then...


I don't think so; (understandably) there seems to be more urgency associated with these Euros than previous ones. From what I've heard, London region have urged CLPs to take leaflets above & beyond the postal drop and asked them to return their campaigning events calendar so that MEP candidates can join CLP events etc.

It's an exceptional Euro election and things do seem very different. It's just that my mates reckon the troops aren't too keen to get out there for these elections...even the ones going out are using the interaction with punters to talk about the GLA/Mayoral rather than Brexit.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 16, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> So Labours strategy should be to hope the damage done to the Tory Party will put them into government? That's similar to the strategy they used in the run up to 2015, that UKIP would take enough votes off the Tories to stop them forming a government, didn't work too well them.
> 
> If Labour want to win marginals like Shipley, and they should, they need to appeal to at least some of those that voted Leave, coming out and backing a 2nd referendum hurts that. A Labour Party aiming for a majority government should not be backing a 2nd referendum.
> 
> EDIT: If anything would encourage me to vote Labour its the sliming back of "Remainers"s to the LDs.



its kind of all  options are shit though for labour isn't it? I just cant see any learvers for whom brexit is a major factor voting  labour - they see them as remain in all but name
 anyway.


----------



## hot air baboon (May 16, 2019)

killer b said:


> I guess Preston labour must just be idle bastards then...



All Quiet on the Preston front


----------



## killer b (May 16, 2019)

Comres Westminster out this morning:


----------



## Teaboy (May 16, 2019)

You really have to wonder what's in it for Labour to do a deal with May.


----------



## killer b (May 16, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> You really have to wonder what's in it for Labour to do a deal with May.


Nothing, so they won't.


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2019)

killer b said:


> Nothing, so they won't.


Quite, but keeping the talks going (& maintaining the 'betrayal' vacuum) does appear to be disproportionately heaping the damage on the the tories.

It'll be all about how the 20-30% of Brexit-driven punters revert back to their former habits.


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2019)

Britain Elects have updated their (e2a Westminster) tracker graph today...and it's quite a sight for the 'main' parties:


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2019)

...and without the pop-up numbers in the way, the full glory of the tory demise can be appreciated:


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2019)

Today's Ipsos-MORI Westminster:


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2019)




----------



## killer b (May 16, 2019)

Yougov have the latest leader faves poll today too


----------



## killer b (May 16, 2019)

(while minus 50 is still a shocker, it's interesting that it's stayed stable since march while may's takes a hit)


----------



## kabbes (May 16, 2019)

killer b said:


> (while minus 50 is still a shocker, it's interesting that it's stayed stable since march while may's takes a hit)


It’s hard to get much worse though when you’re already rock bottom


----------



## killer b (May 16, 2019)

kabbes said:


> It’s hard to get much worse though when you’re already rock bottom


that's a reasonable point, it's currently lower than it was before the 2017 election campaign.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 17, 2019)

I think labours position is less about keeping voters - and more about keeping the party together. A significant chunk of labour mps and some of the unions are very opposed to a 2nd ref. Votes wise - im not convinced going pro-remain would hurt labours voteshare more than it helps, but its more a case of its own internal divisions have made it politically impossible for labour to take this position - at least up until now.


----------



## Wilf (May 17, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> I think labours position is less about keeping voters - and more about keeping the party together. A significant chunk of labour mps and some of the unions are very opposed to a 2nd ref. Votes wise - im not convinced going pro-remain would hurt labours voteshare more than it helps, but its more a case of its own internal divisions had made politically impossible for labour to take this position - at least up until now.


I think that's right and I also think that wiser heads in the party know that's what they are doing. Trouble is it doesn't leave the party well placed to start giving out direct, unambiguous messages on everything else.


----------



## newbie (May 18, 2019)

If Corbyn holds his party together and retires from a position of unchallenged stability in 2020 (say) he'll go down in history as a successful leader.  Not great, perhaps, because he never really got the chance, but a good, solid performance in very trying circumstances.

That's in contrast with not just May but with every tory leader going back to Major at least, whose record ended in utter failure and with their reputation shredded.


----------



## ska invita (May 18, 2019)

killer b said:


> that's a reasonable point, it's currently lower than it was before the 2017 election campaign.


Will Corbyn lead Labour into the next election?


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2019)

Unlikely to persist much beyond the Euros, but here we are...Tories in 3rd in Westminster polling:



Are they at peak fucked?


----------



## ferrelhadley (May 18, 2019)

From November 2017 
Political polling
Till March 2018
Political polling
52 posts over 16 months.
Since March 2019
168 posts. 
Now my stats might be a wee bit rusty, but is there some kind of correlation here?

(dont worry this is not a joke for you lot)


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> From November 2017
> Political polling
> Till March 2018
> Political polling
> ...


go on...


----------



## newbie (May 21, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Unlikely to persist much beyond the Euros, but here we are...Tories in 3rd in Westminster polling:
> 
> 
> Are they at peak fucked?


hope not


----------



## Crispy (May 30, 2019)

*magic roundabout music plays*


----------



## Cid (May 30, 2019)

Crispy said:


> *magic roundabout music plays*




The fuck?


----------



## kabbes (May 30, 2019)

There’s no chance of that playing out in practice


----------



## Balbi (May 30, 2019)

kabbes said:


> There’s no chance of that playing out in practice



*gestures at everything that's happened in the last three years*


----------



## Balbi (May 30, 2019)

Also, Change UK. 1%. Hahahahhahahahahhahah.

Interesting though that Brexit Party + Soft Brexit Labour + Tories is a big majority now, which is the delightful opposite of last week.


----------



## kabbes (May 30, 2019)

Proper general elections have election campaigns, though.  Parties have manifestos that they have to defend.  Look at what happened in 2017.


----------



## Balbi (May 30, 2019)

Aye, but then Brexit was 18 months away. If there was a snap, it'd be a month away. And things are _weird_ over there right now.


----------



## killer b (May 30, 2019)

It's also a single poll, taken just after the Lib Dems and Brexit parties scored massive PR coups in the EP elections. Wait to see if it's sustained over multiple polls & shows over multiple polling companies before getting excited about it, never mind whether it'll survive contact with an actual election.


----------



## MickiQ (May 30, 2019)

So whats it predicting, A LibDem Govt? that's a Guardian feature writers wet dream and much like other wet dreams not likely to survive contact with reality.
The LibDem's are clearly going through a bit of a resurgence at the moment and will probably get more seats than their current 11 if there is an imminent GE. I can see them getting a couple of dozen may even as many as 30 but I can't see them getting back up to the 50-odd they had pre-Coalition never mind actually winning. As for the Chuckles come the next GE (whenever it may be) they are going to be naught but a memory.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 30, 2019)

Lib Dems tend to take seats off the tories, strong in places like the south-west and outer London. More likely to fuck the vermin if their percentage has gone up. The complete collapse of their vote in 2015 was a significant factor in the tories winning that election.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 31, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> So whats it predicting...



Just for fun, boys & girls, Electoral Calculus predicts...

 

So, a Lab/LD/SNP government?


----------



## ferrelhadley (May 31, 2019)

Those who embrace the polarisation are doing well. No doubt the Tories will end the summer with some pro Brexit chaos monkey in charge. If they get enough of a boost in the polls they may risk going to the country calling for the Brexit voters to come out and give them a parliament to deliver it.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2019)

All the usual caveats...but difficult not to conclude that summat's up?



Peterborough will be interesting.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2019)

Fantasy island and all that, but Electoral Calculus gives the tories 26 seats on that polling.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2019)

No Deal - 27%
Deal - 39%
No Brexit - 28%


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 1, 2019)

Interesting that biggest share is basically the stance of the two parties getting a right kicking. Lol


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 2, 2019)

Well at least the whole clusterfuck is good for shits n giggles.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 16, 2019)

Chaos is a ladder.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 16, 2019)

The Chuka effect already impacting the Lib Dem numbers


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 16, 2019)

If anything like this polling held up until a GE then we'd either have a Tory/BxP/poss DUP lash up or a Lab/Lib/poss SNP/Plaid lash up


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 16, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> The Chuka effect already impacting the Lib Dem numbers


Never change Urban.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> Never change Urban.


 
Could you tell us what is the _right_ reaction to these figures please?


----------



## Benjy1992 (Jun 17, 2019)

I never take much notice of the polls.

Under the FPTP system, the Tories and Labour will always come out the two biggest parties.

Next GE (whenever that may be) will see a hung parliament with one of Labour and the Tories the largest party.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2019)

Benjy1992 said:


> I never take much notice of the polls.
> 
> Under the FPTP system, the Tories and Labour will always come out the two biggest parties.
> 
> Next GE (whenever that may be) will see a hung parliament with one of Labour and the Tories the largest party.


Probably, particularly with Labour's loss of Scotland, but also the turbulence of the Brexit Party, possible libdem mini revival etc. Though of course those are signs of the FPTP system _failing to deliver what it was intended to do_.


----------



## Supine (Jun 18, 2019)




----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2019)

An interesting point is that 3 years on this poll is being conducted without respondents having a clue what the UK will be like post Brexit. My guess is that things will be worse on a number of fronts but I'm not up with the remainiac squawking that the sky will fall. But current discussion is more on brexit as a stalled process that has to be in-stalled, not so much on _Brexit_.


----------



## 8115 (Jun 19, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> Chaos is a ladder.



Voting intention Brexit Party 24%? Am I missing something?


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jun 19, 2019)

Poll of 'Our Next PM' last night on the BBC. Seems Stewart and his missing tie won.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2019)

Amongst those that count, ie Tories, Johnson won by far and and the others (except Javid) were much of a muchness.  Amongst those the Tories are trying to keep onside, ie leave voters, Johnson won by far and the others (except Javid) were much of a muchness.  The fact that Stewart appeals to Labour voters and remainers means nothing.


----------



## treelover (Jun 19, 2019)

Lib Dems seem to love Stewart, maybe he will cross the floor?


----------



## 2hats (Jun 19, 2019)

Details here.


----------



## killer b (Jun 19, 2019)

kabbes said:


> The fact that Stewart appeals to Labour voters and remainders means nothing.


It doesn't mean nothing. It means the leadership contest is being used for other purposes as well as the election of the new leader of the conservative party.

Stewart is obviously speaking to an audience outside the tory membership - I'm not totally sure whether that's to do with his personal ambitions or something more strategic from the party though...


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> It doesn't mean nothing. It means the leadership contest is being used for other purposes as well as the election of the new leader of the conservative party.
> 
> Stewart is obviously speaking to an audience outside the tory membership - I'm not totally sure whether that's to do with his personal ambitions or something more strategic from the party though...


Well, a more accurate way of saying my previous post is that Labour voters and remainers like Stewart _more than they like the others._  They don’t necessarily actually like him.


----------



## killer b (Jun 19, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Well, a more accurate way of saying my previous post is that Labour voters and remainers like Stewart _more than they like the others._  They don’t necessarily actually like him.


I'm not sure how true that is. Certainly the liberal centrist commentariat love him, and that seems to be reflected in the wider population in my orbit.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 21, 2019)

Presume this is the focus on the tories in the media and the promise of ‘out by October’. Labour down to 4th


----------



## killer b (Jun 21, 2019)

they're level with the tories, not 4th.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 21, 2019)

killer b said:


> they're level with the tories, not 4th.



The salient issue is the 3% shift in support from BP to Tory. Firstly, after Peterborough this is another sign that the BP momentum has faltered. Secondly, if Johnson is perceived to be trying to deliver Brexit by the BP support this movement could be a trend - we will see. Third, if my view that BJ is going to call an October election is correct this stuff becomes significant. 

Labour appear on the poll in 4th place, not joint third.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jun 21, 2019)

killer b said:


> they're level with the tories, not 4th.



Rejoice at that news.


----------



## killer b (Jun 21, 2019)

The movement from the BP to the Tories as Johnson gets closer to the leadership is in line with what I expected, and presumably in line with what Labour are expecting as he's their preferred candidate (not least because he's the most likely to call an election).


----------



## killer b (Jun 21, 2019)

DownwardDog said:


> Rejoice at that news.


I'm not rejoicing at anything, just correcting a mistake.


----------



## Supine (Jun 26, 2019)




----------



## cupid_stunt (Jun 26, 2019)

What a fucking mess - LOL.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 26, 2019)

Brexit cunts peaked then? Tory bounce also looking a bit pathetic.


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2019)

worth noting that Yougov are polling quite different numbers to most the other companies - but as they poll more regularly they tend to be the one people pay attention to. 

Everyone else has Labour in the lead, 1-4%

Latest voting intentions


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 3, 2019)

Corbyn now has the worst polled net satisfaction with an opposition leader since polling for it began in 1980









> Satisfied 17% Dissatisfied 75% Don't know 8% Net -58


Out polled by Michael fucking Howard.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 3, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> Corbyn now has the worst polled net satisfaction with an opposition leader since polling for it began in 1980



Too bad we can't just have more of the same as we hurtle towards fuck knows where? Even if he doesn't get elected in the near future at least something is being built and argued beyond the narrow career interests of a few jobsworths. The civil service establishment seem worried enough, going by their undemocratic 'confused and frail' meddling in the Telegraph. I suggest that is more alarming then a poll dip for the Labour leadership. And it's not so much about Jeremy Corbyn in particular, is it? We know that the media and political establishment is hostile to e.g. the Labour party. As is a large section and demographic of the country. So what?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 4, 2019)

Being behind in satisfaction polls at this stage is like your team losing pre-season friendlies. You’d like it to win every game, but it’s inconsequential.

But can Corbyn galvanise a poll bounce at the next election as he did last time?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 4, 2019)

The polls since the EU elections continue to prove that no one knows WTF will happen.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 4, 2019)

There will be some who will go for the strongest non-Tory party, so the Lib Dems out-polling Labour may be a danger for them if it persists.

I think this has arisen from the local elections where they emerged with the appearance of a party with significant support, even if a lot of the support on that occasion was a transient protest vote (which might not be so transient on reflection). Looking plausible now in numeric terms. 

I know of people who should have known better that voted for them in the EU poll as they’d been convinced by the bullshit adverts on Facebook that this was a way of preventing Brexit Party candidates getting elected (Labour were not recommended in these ads due to their compromise position). I’m beginning to think that campaign might not have been funded by someone that was anti-brexit as it’s been effective at dividing the parties to the left of the tories. Depends if a tactical anti-Tory vote is pushed at the next election, whenever that may be, as plenty of Tory seats vulnerable to a yellow surge. Also whether some kind of Tory/Brexit Party stitch-up emerges, there will be some coming back to the fold with Johnson in charge so they could easily snub Farage, it’d politically useful to have someone more extreme/cranky than you to make your party look reasonable.


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2019)

The Lib Dems are only outpolling Labour in the Yougov polls - two companies put them 8-10 points behind.


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2019)

(I mean, they might be right, fuck knows - but it's important to remember that Yougov are the outlier here)


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 4, 2019)

Labour need to start landing some punches anyway. One of the problems at the moment is there isn’t a target to land them on, but in a few weeks there will be, although it looks like it might be a Teflon one.


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2019)

Johnson is the leader Labour explicitly want to be up against - worth a look at Stephen Bush's latest in the Statesman: Corbyn’s unlikely last hope: Boris Johnson


----------



## Poi E (Jul 4, 2019)

"They believe that Sedwill is particularly opposed to the idea that a lifelong civil libertarian who would doubtless seek to upend decades of foreign and security policy consensus could soon be in Downing Street."

What consensus do these mandarins think exists? That a former imperial power, tear-stained and drunk in the corner and bitching about how it's everyone else's fault, has a rational approach to security? What nonsense. The actions of the British state have consistently reduced security at home and abroad.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Labour need to start landing some punches anyway. One of the problems at the moment is there isn’t a target to land them on, but in a few weeks there will be, although it looks like it might be a Teflon one.


They need to do that in terms of having an individual to target (Johnson no doubt), but also Brexit. There's been much discussion on here as to whether their cautious, say very little approach has gone on too long (along with the dangers of coming down on one side or the other). But as to where we are now, all I can detect is that Labour are opposed to No Deal. It's not much to inspire the voters.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2019)

Aside from all that, it is interesting that we've had 4 different parties leading the polls over a 5 week period. Unique I suspect. Even early 80s with the SDP, there would only have been 3 parties taking occasional poll leads.


----------



## Poi E (Jul 4, 2019)

An indictment of our politics or our polling? Is there a difference now it is government by poll?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 4, 2019)

Humberto said:


> Even if he doesn't get elected in the near future at least something is being built and argued beyond the narrow career interests of a few jobsworths.


Corbyn, McDonnel and Abbot are just career jobsworths.
They have achieved fuck all of note in their decades in parliament until they landed in charge of the party by accident. Since then they have dithered and frittered away anything resembling public support beyond the core Labour vote. They face one of the most incompetent and unpopular governments in modern history and still get trounced in the polling by them.
They are however the perfect group  for the loons and fanatics of Urban 75 to support. People on Urban hate the large majority of the UK population with a passion and often expresses murderous desires towards people with different political views to you.
A dithering thick cunt with no traction beyond a very narrow part of the population? Its your dream leader of the Labour party. Anyone who could be liked by the average person would be hated by you clowns. 

Have fun, this is as relevant as you will ever be.


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> They face one of the most incompetent and unpopular governments in modern history and still get trounced in the polling by them.


This isn't true. Yougov & Ipsos don't have Labour ahead, everyone else does.


----------



## chilango (Jul 4, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> Corbyn, McDonnel and Abbot are just career jobsworths.
> They have achieved fuck all of note in their decades in parliament until they landed in charge of the party by accident. Since then they have dithered and frittered away anything resembling public support beyond the core Labour vote. They face one of the most incompetent and unpopular governments in modern history and still get trounced in the polling by them.
> They are however the perfect group  for the loons and fanatics of Urban 75 to support. People on Urban hate the large majority of the UK population with a passion and often expresses murderous desires towards people with different political views to you.
> A dithering thick cunt with no traction beyond a very narrow part of the population? Its your dream leader of the Labour party. Anyone who could be liked by the average person would be hated by you clowns.
> ...



You started well. I'd agree with your first sentence or two. 

...but then you seem to lose your grip and descend into some weird bitter rant.

Ah well


----------



## Humberto (Jul 4, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> Corbyn, McDonnel and Abbot are just career jobsworths.
> They have achieved fuck all of note in their decades in parliament until they landed in charge of the party by accident. Since then they have dithered and frittered away anything resembling public support beyond the core Labour vote. They face one of the most incompetent and unpopular governments in modern history and still get trounced in the polling by them.
> They are however the perfect group  for the loons and fanatics of Urban 75 to support. People on Urban hate the large majority of the UK population with a passion and often expresses murderous desires towards people with different political views to you.
> A dithering thick cunt with no traction beyond a very narrow part of the population? Its your dream leader of the Labour party. Anyone who could be liked by the average person would be hated by you clowns.
> ...



A careerist jobsworth who was on the backbenches since the 80s? I think its great to have some mild social democracy on offer. Not sure if we are going to have a useful conversation if you are starting from the premise that I am a 'clown' who hates everyone though.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 4, 2019)

killer b said:


> This isn't true. Yougov & Ipsos don't have Labour ahead, everyone else does.



The problem is that Tory votes are definitely on loan to the BP. There is talk of an electoral pact even. Their hatred of Corbyn unites them.

Labour appears to be haemorrhaging support that it may have more of a struggle to get back. Those it has lost aren’t keen on Corbyn either. 

Some of the ones who are keen on him are a liability.


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Labour appears to be haemorrhaging support that *it may have more of a struggle to get back*.


That seems to be a popular opinion atm, but I'm not sure what anyone is basing it on other than the reckons of some hyperpartisan political commentators. Surely if there's one thing the recent poll bump for the Lib Dems demonstrates it's that even the most morbid political projects can make startling gains with the right messaging right now.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 4, 2019)

Humberto said:


> I think its great to have some mild social democracy on offer.


The SNP are mild social democracy and they have completely wiped the floor with Labour in Scotland. 
The problem, the real problem that is going to hit like a fucking freight train when a general election is called in a few months, is that the noise around Labour, not just a few select comments buy Corbyn but the whole sound scape of Momentum, Jo Brand, Stewart Lee, The Guardian and every other prominent "left of center" voice is their braying, condescending contempt for everyone who is not part of the smug inner group of Russel Group educated, foodie luvie, remainer, hipper than thou cunts. 

If you cannot talk to and about people who have different ideas and value to yourself on some issues like their opinions matter and are substantial but you disagree with them then fuck the fuck off out of politics. "Gammon", "Patriarchy", "White Privilege" and a dozen other fuckwit terms. How many middle aged white guys who are struggling to get by in towns like Worksop or Wigan really feel like they are some kind of uber privileged class compared to some non white woman writing for £80k a year for the Guardian? 

I come on to Urban and its full of  cunts giving it the big one about throwing acid over Brexiters, killing tories or hanging bookies. Its so infantile and dumb. 

You wont understand this I am wasting my time. Politics for you is a recreational act of self validation. Its public masturbation. Knock yourself out, the Brexit chaos monkey, Boris, will be along shortly to pick up his rewards.


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> I come on to Urban


got to wonder why really.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 4, 2019)

Yeah the dominance of the SNP is defo due to offering 'mild social democracy' not because of decades of labour neglect, years of new labour, and the brilliant political decision to run a cynical and bitter no campaign in league with the tories


----------



## Humberto (Jul 4, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> The SNP are mild social democracy and they have completely wiped the floor with Labour in Scotland.
> The problem, the real problem that is going to hit like a fucking freight train when a general election is called in a few months, is that the noise around Labour, not just a few select comments buy Corbyn but the whole sound scape of Momentum, Jo Brand, Stewart Lee, The Guardian and every other prominent "left of center" voice is their braying, condescending contempt for everyone who is not part of the smug inner group of Russel Group educated, foodie luvie, remainer, hipper than thou cunts.
> 
> If you cannot talk to and about people who have different ideas and value to yourself on some issues like their opinions matter and are substantial but you disagree with them then fuck the fuck off out of politics. "Gammon", "Patriarchy", "White Privilege" and a dozen other fuckwit terms. How many middle aged white guys who are struggling to get by in towns like Worksop or Wigan really feel like they are some kind of uber privileged class compared to some non white woman writing for £80k a year for the Guardian?
> ...



Those Peterborough Labour voters sipping champagne in their ivory towers.


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 4, 2019)

Humberto said:


> Those Peterborough Labour voters sipping champagne in their ivory towers.


If it's not Worksop Man, it doesn't count. Labour are doomed!!111


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 4, 2019)

killer b said:


> That seems to be a popular opinion atm, but I'm not sure what anyone is basing it on other than the reckons of some hyperpartisan political commentators. Surely if there's one thing the recent poll bump for the Lib Dems demonstrates it's that even the most morbid political projects can make startling gains with the right messaging right now.



Well it’s based on its low polling and a general lack of feeling of confidence. You can argue Labour is marginally ahead, but this is on a terribly low vote share. How many elections have we seen the shy Tory bounce?

And whether or not you share the concerns what you cannot feel is a sense of confidence about Labour’s project. Despite decent policies it appears hampered by issues in Brexit and antisemitism that it cannot transcend. Labour needs a reboot, needs to shed some baggage.


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2019)

What is the idea that the voters labour is shedding are less likely to come back to them than tory voters based on though? You cant read that in the polls. Maybe it's true, but I've not seen anything more solid to back it up than it just being what various pricks who've called everything else wrong for the past 5 years think. I'm not accepting that as sound political analysis anymore.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 5, 2019)

chilango said:


> You started well. I'd agree with your first sentence or two.
> 
> ...but then you seem to lose your grip and descend into some weird bitter rant.
> 
> Ah well


Evidence based politics!


----------



## Supine (Jul 5, 2019)




----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 5, 2019)

Supine said:


> View attachment 176328


Oh my


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2019)

Lol. Fucking maniacs.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 5, 2019)

They’ll be trembling in fear at that.

‘Opening an investigation’ ffs. Get over yourselves, Twitter.


----------



## chilango (Jul 5, 2019)

It's probably just down to the fact that I cashed out my £50 a few months so haven't bothered responding to YouGov polling requests recently.

That'll have knocked a couple of % of the Labour vote.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> What is the idea that the voters labour is shedding are less likely to come back to them than tory voters based on though? You cant read that in the polls. Maybe it's true, but I've not seen anything more solid to back it up than it just being what various pricks who've called everything else wrong for the past 5 years think. I'm not accepting that as sound political analysis anymore.



On the fact that the Tories vote share in 2017 held up so well under a truly awful leader, that Labour hasn’t done well in the votes since the election and that the Tories may get a new leader bounce. 

Like I say, the Brexit Party vote is united with the Tories about the prospect of a Corbyn led Govt. The Lib Dem vote, I suspect, is always looking for a reason to desert Labour.

Have you got any more reason for confidence in Labour’s prospect other than simple distrust?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 5, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> On the fact that the Tories vote share in 2017 held up so well under a truly awful leader, that Labour hasn’t done well in the votes since the election and that the Tories may get a new leader bounce.
> 
> Like I say, the Brexit Party vote is united with the Tories about the prospect of a Corbyn led Govt. The Lib Dem vote, I suspect, is always looking for a reason to desert Labour.
> 
> Have you got any more reason for confidence in Labour’s prospect other than simple distrust?


Shit showing in the polls with credible predictions of a 100+ tory majority when May called a GE does suggest Labour vote may be more robust when it actually comes to it. The feet on the ground labour has far outweighs any other party too.


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2019)

I'm not confident in anyone's prospects. But I don't think your calculations really add up either. 


Mr Moose said:


> the Tories vote share in 2017 held up so well under a truly awful leader


Johnson won't be any better - after a good start his actual campaign for the leadership has been woeful - the Times mailout this morning draws some fairly obvious parallels with May's 2017 GE campaign, in fact... 


Mr Moose said:


> Like I say, the Brexit Party vote is united with the Tories about the prospect of a Corbyn led Govt.


This is by no means certain now, and will be less so once Johnson comes up against the actual task once he's leader.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 5, 2019)

Also ofc the lib and brex vote is spread widely while labour and tories benefit from concentration. There shouldn't be any reasonable doubt that the biggest party after next GE will be one of labour or tories. If I wanted to put money on then at present labour as largest party still looks the most likely.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 5, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> On the fact that the Tories vote share in 2017 held up so well under a truly awful leader, that Labour hasn’t done well in the votes since the election and that the Tories may get a new leader bounce.


In every set of national elections since 2017 Labour's (projected) share of the vote has been greater than or equal to that of Tories.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 5, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> In every set of national elections since 2017 Labour's (projected) share of the vote has been greater than or equal to that of Tories.



Like Labour were a shoo-in in 2015?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> I'm not confident in anyone's prospects. But I don't think your calculations really add up either.
> Johnson won't be any better - after a good start his actual campaign for the leadership has been woeful - the Times mailout this morning draws some fairly obvious parallels with May's 2017 GE campaign, in fact...
> This is by no means certain now, and will be less so once Johnson comes up against the actual task once he's leader.



Being shyte at his job hasn’t really held Johnson back before. People don’t back him for his competency, they back him for what he signifies and his confidence. That may get him a long way in an election.

It may be helpful to Labour that he will make Corbyn look like the grown up in the room, but I’m not sure with Brexit and antisemitism that will be enough.

Johnson making an absolute balls-up of Brexit won’t necessarily help Labour. If it gets called a ‘national crisis’ people may be less likely to choose Corbyn’s Labour to pull us out of it.

I liked Corbyn’s card to Jeff Bezos though. A lot of the public would like a bit of populism from Labour.

Corbyn wishes Amazon 'many happy tax returns' on its 25th anniversary


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 5, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Also ofc the lib and brex vote is spread widely while labour and tories benefit from concentration. There shouldn't be any reasonable doubt that the biggest party after next GE will be one of labour or tories. If I wanted to put money on then at present labour as largest party still looks the most likely.



I certainly wouldn’t, but I hope you are right.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 5, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Like Labour were a shoo-in in 2015?


Showing the fallacies in your argument doesn't mean I'm arguing that Labour will win a majority or even a plurality.


----------



## Chz (Jul 5, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Shit showing in the polls with credible predictions of a 100+ tory majority when May called a GE does suggest Labour vote may be more robust when it actually comes to it. The feet on the ground labour has far outweighs any other party too.


Absolutely, but remember that YouGov - who are consistently putting Labour support below what the other pollsters are getting - were the closest to the result of that election. Though their last poll was completely out of whack to the result, all their polls leading up to the election showed a huge bounce for Labour and predicted a hung parliament, while most of the others were predicting a massive Con victory.


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2019)

Chz said:


> Absolutely, but remember that YouGov - who are consistently putting Labour support below what the other pollsters are getting - were the closest to the result of that election. Though their last poll was completely out of whack to the result, all their polls leading up to the election showed a huge bounce for Labour and predicted a hung parliament, while most of the others were predicting a massive Con victory.


Survation were the closest, so by that logic Labour are 2 ahead. Nice one.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 5, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Showing the fallacies in your argument doesn't mean I'm arguing that Labour will win a majority or even a plurality.



It’s not demonstrating a fallacy. It’s evidence and not very strong evidence at that. It’s tempered greatly by Labour’s own diminishing returns.

I don’t hold with this ‘the Tories are shit, Labour should be miles ahead’. The Tories are the biggest electoral force in the UK. Beating them always hard.

What would give confidence that Labour can would be results that show an increase in Labour’s appeal in some direction and some sort of palpable buzz or confidence about itself. It doesn’t have either.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2019)

Graphic of findings from Ashcroft's latest polling of 8223 adults between 24 & 28 June 2019.



Ordered by 'all' score (grey dot).


----------



## Rimbaud (Jul 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> Maybe it's true, but I've not seen anything more solid to back it up than it just being what various pricks who've called everything else wrong for the past 5 years think. I'm not accepting that as sound political analysis anymore.



There's a lot of pricks in the media who take Essex as their basis for understanding the British working class and seldom venture outside of London, and never out of the South East. Northerners are Brexity racists, Northern Ireland doesn't exist, and Wales and Scotland don't matter. What you have is a commentariat who are convinced that the 17 million or so in London and the South East are all that matters and the other 50 million who live outside London and the Home Counties are peripheral and irrelevant. This may be true economically, but it is one person one vote.

This is why they get it wrong again and again and again. There is a very strong tribal loyalty to Labour in the North that the commentariat doesn't really understand.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 22, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Graphic of findings from Ashcroft's latest polling of 8223 adults between 24 & 28 June 2019.
> 
> View attachment 178285
> 
> Ordered by 'all' score (grey dot).


Corbyn beats Cameron lol


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 22, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Corbyn beats Cameron lol


Change/TIG/whatever clustering shows most people just answered an ambivalent/dunno who they are 0. Equivelent to a 5 on a scale of how satisfied you are when companies make you do those fucking surveys after you phone to check your balance or something


----------



## Raheem (Jul 23, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Graphic of findings from Ashcroft's latest polling of 8223 adults between 24 & 28 June 2019.
> 
> View attachment 178285
> 
> Ordered by 'all' score (grey dot).


So the most popular thing in the UK is the Green Party with an overall score of zero, roughly translated as 'not arsed either way'.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 23, 2019)

Raheem said:


> So the most popular thing in the UK is the Green Party with an overall score of zero, roughly translated as 'not arsed either way'.


Yeah, and it’s the favourite amongst both Labour leavers AND Labour remainers!


----------



## Chz (Jul 24, 2019)

Electoral Calculus
Interesting read here on divergence of polling and forecasting of potential GE outcomes, WRT to YouGov's oddities.
Apologies if it was posted before.


----------



## Supine (Jul 26, 2019)




----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 26, 2019)

Supine said:


>


Made the mistake of clicking on that


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2019)

Supine said:


>



That's a council by-election result?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2019)

killer b said:


> That's a council by-election result?


Indeed.
One of 3 that demonstrated the less predictable nature of 3/4 way contests.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2019)

A mighty 200 votes. The only interesting thing about that is brexit party taking labour vote to let this scummer in. First seats stood in.

Is this you outing yourself then Supine?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2019)

Tories flocking to lib dems

Boost for Jo Swinson as Tories swell Liberal Democrat ranks, poll suggests


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2019)

Anyone know if the Sunday titles will be running with the first post-Johnson polling?


----------



## Raheem (Jul 27, 2019)

Edit. I gave some duff polling info.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 27, 2019)

Johnson is going to take votes from the Brexit Party .


----------



## treelover (Jul 27, 2019)

New UK poll Looks like Boris is already eating into the Brexit Party vote ... Conservatives 30% (+7) Labour 28% (+3) Lib Dem 16% (+1) Brexit Party 15% (-7) Grew 5% (-3) Opinium Research, July 24 - 26

from Goodwins site, bang on , Steam.


----------



## treelover (Jul 27, 2019)

More evidence of a Boris bounce tonight, this time from YouGov This is a Con majority of 60-ish but try not to dwell on early polls. All depends on Brexit delivery Conservatives 31% (+6) Labour 21% (+2) Lib Dem 20% (-3) Brexit Party 13% (-4) YouGov

ditto


----------



## MickiQ (Jul 27, 2019)

Boris taking votes off the Brexit Party short term is pretty much a given, For the next few weeks at least we are going to be subject to a nauseous stream of 'At last we have a man (wanna bet sexism will enter into this?) who can deliver Brexit' and 'Boris Fuck Yeah', right up until he hits the same walls that Mayhem did.
He is going to enjoy something of a honeymoon right up to the point where he has to put Brexit off yet again and then we will see his popularity plummet.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 28, 2019)

Best to be cautious for all kinds of reasons at the moment. The interaction of relatively low polling figures and the fptp system, the polls undercounted Labour/Corbyn voters last time etc. We also don't know whether the next election will be before a likely Brexit, after a failed Brexit or after an actual Brexit. We're almost at the point where we don't know anything. Same time, it's a struggle to see a Labour majority emerging from most of these scenarios. Labour's best chance may well be Gauke and the rest stopping the October deadline, blood letting, Brexit Party take significant votes from the Tories. But even then Labour may well need a de facto pact with the Liberals to maximise the number of non-Tory MPs (which they almost certainly won't even ask for, never mind get). Labour's real fear might be that Farage's lot stand aside where the Tory sitting MP is  frothing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Best to be cautious for all kinds of reasons at the moment. The interaction of relatively low polling figures and the fptp system, the polls undercounted Labour/Corbyn voters last time etc. We also don't know whether the next election will be before a likely Brexit, after a failed Brexit or after an actual Brexit. We're almost at the point where we don't know anything. Same time, it's a struggle to see a Labour majority emerging from most of these scenarios. Labour's best chance may well be Gauke and the rest stopping the October deadline, blood letting, Brexit Party take significant votes from the Tories. But even then Labour may well need a de facto pact with the Liberals to maximise the number of non-Tory MPs (which they almost certainly won't even ask for, never mind get). Labour's real fear might be that Farage's lot stand aside where the Tory sitting MP is  frothing.


By frothing do you mean barking?


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 29, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Best to be cautious for all kinds of reasons at the moment. The interaction of relatively low polling figures and the fptp system, the polls undercounted Labour/Corbyn voters last time etc. We also don't know whether the next election will be before a likely Brexit, after a failed Brexit or after an actual Brexit. We're almost at the point where we don't know anything. Same time, it's a struggle to see a Labour majority emerging from most of these scenarios. Labour's best chance may well be Gauke and the rest stopping the October deadline, blood letting, Brexit Party take significant votes from the Tories. But even then Labour may well need a de facto pact with the Liberals to maximise the number of non-Tory MPs (which they almost certainly won't even ask for, never mind get). Labour's real fear might be that Farage's lot stand aside where the Tory sitting MP is  frothing.



There is no conceivable route to a working Labour majority while they are polling 14% in Scotland.


----------



## MickiQ (Jul 29, 2019)

DownwardDog said:


> There is no conceivable route to a working Labour majority while they are polling 14% in Scotland.


Agreed but Lab-SNP, Lab-LD or even Lab-SNP-LD coalitions are plausible combinations whereas the Tories only allies now are the crazies shouting in the corner


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 29, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Agreed but Lab-SNP, Lab-LD or even Lab-SNP-LD coalitions are plausible combinations whereas the Tories only allies now are the crazies shouting in the corner



Don’t believe for a second that the Lib Dems wouldn’t bend over for the tories again. A sniff of power will be like rohypnol, plenty of common ground outside of the Brexit issue. A ‘moderating force’, they’d sell you out again for a ban on plastic straws or something.


----------



## MickiQ (Jul 29, 2019)

Politicians sniff power like rats after garbage but I don't think a Tory-LD coalition is likely in the near future not whilst they are led by Bono the Clown, the man is as divisive inside Westminster as he is outside and Brexit is just too great a divide. 
In the long term maybe but I don't think it is likely on any timescale a GE will be fought on


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 29, 2019)

I don't think a Lab/Lib coalition is a possibility either though tbf. Maybe confidence & supply I suppose.


----------



## chilango (Jul 29, 2019)

Lib Dems will jump into bed with literally anyone. They joined forces with UKIP in one Northern town didn't they?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 29, 2019)

chilango said:


> Lib Dems will jump into bed with literally anyone


except anyone slightly left of themselves


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 29, 2019)

chilango said:


> Lib Dems will jump into bed with literally anyone. They joined forces with UKIP in one Northern town didn't they?


Bolton right now with tories and UKIP.  

edit: Happened in Derby as well apparently.

Of course, been in coalition with tories all over the place.


----------



## krink (Jul 29, 2019)

chilango said:


> It's probably just down to the fact that I cashed out my £50 /QUOTE]
> 
> OK, stop showing off. I lost the will to live trying to get the 50 quid


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 29, 2019)

> You Gov July Welsh poll - Westminster
> 
> Conservative: 24% (+7)
> 
> ...



Pretty horrendous reading for Labour all round, and bears out the creeping belief that without some dramatic shifts into radicalism that seem so far beyond them Welsh Labour hegemony is over (with usual provisos that this is only one poll). The Assembly poll is the first one ever showing Plaid in the lead, and would mean, in an election, that Drakeford would lose his seat.


----------



## killer b (Jul 29, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Bolton right now with tories and UKIP.
> 
> edit: Happened in Derby as well apparently.
> 
> Of course, been in coalition with tories all over the place.


Are there any lab/lib councils? It seems to be a vanishingly rare lash up


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 29, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I don't think a Lab/Lib coalition is a possibility either though tbf. Maybe confidence & supply I suppose.



Smug as fuck Swinson is ahead of you: 

Jo Swinson rules out Lib Dem pact with Labour under Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## treelover (Jul 29, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Agreed but Lab-SNP, Lab-LD or even Lab-SNP-LD coalitions are plausible combinations whereas the Tories only allies now are the crazies shouting in the corner



be hard for the Tories to attack Labour for going into coalition with the SNP, after their one with the DUP, though they will try.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 29, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Smug as fuck Swinson is ahead of you:
> 
> Jo Swinson rules out Lib Dem pact with Labour under Jeremy Corbyn


Well yeah. Obviously the libdems are completely shameless but fuck all chance they will jump in with labour formally while Corbyn/labour left in control


----------



## killer b (Jul 29, 2019)

The vast majority of Lib Dem target marginals are tory held seats (something like 40-odd out of 50), so their current strategy is aimed at picking up liberal tory voters who would never consider voting Corbyn's labour.  Whether it would hold up to the other side of a general election remains to be seen though.


----------



## killer b (Jul 29, 2019)

Actually its 30-odd out of the top 50. Either way, their strategy has to be primarily tory facing. Also worth looking at these numbers if you're imagining the lib dems as in a position to overtake Labour next election - they quickly get to the point where they need to overturn majorities of tens of thousands if they want to pick up any more than a handful of seats. 

Liberal Democrat Target Seats 2022 - Election Polling


----------



## Argonia (Jul 29, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Politicians sniff power like rats after garbage but I don't think a Tory-LD coalition is likely in the near future not whilst they are led by Bono the Clown, the man is as divisive inside Westminster as he is outside and Brexit is just too great a divide.
> In the long term maybe but I don't think it is likely on any timescale a GE will be fought on



The Tories are led by Bono now? Has he ditched U2?


----------



## MickiQ (Jul 29, 2019)

Argonia said:


> The Tories are led by Bono now? Has he ditched U2?


Blame that on a Samsung phone and my fat fingers


----------



## brogdale (Jul 29, 2019)

YG (Professor Scully's Univ. Wales) Welsh only Westminster poll (fieldwork over the last week & sample size >1k)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 29, 2019)

The fight is on for that brexit party vote.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 29, 2019)

> In three months time the tories will be led by a Brexit chaos monkey. They will be chattering a wall of noise about identity, nationhood, threats, terrorism and most of all the betrayal of Brexit by parliament. They will whip up emotions and aim to chew up a big chunk of Nigel's voters. Life long Labour votes are up for grabs in those towns around the M62 and down the M6 and A1.
> Labour sounds like a party for students hyped up about minorities, transgender issues and who think of everyone outside of the university towns as racist gammons and toxic masculinity.
> It may be a lie but that is what many people hear. And the chaos monkey will target those people with soothing promises of taking them seriously.
> 
> ...


Peterborough by-election, 6 June 2019


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 29, 2019)

Do we have that most rare  of night visitors, a sober dr sausages?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 31, 2019)

Crossover point according to Britain Elects tracker poll:


----------



## Argonia (Jul 31, 2019)

Parliament looks decidedly hung in the current circumstances.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 5, 2019)

Lots of interesting stuff to unpick here

EXCLUSIVE: Majority of Scots now in favour of independence, finds poll


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 5, 2019)

Argonia said:


> Parliament looks decidedly hung in the current circumstances.



Chance would be a fine thing


----------



## Poi E (Aug 5, 2019)

weepiper said:


> Lots of interesting stuff to unpick here
> 
> EXCLUSIVE: Majority of Scots now in favour of independence, finds poll



"Overall, a majority of Scots said that if a second independence referendum were to be held, they believed that Scotland would become independent and only three in ten of those polled – including two thirds of Conservative supporters and fewer than half of ‘no’ voters in 2014 – thought Scotland would vote to remain part of the UK."

Wow.


----------



## treelover (Aug 5, 2019)




----------



## MickiQ (Aug 5, 2019)

treelover said:


>



It was a dead cat one


----------



## Supine (Aug 5, 2019)

The Boris bounce

https://ukpollingreport.co.uk/?

None of these polls look anything like the momentum quoted poll. Obviously it's easy to cherrypick a poll that reflects our own biases


----------



## brogdale (Aug 7, 2019)

More on that 'bounce'.



Way negative.
The cunt.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 7, 2019)

So, that's an approval rating of minus 21%, compared with Corbyn on minus 40-50%.

What a fucking mess.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 7, 2019)

brogdale said:


> More on that 'bounce'.
> 
> View attachment 180043
> 
> ...


Yet still seeing and reading stuff every day including on here which seems to see Johnson as a crafty heavyweight who can drive through no deal and take another five years. Mad. He's a gift imo. And fucked.


----------



## Supine (Aug 7, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yet still seeing and reading stuff every day including on here which seems to see Johnson as a crafty heavyweight who can drive through no deal and take another five years. Mad. He's a gift imo. And fucked.



He doesn't have to be popular. He just has to be more popular than the opposition.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 7, 2019)

...and the geography of Johnson's polling:


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 7, 2019)

Supine said:


> He doesn't have to be popular. He just has to be more popular than the opposition.


Well he has to be more popular than the opposition with the voters that could go (back) to labour


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 7, 2019)

brogdale said:


> ...and the geography of Johnson's polling:
> 
> View attachment 180050




 

That’s ironic. They’re the ones who launched his career by electing him mayor...


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 7, 2019)

Yes, we speak of what we know.


----------



## bluescreen (Aug 7, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> That’s ironic. They’re the ones who launched his career by electing him mayor...


Maybe that's why.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 7, 2019)

Any reason for the tortured syntax? “Where is he least unpopular?”

ETA. Doh. Just worked it out. Ignore.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 7, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> So, that's an approval rating of minus 21%, compared with Corbyn on minus 40-50%.
> 
> What a fucking mess.



This seems the last survey before May 'stepped down'.

 

Farage came out best.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 7, 2019)

Just posted the chart on my family group chat.

Middle brother: “21% of Scots have a favourable view of him - who are they?”
Youngest brother: “Huns”.


:neutral face:


----------



## treelover (Aug 7, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> View attachment 180060
> 
> That’s ironic. They’re the ones who launched his career by electing him mayor...



Charles Moore said it is those who know him best who know how unsuitable he really is, or words to that effect.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2019)

More on that 'bounce'


----------



## treelover (Aug 8, 2019)

So, good for the Yellow enablers?


----------



## killer b (Aug 8, 2019)

The tories are up 5-6% on yougov since johnson was made leader tbf. That it hasn't continued climbing isn't evidence theres no bounce - its bounced and its sustained. The lib dems are up and down by a point or two each time, it's just noise rather than being a real increase.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2019)

killer b said:


> The tories are up 5-6% on yougov since johnson was made leader tbf. That it hasn't continued climbing isn't evidence theres no bounce - its bounced and its sustained. The lib dems are up and down by a point or two each time, it's just noise rather than being a real increase.


Yep, that's a fair call.
I suppose what might be a little troubling for the vermin is the relatively modest uptick and Johnson's consistently (so far) negative, personal polling.
The 'bounce', such as it is, appears to have put the vermin back to where there were in (Westminster) polling back in April under May. Interestingly that's when UKIP & Brexit were then polling about 14 % together, supporting the notion of unsurprising churn from the 'insurgents' back to the vermin.

Of course the weak Lab polling makes Johnson's modest 'bounce' more potent. In April the other opposition parties were collectively polling about 20% whereas today they're nudging towards 30%...at Labour's expense.


----------



## treelover (Aug 8, 2019)

Labour will have a very good manifesto, with stuff which will appeal to 'moderates, John Mc's regional banks, etc, whether they will vote for Labour is another thing.


----------



## Argonia (Aug 9, 2019)

Chuk aren't going to get 5.5% after their splitting antics


----------



## Supine (Aug 9, 2019)

Argonia said:


> Chuk aren't going to get 5.5% after their splitting antics



P45 more likely


----------



## brogdale (Aug 9, 2019)

Argonia said:


> Chuk aren't going to get 5.5% after their splitting antics


No, they won't. That's why I was sort of lumping all the non-Lab oppo together.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 13, 2019)

Majority of Britons support 'Brexit by any means'

"A ComRes opinion poll showed 54% of respondents said they agreed with the statement: “Boris (Johnson) needs to deliver Brexit by any means, including suspending parliament if necessary, in order to prevent MPs (Members of Parliament) from stopping it.”"


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2019)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Majority of Britons support 'Brexit by any means'
> 
> "A ComRes opinion poll showed 54% of respondents said they agreed with the statement: “Boris (Johnson) needs to deliver Brexit by any means, including suspending parliament if necessary, in order to prevent MPs (Members of Parliament) from stopping it.”"


You know how we all sneer whenever the people's vote campaign release some bollocks press release based on a partial reading of a leading poll question?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> You know how we all sneer whenever the people's vote campaign release some bollocks press release based on a partial reading of a leading poll question?



I'm not following you, sorry


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2019)

the poll you quote is total bollocks.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> the poll you quote is total bollocks.



Are ComRes not legit?


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2019)

They are, but the question they've been instructed to ask is bollocks.

This blog details the issue with this kind of question, and drawing any conclusions from their results.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2019)




----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 24, 2019)

Fucking depressing


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2019)

40% is electorally relevant.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 24, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> 40% is electorally relevant.


Do you mean hit 40 and go for a GE?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> 40% is electorally relevant.


Not necessarily with 33% going to 3 & 4?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 24, 2019)

That kind of polling certainly emboldens Johnson for whatever he's going to do next - and let's be honest, those are dreadful figures for Labour (regardless of caveats from 2017). Not actually sure what he _will _do next re Brexit, but we can be pretty certain there's a GE in the next few months.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2019)

I mean, to both above, is that LD  and BP % mean nothing aside from a few seats.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 24, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I mean, to both above, is that LD  and BP % mean nothing aside from a few seats.



And a lot of the Brex vote-intention will go Tory in a GE, just like UKIP votes did.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> And a lot of the Brex vote-intention will go Tory in a GE, just like UKIP votes did.


That's what you made it, yep. The barrage might have worked.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 24, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> That's what you made it, yep. The barrage might have worked.



I'm not sure I'm _entirely_ responsible, but you be your usual enigmatic and elliptical self, butchers 

Honestly, it's like receiving an unexpected - and strangely unsettling - report from an Augur, sometimes.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> I'm not sure I'm _entirely_ responsible, but you be your usual enigmatic and elliptical self, butchers
> 
> Honestly, it's like receiving an unexpected - and strangely unsettling - report from an Augur, sometimes.


OK, my point is that anti-eu feeling with no left rep is dead. If we're not there, they are.

The barrage is the liberal wall against fascism. The one that keeps  producing it.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2019)

It's obvious


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 25, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> And a lot of the Brex vote-intention will go Tory in a GE, just like UKIP votes did.


In 2015 most the the UKIP vote polled stayed with UKIP in the GE (or else was cancelled out by a movement to UKIP from other sources).

From the start of the official campaign to polling day the average UKIP polled was 12.5%, slightly below the 12.9% they got the GE.
From the start of 2015 to polling day the average UKIP polled was 14.1%.
There was a move away from UKIP but it was not that large.

For the 2017 GE UKIP did poll higher than the final vote but there vote there was much lower than what they achieved in the 2015 GE and what the BP are currently polling.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 30, 2019)

Fieldwork on prorogation day Zero & P+1...they're lapping it up.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 30, 2019)

On a basic no deal v deal split it's about evens though. Fun times ahead


----------



## Supine (Aug 30, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> On a basic no deal v deal split it's about evens though. Fun times ahead



Yep - although dangerous to make the assumption that the same people would vote remain/leave in a ref as they would for the party of their choice in a GE.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 30, 2019)

Supine said:


> Yep - although dangerous to make the assumption that the same people would vote remain/leave in a ref as they would for the party of their choice in a GE.


Yeah, was thinking more for a GE though, if called next week to fall just before the end of October leave date then people likely to vote for a party that reflects their leave/remain position. Tories probably come out largest with Labour second but balance of other parties bit more curious, LibDems won't get many seats for their 20%ish polling but BxP will be lucky to get any on their 12%.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 30, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah, was thinking more for a GE though, if called next week to fall just before the end of October leave date then people likely to vote for a party that reflects their leave/remain position. Tories probably come out largest with Labour second but balance of other parties bit more curious, LibDems won't get many seats for their 20%ish polling but BxP will be lucky to get any on their 12%.


Worth noting that this is YG who have appeared to over-egg recent tory leads by inflating the LD numbers at the expense of the LP.


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 31, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah, was thinking more for a GE though, if called next week to fall just before the end of October leave date then people likely to vote for a party that reflects their leave/remain position. Tories probably come out largest with Labour second but balance of other parties bit more curious, LibDems won't get many seats for their 20%ish polling but BxP will be lucky to get any on their 12%.



The thought of the Tories as the largest party is a horror show, with a majority a nightmare.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 31, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> The thought of the Tories as the largest party is a horror show, with a majority a nightmare.


Yeah if they can form a govt. But they could end up largest party without any road to a majority


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 31, 2019)

Oh dear, the cry babies saying that nasty old YouGov is helping the Tories\Lib Dems at the expense of Labour.
Data offered, as expected, zero.

Meanwhile from the 5 latest polls by major polling companies (KantorTNS is a way there)

via @Survation, 29 - 30 Aug
CON: 31% (+3)
LAB; 24% (-)
LDEM: 21% (-)
BREX: 14% (-1)
(90%)
via @YouGov, 28 - 29 Aug
CON: 33% (-1)
LAB; 22% (-)
LDEM: 21% (+4)
BREX: 12% (-1)
GRN: 7% (-1)
(95%)
via @OpiniumResearch, 21 - 23 Aug
CON: 32% (+1)
LAB: 26% (-2)
BREX: 16% (-)
LDEM: 15% (+2)
GRN: 4% (-1)
(93%)
via @KantarTNS, 15 - 19 Aug
CON: 42% (+17)
LAB: 28% (-6)
LDEM: 15% (-)
BREX: 5% (-5)
GRN: 3% (-)
TIG/CHUK: 1% (-)
UKIP: 0% (-4)
(94%)
via @BMGResearch (pre 18 August)
CON: 31% (+3)
LAB: 25% (-2)
LDEM: 19% (+1)
BREX: 12% (-2)
(87%)
These are the most recent polls by 5 polling companies.
Most show the Tories around 31% other than KantarTNS.
BMG	   shows a 6% lead but a 19% Lib Dem vote.
Opium	 shows a 6% lead with 15% Lib Dem vote
YouGov	shows a 11% lead with 21% Lib Dem vote
Survation shows a 7% lead with 21% Lib Dem vote
KantarTNS shows a 14% lead with 15% Lib Dem vote.
The difference is YouGov shows more for the Greens and less for Brexit Party. Survation has the Lib Dems on the same numbers as YouGov but a smaller lead as less goes to the Greens
BMG has nearly the same number for the Lib Dems but a smaller lead again due to small parties not picking up as much.
Opiums low Lib Dem score is more of the outlier but the only one that supports the current meme.
Obviously though pollin on Urban is only used to validate personal opinions. So the actual numbers are only to be cherry picked. 

Given a deeply fractured electorate generally not having much in either main party then its down to how the polling companies pick up the sentiment for other parties and how they model for that sentiment to come back to the big two on election day.

Obviously though that is nowhere near as much fun as accusing them of "over egging" because you do not like the poll (or the British people)

While we are here, survations leadership numbers.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 31, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> Oh dear, the cry babies saying that nasty old YouGov is helping the Tories\Lib Dems at the expense of Labour.
> Data offered, as expected, zero.
> 
> Meanwhile from the 5 latest polls by major polling companies (KantorTNS is a way there)
> ...



Yes, quite.
YG has the lowest LP & joint highest LD.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 31, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> Oh dear, the cry babies saying that nasty old YouGov is helping the Tories\Lib Dems at the expense of Labour.
> Data offered, as expected, zero.
> 
> Meanwhile from the 5 latest polls by major polling companies (KantorTNS is a way there)
> ...




Lot easier to see with a screen-shot...


Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 31, 2019)

BTW, I am loving how well things are going for UKIP & the Change names weekly lot.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 31, 2019)

Anything showing what seats the average of current polling would translate to?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 31, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Anything showing what seats the average of current polling would translate to?



You need to put the figures in - User-defined Poll

 

Not sure if this link will work, if it does, it gives predicted seat changes:
Election Prediction

It's a bit scary, TBH.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 31, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> You need to put the figures in - User-defined Poll
> 
> View attachment 182745
> 
> ...


See I think in current context a lash up of lab/lib/snp/plaid is politically possible (not attractive but there we go) but narrow as fuck isn't it

Edit fucking hell wasn't even looking at right seats, fucks sake


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 31, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> See I think in current context a lash up of lab/lib/snp/plaid is politically possible (not attractive but there we go) but narrow as fuck isn't it



Trouble is, come the day, I can see a majority of BP intended voters switching to the Tories. Not sure if a majority of LD intended voters will switch to Lab, what with Corbyn being so unpopular.

I nicked this from the Daily Mail's site, but it was a Survation poll, and they called it nearest in the 2017 election...

 
...again, a bit scary.


----------



## Smangus (Aug 31, 2019)

Give it a couple of weeks more to sink in, but not looking good for any kind of Lexit  shambles.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Aug 31, 2019)

FFS don't call a GE. I can't go through the heartache of seeing another Tory win.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 31, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> FFS don't call a GE. I can't go through the heartache of seeing another Tory win.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Aug 31, 2019)

It's not the frequency of elections that bothers me, it's the inevitable outcome. We cannot go through another five years of tory shit. People cannot literally survive anymore. Fucking burn this shithole country


----------



## tommers (Aug 31, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> It's not the frequency of elections that bothers me, it's the inevitable outcome. We cannot go through another five years of tory shit. People cannot literally survive anymore. Fucking burn this shithole country


And yet they keep voting for them.

Did you hear Corbyn used to work for the Czech secret service?


----------



## Rivendelboy (Aug 31, 2019)

tommers said:


> And yet they keep voting for them.
> 
> Did you hear Corbyn used to work for the Czech secret service?


Of course, he's a dirty muslim commuterrorist


----------



## kebabking (Aug 31, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> ...again, a bit scary.



Actually - so far - I think we've pretty much got away with it.

We've had, apart from the murder of Jo Cox MP during the ref campaign, no violence, and certainly no large scale violence. We've had a downturn in the nature of our political debate, and we've had an unwelcome polarisation, but if you imagine what might have happened if, 3 years after a 'yes' vote on Scottish independence, the Scottish parliament was pretty obviously trying to kick independence off into the long grass, or in Ireland 3 years after a 'yes' vote for unification very little was happening, then we've pretty much got away with it.

We've (and by that I mean the electorate, even though I voted to remain) decided to make a large change in the way our country works, one that is very tightly wound up with questions about viscerial identity, and yet our political 'elite' (I fucking hate that word, it's ridiculously simplistic, but it will do for the moment), are still squabbling over the original question, not (as promised) listening to the answer they asked us to give them and cracking on with implementation. Compared with how it could have gone - Bosnia - a bit of jiggery-pokery that implements legislation that parliament has already passed isn't the worst outcome in the world.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 31, 2019)

True, its not Bosnia 






Rivendelboy said:


> FFS don't call a GE. I can't go through the heartache of seeing another Tory win.


If it stays like this then maybe crashing out on a No Deal with enough carnage ensuing and then a GE might be the only way to avoid Emperor Johnsons reign


----------



## brogdale (Sep 1, 2019)

Lapping.It.Up.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Sep 1, 2019)

Inserting a loop of Bambi being shot in front of a children's choir on christmas day would only serve to make this thread less depressing. Corbyn has his faults for sure, but the Tories? How can Britain function like this?


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 1, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> Inserting a loop of Bambi being shot in front of a children's choir on christmas day would only serve to make this thread less depressing. Corbyn has his faults for sure, but the Tories? How can Britain function like this?



Labour decided Corbo had to be allowed to lose 2 elections before getting booted out so here we are.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 1, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> Inserting a loop of Bambi being shot in front of a children's choir on christmas day would only serve to make this thread less depressing. Corbyn has his faults for sure, but the Tories? How can Britain function like this?



Labour are fucked in terms of having a position on Brexit at this point in time ahead of an imminent election....they cant triangulate anymore. One option would be an all out kamikaze remain position to get back lib dem votes - an inverse of what the Toryies have just done with Brexit Party voters -  which would both fail and damage them hard in the future.
Feel totally doomed.
Bracing for five years of not just a tory government, but a hyper thatcherite one, way beyond the last two.



DownwardDog said:


> Labour decided Corbo had to be allowed to lose 2 elections before getting booted out so here we are.


I thought Corbyn should have stood down at one point this year, purely as he'd taken too many arrows - but the fact is Labour are outmanoeuvred as a party on Brexit, and no new Labour leader could find a position on Brexit that would fly in the face of the current Tory narrative <IMO


----------



## Chz (Sep 1, 2019)

> a hyper thatcherite one


They're quite to the right of Thatcher.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 1, 2019)

Chz said:


> They're quite to the right of Thatcher.


That's what I was getting at


----------



## chilango (Sep 1, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> You need to put the figures in - User-defined Poll
> 
> View attachment 182745
> 
> ...



Looking at seats I'm familiar with on that list.

Most, but not all, seem plausible.

But....they have Leave leaning seats and Remain leaning seats being gained by the Tories. Which is interesting.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Sep 1, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Labour are fucked in terms of having a position on Brexit at this point in time ahead of an imminent election....they cant triangulate anymore. One option would be an all out kamikaze remain position to get back lib dem votes - an inverse of what the Toryies have just done with Brexit Party voters -  which would both fail and damage them hard in the future.
> Feel totally doomed.
> Bracing for five years of not just a tory government, but a hyper thatcherite one, way beyond the last two.
> 
> ...


I think remain is their best bet. At least the brexit vote will divide the tories and the brexit party.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 1, 2019)

Yeah best bet is defo to give up on voters in south wales valleys and yorkshire and east mids towns, where else will they go


----------



## Rivendelboy (Sep 1, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah best bet is defo to give up on voters in south wales valleys and yorkshire and east mids towns, where else will they go


There are no good choices, if they support brexit they lose the remainers to the libdems while the hardcore brexiteers won't vote labour anyway


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2019)

I think that last bit is where and why you may be going wrong.


----------



## killer b (Sep 2, 2019)

Interesting MRP poll on the FT liveblog this afternoon:

_According to a new poll of 10,000 adults, a snap general election would produce...another hung parliament, our Whitehall correspondent Sebastian Payne writes. According to the survey, commissioned by the Conservative Group for Europe - a pro-European group led by former attorney general Dominic Grieve and ex-chancellor Ken Clarke - an election would reject the Tories but it would not emphatically endorse any other party. According to FocalData, who used the MRP method to produce the survey, an election would produce the following outcome (changes from the 2017 election in brackets): 

Conservative: 311 (-6 seats) 
Labour: 242 (-20 seats) 
Liberal Democrats: 21 (+9 seats) 
SNP: 52 (+17 seats) 
Plaid: 4 (no change) 
Green: 1 (no change) 
Others: 1 

There’s a few things to note. First it covers just Great Britain, with no results for Northern Ireland. So if the Democratic Unionist party held onto their ten seats, they could once again prop up the Tories and keep Boris Johnson as prime minister. Second, although Labour would lose seats (presumably over its Brexit stance) the gains for for the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats could offer the party a chance to form a rainbow coalition of all progressive parties._


----------



## killer b (Sep 2, 2019)

fieldwork for the poll was carried out by Panelbase, who are polling Labour quite high in their standard polls, so read it with that in mind.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Sep 2, 2019)

killer b said:


> Interesting MRP poll on the FT liveblog this afternoon:
> 
> _According to a new poll of 10,000 adults, a snap general election would produce...another hung parliament, our Whitehall correspondent Sebastian Payne writes. According to the survey, commissioned by the Conservative Group for Europe - a pro-European group led by former attorney general Dominic Grieve and ex-chancellor Ken Clarke - an election would reject the Tories but it would not emphatically endorse any other party. According to FocalData, who used the MRP method to produce the survey, an election would produce the following outcome (changes from the 2017 election in brackets):
> 
> ...


You mean 311 seats + 21 from the yellow tories who absolutely will jump into bed with the cunts again.


----------



## chilango (Sep 2, 2019)

killer b said:


> Interesting MRP poll on the FT liveblog this afternoon:
> 
> _According to a new poll of 10,000 adults, a snap general election would produce...another hung parliament, our Whitehall correspondent Sebastian Payne writes. According to the survey, commissioned by the Conservative Group for Europe - a pro-European group led by former attorney general Dominic Grieve and ex-chancellor Ken Clarke - an election would reject the Tories but it would not emphatically endorse any other party. According to FocalData, who used the MRP method to produce the survey, an election would produce the following outcome (changes from the 2017 election in brackets):
> 
> ...



Who's the "others" with one seat?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 2, 2019)

killer b said:


> Interesting MRP poll on the FT liveblog this afternoon:
> 
> _According to a new poll of 10,000 adults, a snap general election would produce...another hung parliament, our Whitehall correspondent Sebastian Payne writes. According to the survey, commissioned by the Conservative Group for Europe - a pro-European group led by former attorney general Dominic Grieve and ex-chancellor Ken Clarke - an election would reject the Tories but it would not emphatically endorse any other party. According to FocalData, who used the MRP method to produce the survey, an election would produce the following outcome (changes from the 2017 election in brackets):
> 
> ...


apart from a near clean sweep for Sturgeon, that appears remarkably as you were.


----------



## Argonia (Sep 2, 2019)

chilango said:


> Who's the "others" with one seat?



Are they saying that one of the doomed Chukas will survive?


----------



## killer b (Sep 2, 2019)

chilango said:


> Who's the "others" with one seat?


the brexit party I believe (not seen the source data though).


----------



## killer b (Sep 2, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> You mean 311 seats + 21 from the yellow tories who absolutely will jump into bed with the cunts again.


I don't think they could tbh. Not without significant movement on brexit, which no tory leader could give atm.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 3, 2019)

chilango said:


> Who's the "others" with one seat?



Speaker?


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 3, 2019)

Greening standing down in Putney - could be an interesting contest.

Incidentally on an early election she said this 


> I’m staggered that all these months and years, Jeremy Corbyn has been calling for a general election and it seems that my government is about to hand him that prize on a plate.


Nicely illustrating the political contact of her, Blair and the FPBE lot


----------



## Gaia (Sep 4, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> You mean 311 seats + 21 from the yellow tories who absolutely will jump into bed with the cunts again.



Didn't realise you were a stark raving commie. Please stop this "yellow Tory" bollocks, it's fucking infantile. Do grow the fuck up. Labour is fucking finished, Corbyn has seen to that by attempting to recreate the British Communist Party. Both the Tories _*and*_ Labour deserve to be obliterated.


----------



## belboid (Sep 4, 2019)

Gaia said:


> Didn't realise you were a stark raving commie. Please stop this "yellow Tory" bollocks, it's fucking infantile. Do grow the fuck up. Labour is fucking finished, Corbyn has seen to that by attempting to recreate the British Communist Party. Both the Tories _*and*_ Labour deserve to be obliterated.


ohh, fuck off you imbecile.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 4, 2019)

Gaia said:


> Corbyn has seen to that by attempting to recreate the British Communist Party.


That’s just nonsense.


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 4, 2019)

Gaia said:


> Didn't realise you were a stark raving commie. Please stop this "yellow Tory" bollocks, it's fucking infantile. Do grow the fuck up. Labour is fucking finished, Corbyn has seen to that by attempting to recreate the British Communist Party. Both the Tories _*and*_ Labour deserve to be obliterated.


Look, you need to calm down and think about what you're saying. What you're posting is clearly unfounded rubbish, coupled with abuse of other posters. That's not on.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Sep 4, 2019)

i'm surprised it's taken nearly 20 years for some clown to register the username Gaia on here.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Sep 4, 2019)

Gaia said:


> Didn't realise you were a stark raving commie. Please stop this "yellow Tory" bollocks, it's fucking infantile. Do grow the fuck up. Labour is fucking finished, Corbyn has seen to that by attempting to recreate the British Communist Party. Both the Tories _*and*_ Labour deserve to be obliterated.


Leaving who?

Using the term "stark raving commie" while simultaneously calling out childish behaviour is laughable.

If you think it's bollocks then give an argument why. Anything else is risible. Jo Swinson just welcome a Tory who crossed the floor to now join a select committe with backward views on marriage and equality. She herself is a grasping opportunist happy to be funded by frackers at a time where fracking couldmn't be less popular with the public. Never mind that whole coalition thingy.

Really there's no need to be this aggressive, we're on the same fucking side


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> Leaving who?
> 
> Using the term "stark raving commie" while simultaneously calling out childish behaviour is laughable.
> 
> ...


I don't think that you are you know! She's literally telling you that she is what you call a 'yellow tory'.


----------



## chilango (Sep 4, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I don't think that you are you know! She's literally telling you that she is what you call a 'yellow tory'.



That's been made starkly clear over the last few years. 

People aren't always on the side they think they are.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Sep 4, 2019)

Another in an ever-growing list of occasions where Gaia farts in a lift and gets out at the next floor, never to return, It's not even good trolling.


----------



## Santino (Sep 4, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> i'm surprised it's taken nearly 20 years for some clown to register the username Gaia on here.


It's the forum software regulating itself.


----------



## Gaia (Sep 4, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Another in an ever-growing list of occasions where Gaia farts in a lift and gets out at the next floor, never to return, It's not even good trolling.



1. I’ve not gone anywhere 
2. For your information, I have a chronic illness and I sleep a great deal 
3. I see you’re another for whom the definition of “trolling” is ‘someone who doesn’t agree with me’, pretty standard for Corbynistas. Trolling is being deliberately antagonistic, which I was not. I didn’t realise I’d entered the Urban chapter of the Church of St. Jeremy. Perhaps you should all put your symbol in your username and then I would know to avoid you. Yes, I’m snarky; I’m snarky because I’m tired and in a fair bit of pain right now.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2019)

Gaia said:


> 1. I’ve not gone anywhere
> 2. For your information, I have a chronic illness and I sleep a great deal
> 3. I see you’re another for whom the definition of “trolling” is ‘someone who doesn’t agree with me’, pretty standard for Corbynistas. Trolling is being deliberately antagonistic, which I was not. I didn’t realise I’d entered the Urban chapter of the Church of St. Jeremy. Perhaps you should all put your symbol in your username and then I would know to avoid you. Yes, I’m snarky; I’m snarky because I’m tired and in a fair bit of pain right now.



He is not accusing you of trolling. The point he is making is that you post a lot of farty/sneery/offensive shit and then refuse to engage/ignore people's responses to it. In this post above you've done a bit more of that very thing. 

Being in pain and/or autistic doesn't mean you can post up this shit without challenge. It's got fuck all to do with JC and people's like or not of him and everything to do with you having some fairly dog-shit views and thinking no one here has the right or reason to pull you up on them when you post them up across the boards.


----------



## killer b (Sep 4, 2019)

Interesting polling about no deal in the staggers: The polling that shows why Boris Johnson’s no-deal Brexit strategy is a major risk

this graph is the important one: shows most brexit supporters don't care very much about no deal, whereas opponents of brexit absolutely hate it - shows that running on a no-deal ticket isn't in itself a big draw, and is a much bigger motivator for it's opponents.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Sep 4, 2019)

Gaia said:


> 1. I’ve not gone anywhere
> 2. For your information, I have a chronic illness and I sleep a great deal
> 3. I see you’re another for whom the definition of “trolling” is ‘someone who doesn’t agree with me’, pretty standard for Corbynistas. Trolling is being deliberately antagonistic, which I was not. I didn’t realise I’d entered the Urban chapter of the Church of St. Jeremy. Perhaps you should all put your symbol in your username and then I would know to avoid you. Yes, I’m snarky; I’m snarky because I’m tired and in a fair bit of pain right now.


Woo, I'm a Corbynista now. Apparently.

As an expert, then, I wondered what you meant by this:



Gaia said:


> I DO wish people would use more credible sources than the *New British Communist Party's (formerly the Labour Party) *propaganda wing.


----------



## killer b (Sep 4, 2019)

do you all have to?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 4, 2019)

Yeah, I think the Tories running on a likelihood of no deal is the one thing that might make a load of former Blair voters hold their noses and vote for Corbyn.

Sometimes I think Johnson is playing some game too deep for me to see, other times I realise, no, he's a fucking moron.


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 4, 2019)

Gaia said:


> 1. I’ve not gone anywhere
> 2. For your information, I have a chronic illness and I sleep a great deal
> 3. I see you’re another for whom the definition of “trolling” is ‘someone who doesn’t agree with me’, pretty standard for Corbynistas. Trolling is being deliberately antagonistic, which I was not. I didn’t realise I’d entered the Urban chapter of the Church of St. Jeremy. Perhaps you should all put your symbol in your username and then I would know to avoid you. Yes, I’m snarky; I’m snarky because I’m tired and in a fair bit of pain right now.


Ok, you are not the only poster a) with a chronic illness and b) dealing with any level of pain. These things, whilst undeniably crap, do not entitle you to be abusive or offensive to others. So don't play those cards again, please. 

Please be respectful to other posters. You don't have to agree with everyone, but as people are trying to be kind and helpful to you all acrossuurban, so you should be kind to them in return.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 4, 2019)

Imagine how great it would be if communism was on the agenda tho


----------



## brogdale (Sep 4, 2019)

Have we had this?

Moving to GE mode...


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 4, 2019)

Gaia said:


> 1. I’ve not gone anywhere
> 2. For your information, I have a chronic illness and I sleep a great deal
> 3. I see you’re another for whom the definition of “trolling” is ‘someone who doesn’t agree with me’, pretty standard for Corbynistas. Trolling is being deliberately antagonistic, which I was not. I didn’t realise I’d entered the Urban chapter of the Church of St. Jeremy. Perhaps you should all put your symbol in your username and then I would know to avoid you. Yes, I’m snarky; I’m snarky because I’m tired and in a fair bit of pain right now.



Waste of skin so you're going on ignore


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 4, 2019)

Gaia said:


> 1. I’ve not gone anywhere
> 2. For your information, I have a chronic illness and I sleep a great deal
> 3. I see you’re another for whom the definition of “trolling” is ‘someone who doesn’t agree with me’, pretty standard for Corbynistas. Trolling is being deliberately antagonistic, which I was not. I didn’t realise I’d entered the Urban chapter of the Church of St. Jeremy. Perhaps you should all put your symbol in your username and then I would know to avoid you. Yes, I’m snarky; I’m snarky because I’m tired and in a fair bit of pain right now.



If you really think that Urban worships at the Church of Saint Corbyn then you are misreading these boards to an astonishing degree. If you don't really think that but are posting it to try and score some inconsequential point,  then please stop and treat your fellow contributors with a bit more respect.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Sep 7, 2019)

Its weekend poll...


----------



## Supine (Sep 7, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Its weekend poll...
> 
> View attachment 183464



Those numbers don't add up do they?

-2 -3 and a +3


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 7, 2019)

Supine said:


> Those numbers don't add up do they?
> 
> -2 -3 and a +3


There will be others and non voters


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 7, 2019)

Supine said:


> Those numbers don't add up do they?
> 
> -2 -3 and a +3



Looking on the wiki page, they don't seem to survey CHUK & UKIP, just put them under 'others', and this poll doesn't include a figure for PC, which was 1% last time. So take that -1% & the -2% missing from above, and they list 'others' on 6% / +3%

Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia


----------



## brogdale (Sep 7, 2019)

Should have said, with the usual caveats etc....that it will be interesting to see how much any other polling this weekend supports the possible polling trends that might be expected from this tumultuous week for Johnson and the tory party.
Con down at the expense of BP might have been the most obvious guess, I suppose?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 7, 2019)

i not sure polling can tell us much about how the election is going to play out until the election is on and we know where we are wrt EU extensions. 
It might be that corbyns seeming "rehabilitation" within the more liberal media will push labours numbers up - and when it comes to the crunch, many of those pearl clutching liberal remainers will vote labour rather than risk johnson. Labour and Corbyn may repeat 2017 feat of benefiting from more and more balanced tv coverage.
Also difficult to assess is how the brexit party will do and who they will hurt most. In 2015 we expected ukip to take a bite out of the tory vote - but they hurt labour more. Could that happen again?
And the lib dem revival will very likely hit the tories.
PLus the potential of enhanced tactical voting - anti tory and remain voters are younger, more social media motivated so this could have a pronounced effect.
Also - tories could get wiped out in scotland
Basically a lot of dynamic variables at play. 
We could very well be back with a hung parliament, tories largest party - but unable to form a government. Corbyn  resigns? Johnson gets the boot?
And another election in spring 2020!  

eat up your "fuck knows?!?!" stew folks


----------



## brogdale (Sep 7, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> i not sure polling can tell us much about how the election is going to play out until the election is on and we know where we are wrt EU extensions.
> It might be that corbyns seeming "rehabilitation" within the more liberal media will push labours numbers up - and when it comes to the crunch, many of those pearl clutching liberal remainers will vote labour rather than risk johnson. Labour and Corbyn may repeat 2017 feat of benefiting from more and more balanced tv coverage.
> Also difficult to assess is how the brexit party will do and who they will hurt most. In 2015 we expected ukip to take a bite out of the tory vote - but they hurt labour more. Could that happen again?
> And the lib dem revival will very likely hit the tories.
> ...


Not sure I totally agree that polling is unlikely to tell us much until the campaign. With Brexit, Parliament and party politics so dominant as the headline topic across all media (including the tabloids) it's got to be the case that pollsters should be able to pick up any moving sentiment, irrespective of the GE actually being called?


----------



## Supine (Sep 7, 2019)




----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 7, 2019)

Labour will really have to drill down into that libdem support, which you'd expect it to in an actual election period tbf as people polling libdem in seats that are straight choice between tory and lab switch, but then that brexit 10+ is there for tories to take too, it's the combined polling of tories and brexit party that's frighteneing


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 7, 2019)

The polls are all over the fucking place...

 

Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia

No one has a fucking clue.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 7, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> The polls are all over the fucking place...
> 
> View attachment 183551
> 
> ...


That ICM one with two results is the before/after 31 October poll isn't it?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 7, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> That ICM one with two results is the before/after 31 October poll isn't it?



Yep.

The little [a], [b ]*, *[c] links next to the lead score, on the wiki page, explains what's what.


----------



## Raheem (Sep 7, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> The polls are all over the fucking place...
> 
> View attachment 183551
> 
> ...


Impossible at the moment for polling to keep pace with what's going on, in any case.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 7, 2019)

Tories seem to be falling apart more every day. Polls won’t have quite caught up with that yet, a couple of days ago the tories still seemed to have some gravity but resignations are making a mess and taking valuable headlines away from the magic money tree stuff Javid was throwing about.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 7, 2019)

More so now Rudd has gone, not just as a minister, but from the Tory whip.

Amber Rudd resigns from cabinet and surrenders Conservative whip


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 7, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> The polls are all over the fucking place...
> 
> View attachment 183551
> 
> ...



Well, despite being extraordinarily shit, the Tories continue to lead. Useless Brexit holding them in place for now.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 7, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Well, despite being extraordinarily shit, the Tories continue to lead. Useless Brexit holding them in place for now.



With the exception of the latest yougov poll, the polls are seeing movement against the Tories, esp. the 2 asking for voting intentions if the GE happens after 31/10/19, which looks highly likely ATM, 1 puts them tied with Labour, 1 gives Labour a lead of 2% - and that's before this latest news!


Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia


----------



## Smangus (Sep 8, 2019)

Need to see polls 2-3 weeks after the 31st Oct really tobsee what effect The rebels strategy is having.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2019)

Wonder which pollster will be the first to ask their 'tory' respondents which tory party they're expressing support for?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 8, 2019)




----------



## killer b (Sep 8, 2019)

This weekend's polls are inconclusive to say the least on public reaction to recent Westminster maneuvers  - take your pick:


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 8, 2019)

Survation was the one almost spot on at the last GE, putting the Tories on a 1% lead, compared with the 2.5% they got.


----------



## gosub (Sep 8, 2019)

killer b said:


> This weekend's polls are inconclusive to say the least on public reaction to recent Westminster maneuvers  - take your pick:





If can see a slight flaw : if we are not having an election, and we are leaving and then we are having as election (I think that's where we're at, then why are Brexit polling in the teens? what are Brexit party voters voting for post Brexit?


----------



## gosub (Sep 8, 2019)

Has this been political compassed to death yet? Electoral Calculus Plot My Three-D Position


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 9, 2019)

gosub said:


> If can see a slight flaw : if we are not having an election, and we are leaving and then we are having as election (I think that's where we're at, then why are Brexit polling in the teens? what are Brexit party voters voting for post Brexit?



Brexit is just the withdrawal stage, there’s a deal to be done afterwards in the transition phase, presumably BP will still exist to try and shape this in whatever Farage’s paymasters want it to be shaped.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 9, 2019)

gosub said:


> Has this been political compassed to death yet? Electoral Calculus Plot My Three-D Position


Just like Political Compass, this places me waaaay further left than many on here would place me - and I was fairly honest with my responses....


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 9, 2019)

From Sky’s* Sam Coates*



> Sam Coates Sky@SamCoatesSky
> 
> Exc: No10 has seen polling that means if there was an election now, Boris Johnson would do worse than Theresa May, according to Jason Stein, who was a Tory special advisor and Amber Rudd aide until Saturday night
> 
> Here’s what he told me for a Sky News interview:



It sounds logical to me.


----------



## killer b (Sep 9, 2019)

I think we can assume, after the success of Yougov's MRP model in the run up to the 2017 election, that all three main parties are running their own private MRP models. I've seen speculation that the Lib Dem's decision to run Umunna in London & Westminster - where they were a distant third in 2017 - is based on their MRP model.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 9, 2019)

Its the problem with FPTP .  Just because they are polling OK doesn't mean it will translate into seats.  I've seen the figure of 60 seats the tories will have to win if they want a comfortable majority.  This is allowing for the seats they will lose in Scotland and metropolitan areas.

That's a lot of seats and with the Brexit Party spoiling its not going to be easy.


----------



## killer b (Sep 9, 2019)

I don't know whether this is real or some kind of last-ditch attempt to get Labour to vote for an election this evening, but


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 9, 2019)

Lol if true


----------



## killer b (Sep 9, 2019)

Yougov are denying they've given a poll with these figures to Downing Street, but a (now deleted) post by Stephen Bush identifies the polling company as CTF (Lynton Crosby's firm)


----------



## weltweit (Sep 9, 2019)

What percentage do the tories have to get to have a majority in the HoC?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 9, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Its the problem with FPTP .  Just because they are polling OK doesn't mean it will translate into seats.  I've seen the figure of 60 seats the tories will have to win if they want a comfortable majority.  This is allowing for the seats they will lose in Scotland and metropolitan areas.
> 
> That's a lot of seats and with the Brexit Party spoiling its not going to be easy.



Presumably they've now got to run two dozen nobodies in what were until recently tory seats with established MPs as well. That's going to have non-zero effect on tory fortunes.


----------



## killer b (Sep 9, 2019)

weltweit said:


> What percentage do the tories have to get to have a majority in the HoC?


depends on too many variables for there to be a fixed number - in 2005 Blair won a majority with 35%, in 2017 May lost her majority with 42%


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 9, 2019)

weltweit said:


> What percentage do the tories have to get to have a majority in the HoC?



There's no answer to that as it depends massively on where the votes are. For example the Brexit party could conceivably get 10-15% nationwide and still finish up with zero seats.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> The polls are all over the fucking place...
> 
> No one has a fucking clue.


Most of the variance is accounted by the smaller parties, Greens and Brexit. Comparing companies that offer Lab\Con\LD\Green on their first question with others that prompt for Lab\Con\LD\Brexit will show a large difference between the Lab\Con vote as the two different small parties pull from the two larger ones. 
There is a bit of variance from the Lib Dems but on the whole the Conservatives are pulling about 32% give or take two points and Labour are 27% give or take two points. Small parties with small budgets and poor data will shed votes in a first past the post national election. 
The Lib Dems who have well structured local parties will likely hold onto much of the vote. 
The questions that people look at this far our from an election is leadership ratings and trust on the economy. Those are the kind of worries that will see people start falling behind one of the big parties on. 
As for seats, the SNP are going to hoover up almost everything in Scotland. 50-55. About 13 of them are Tory. That hobbles both parties efforts to get a majority. 
Working out how the Brexit and Lib Dems vote will break is really going to be a regional thing. The Brexit vote will likely hold up in the hard core Brexit seats, you sea side and small midlands northern towns, Lib Dems likely to do better in suburbs and student towns. 

YouGov have said the poll being tweeted about is nothing to do with them. National polling is usually done with about 1000 respondents. 50 000 sounds.... odd. Unless someone has thrown very serious money at 50 seats with 1000 polls. 

Also there is usually a methodological difference between phone and internet polling. They have differing demographic reaches so modelling has to back fill for the missing in phone polling, which back in the day tended to show lower UKIP numbers, so I would assume its similar for the Brexit Party.

tl;dnr, polling tells you what it can. In this case: hung parliament is the most likely outcome.


----------



## killer b (Sep 9, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> YouGov have said the poll being tweeted about is nothing to do with them. National polling is usually done with about 1000 respondents. 50 000 sounds.... odd. Unless someone has thrown very serious money at 50 seats with 1000 polls.


it's a fairly typical number for an MRP model


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 9, 2019)

LibDems having a party machine doesn't mean it's vote will hold up in a GE, as every GE shows. It's vote will be diminished for same reason every other party except labour or tory will - because people want their vote to count. Obviously.


----------



## Smangus (Sep 9, 2019)

killer b said:


> Yougov are denying they've given a poll with these figures to Downing Street, but a (now deleted) post by Stephen Bush identifies the polling company as CTF (Lynton Crosby's firm)



Must be true then ......


----------



## MrSki (Sep 10, 2019)




----------



## brogdale (Sep 11, 2019)

If YG go -ive for the vermin I think we can assume that the 'honeymoon' effect is waning.


----------



## Supine (Sep 13, 2019)




----------



## killer b (Sep 13, 2019)

Ah, council by-election results, surely the best barometer we have of the state of national politics.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> Ah, council by-election results, surely the best barometer we have of the state of national politics.



Yes. One of the most maddening practises of swivel-eyed Corbynista's and BP loons alike is this constant posting of a council by-election result showing a big swing and claiming that this proves 'x'. All it really proves is that the poster is a fucking idiot.


----------



## killer b (Sep 13, 2019)

It's mostly a practice indulged in by Lib Dems IME


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 13, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Yes. One of the most maddening practises of swivel-eyed Corbynista's and BP loons alike is this constant posting of a council by-election result showing a big swing and claiming that this proves 'x'. All it really proves is that the poster is a fucking idiot.


LibDems also do this, seen somebody post the vince cable hat gif once for a parish council seat


----------



## brogdale (Sep 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> It's mostly a practice indulged in by Lib Dems IME


since 2015


----------



## killer b (Sep 13, 2019)

Corbynistas post the corbyn turns to camera gif or the corbyn wwf gif whenever Labour get a 1-pt bump in the opinion polls. Their heads aren't turned by something so puny as a council by election.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 13, 2019)

Here's some polling for you all to savour.



Whoever commissioned this should be in prison.


----------



## killer b (Sep 13, 2019)

Labour Party members are super horny huh.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 13, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Here's some polling for you all to savour.
> 
> 
> 
> Whoever commissioned this should be in prison.



I doubt any such thing was ever commissioned. Pollsters like YG have plenty of scope for cross-break merging of all sorts of responses from their multi-variate polling.
Looks as though most self-reported tory voters were either too old to harbour sexual fantasies for sensible enough not to peddle them to a pollster.


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> I doubt any such thing was ever commissioned. Pollsters like YG have plenty of scope for cross-break merging of all sorts of responses from their multi-variate polling.
> Looks as though most self-reported tory voters were either too old to harbour sexual fantasies for sensible enough not to peddle them to a pollster.


You'd have thought so, but you're wrong - https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/sexual-fantasies-tory-labour-supporters-happy-bedroom/

The the article is wrong too, I remember a survey from the nineties as well.  I think Labour were horniest then too


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 13, 2019)

I saw that poll yesterday, but haven't yet seen a source for it. 

If it is genuine then the fact that Labour supporters fantasise about kissing another human is perhaps the most disturbing finding. 

Liberals, unsurprisingly, are infected with repressed middle class fantasy. As for the Tories even their fantasies involve status and capital.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 13, 2019)

belboid said:


> You'd have thought so, but you're wrong - https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/sexual-fantasies-tory-labour-supporters-happy-bedroom/
> 
> The the article is wrong too, I remember a survey from the nineties as well.  I think Labour were horniest then too



You're a passionate Labour supporter aren't you belboid ?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 13, 2019)

belboid said:


> You'd have thought so, but you're wrong - https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/sexual-fantasies-tory-labour-supporters-happy-bedroom/
> 
> The the article is wrong too, I remember a survey from the nineties as well.  I think Labour were horniest then too


Perhaps I should have said "commissioned as a discrete piece of polling"?
I still reckon YG have just asked their registered respondents about sex and then cross-referenced to any previously reported political preferences. I suppose if folk are willing to offer all this up for the pollsters then it's fair game.


----------



## Supine (Sep 13, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> All it really proves is that the poster is a fucking idiot.





You not liking it doesn't make me an idiot. And you wouldn't say that to my face so calm yourself down on the keyboard.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 13, 2019)

Supine said:


> You not liking it doesn't make me an idiot. And you wouldn't say that to my face so calm yourself down on the keyboard.



Eh?


----------



## killer b (Sep 13, 2019)

Supine said:


> You not liking it doesn't make me an idiot. And you wouldn't say that to my face so calm yourself down on the keyboard.


It isn't that we don't like it, it's that it's meaningless outside of the context of that particular council ward. We'd post the same if someone had posted some results showing a Labour local by election victory too (and have done).


----------



## brogdale (Sep 13, 2019)

Supine said:


> You not liking it doesn't make me an idiot. And you wouldn't say that to my face so calm yourself down on the keyboard.


Yes, uncalled for.
But it's not really case of liking the local election result or not; it's more a question of what polling value single (low turnout) council by-elections can possibly have.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Yes, uncalled for.
> But it's not really case of liking the local election result or not; it's more a question of what polling value single (low turnout) council by-elections can possibly have.



Sorry, what's uncalled for? My comment? If so my comment specifically mentioned Labour and BP supporters posting a council by election result and then claiming that it contains a wider significance. People who do that are, and there is no getting around it, fucking stupid. It's clearly politically ignorant but it doesn't even work agitationally.


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Perhaps I should have said "commissioned as a discrete piece of polling"?
> I still reckon YG have just asked their registered respondents about sex and then cross-referenced to any previously reported political preferences. I suppose if folk are willing to offer all this up for the pollsters then it's fair game.


I think it s, it was her basis for a proper academic bok and everything!  There was a new version out yesterday, which is probably why this infographic gained prominence again, and it's got an introduction by Isabel Hardman, so it must be all true and rigorously tested!


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> You're a passionate Labour supporter aren't you belboid ?


yup, all day I dream of spanking strange movie stars outdoors, whilst wearing a Jeremy Corbyn mask.



I mean sexy outfit!


----------



## flypanam (Sep 13, 2019)

belboid said:


> yup, all day I dream of spanking strange movie stars outdoors, whilst wearing a Jeremy Corbyn mask.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean sexy outfit!


Spanking them with a marrow. A sexy marrow.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 13, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Sorry, what's uncalled for? My comment? If so my comment specifically mentioned Labour and BP supporters posting a council by election result and then claiming that it contains a wider significance. People who do that are, and there is no getting around it, fucking stupid. It's clearly politically ignorant but it doesn't even work agitationally.


OK, that's your view.
Mine is that it's not really necessary to call another poster a fucking idiot in a thread like this.
Difference of views.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 13, 2019)

> The Conservatives lost a council seat to the Liberal Democrats in the latest local by-elections. The Tory defeat came in a poll at South Northamptonshire Council in Middleton Cheney ward following the resignation of a Conservative councillor. The votes were: Lib Dem 384, Conservative 345, Green 89, Labour 59.
> 
> However, the Conservatives achieved a gain in the Rutland County Council by-election, which was sparked by the disqualification of an independent councillor. Voting there was: Conservative 357, Lib Dem 156, Green 121.
> 
> ...



Good luck in trying to work out a trend going on, with that set of results, based on very low number of votes, and where local issues come into play.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 13, 2019)

belboid said:


> I think it s, it was her basis for a proper academic bok and everything!  There was a new version out yesterday, which is probably why this infographic gained prominence again, and it's got an introduction by Isabel Hardman, so it must be all true and rigorously tested!


Maybe showing my age?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 13, 2019)

Oral sex as a fantasy


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2019)

I mean what does the ukip one tell us about the...vigour of its members?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 13, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> I mean what does the ukip one tell us about the...vigour of its members?


I think they're just into pegging


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 13, 2019)

belboid said:


> yup, all day I dream of spanking strange movie stars outdoors, whilst wearing a Jeremy Corbyn mask.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean sexy outfit!



That would explain some of your posts on here tbf.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 13, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Liberals, unsurprisingly, are infected with repressed middle class fantasy.


The sampling is inherently skewed towards the mundane though because you can't fill in a survey when there's a bin liner on your head, etc.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> OK, that's your view.
> Mine is that it's not really necessary to call another poster a fucking idiot in a thread like this.
> Difference of views.



FFS. I called people who post by-election results and then claim that they are inscribed with a deeper and/or wider political significance 'fucking stupid'. I haven't called anyone here specifically 'fucking stupid' but I am approaching the point where I might....


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 13, 2019)

mauvais said:


> The sampling is inherently skewed towards the mundane though because you can't fill in a survey when there's a bin liner on your head, etc.



Aye, but have you ever met a liberal who isn't _possessed _with repressed emotions/feelings/desires/_urges?_  Bin bag headed or not?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2019)

belboid said:


> yup, all day I dream of spanking strange movie stars outdoors, whilst wearing a Jeremy Corbyn mask.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean sexy outfit!


Better than a trotsky death mask I suppose...


----------



## killer b (Sep 13, 2019)

icepick sex play is the latest thing among hipster stalinsts, I heard.


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Better than a trotsky death mask I suppose...


ohh, now I have to imagine.....actually, no, no I'm not going to go there..


----------



## killer b (Sep 13, 2019)

too late, we're there


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 13, 2019)

You just know the Tory ‘sex with a sports star’ fantasy will be Tim fucking Henman or some rugby twat.


----------



## Smangus (Sep 13, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> You just know the Tory ‘sex with a sports star’ fantasy will be Tim fucking Henman or some rugby twat.



Think Torvill and Dean....

Best of British and all that


----------



## Wilf (Sep 13, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> You just know the Tory ‘sex with a sports star’ fantasy will be Tim fucking Henman or some rugby twat.


Threesome with Ron Atkinson and Eddie the Eagle Edwards.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 13, 2019)

Disappointed no greens were polled. What's their kink


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 13, 2019)

Tapirs.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 13, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Disappointed no greens were polled. What's their kink


'_... and will you dress up as Gaia?'_


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 13, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Disappointed no greens were polled. What's their kink



Hate-fucking the tail pipes of a Range Rover Evoque?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 13, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Hate-fucking the tail pipes of a Range Rover Evoque?


Before getting into it and driving home


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 13, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Here's some polling for you all to savour.
> 
> 
> 
> Whoever commissioned this should be in prison.




Libdems don't have many non-white friends, do they? Hilariously and cluelessly racist even in their sexual fantasies.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 13, 2019)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Libdems don't have many non-white friends, do they? Hilariously and cluelessly racist even in their sexual fantasies.



I bet they’d ask if they could touch their hair too.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 14, 2019)

“Over represented differences that are statistically significant” could mean that 1% of supporters ticked a box for one party and 0% did for the others.  It doesn’t have to mean lots of supporters ticked the box.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 14, 2019)

Saw this on _Britain Elects..._thought it might offer a little lite, weekend relief before the Sunday's polls start rolling?



Techno!


----------



## brogdale (Sep 14, 2019)

1st of the weekend sees the vermin holding firm..


----------



## brogdale (Sep 14, 2019)

2nd...


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 15, 2019)

All over the fucking place. Wouldn’t like to see the result of a 37% vote for the vermin mind.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 15, 2019)

brogdale said:


> 2nd...
> 
> View attachment 184207


Comres put out this bit of analysis alongside that poll Reflections on the Westminster psychodrama « ComRes

This bit really stood out to me
*8. Orange Is The New Red?*
Jeremy Corbyn’s near monopoly on the youth vote is evaporating as newly enfranchised voters turn to the Lib Dems, almost certainly over Brexit. In comparison to a ComRes/Daily Express poll conducted in September 2018, the Labour vote share among 18-24s has decreased from 62% to 38%, while the corresponding Lib Dem vote share has increased from 9% to 25%.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 15, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Comres put out this bit of analysis alongside that poll Reflections on the Westminster psychodrama « ComRes
> 
> This bit really stood out to me
> *8. Orange Is The New Red?*
> Jeremy Corbyn’s near monopoly on the youth vote is evaporating as newly enfranchised voters turn to the Lib Dems, almost certainly over Brexit. In comparison to a ComRes/Daily Express poll conducted in September 2018, the Labour vote share among 18-24s has decreased from 62% to 38%, while the corresponding Lib Dem vote share has increased from 9% to 25%.


#Youthquake


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 15, 2019)

Where has the rest gone? I guess greens will be pulling in a lot due to the popularity of ER protests.

May not just be down to switchers, as people will be moving in and out of that grouping.

Also can’t really say ‘don’t be fooled again’ about the Lib Dems to 18-24 year olds given none of them would have voted in 2010. Needs pointing out though.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Sep 15, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Where has the rest gone? I guess greens will be pulling in a lot due to the popularity of ER protests.
> 
> May not just be down to switchers, as people will be moving in and out of that grouping.
> 
> Also can’t really say ‘don’t be fooled again’ about the Lib Dems to 18-24 year olds given none of them would have voted in 2010. Needs pointing out though.


I dunno, we all knew Thatcher was a cunt in primary school. Maggie Thatcher did a fart and blew up the USA


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 15, 2019)

Probably not the best poll but on AOL out of 16,500 votes only 11% would vote labour in a GE. That would put them 4th.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 15, 2019)

100% of a tiny bit.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 15, 2019)

The youth total vote, the seats it matter?


----------



## mauvais (Sep 16, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Probably not the best poll but on AOL out of 16,500 votes only 11% would vote labour in a GE. That would put them 4th.


Who in God's green fuck still uses AOL? Surely only people who died in 1997 and whose direct debit somehow survives them.


----------



## Supine (Sep 16, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Who in God's green fuck still uses AOL? Surely only people who died in 1997 and whose direct debit somehow survives them.



IT illiterates


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 16, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Who in God's green fuck still uses AOL? Surely only people who died in 1997 and whose direct debit somehow survives them.


I've got an e-mail account there and can't be arsed to change it.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Who in God's green fuck still uses AOL? Surely only people who died in 1997 and whose direct debit somehow survives them.


Mike Pence, apparently
Pence's real crime is that he still uses an AOL email account


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 16, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Who in God's green fuck still uses AOL? Surely only people who died in 1997 and whose direct debit somehow survives them.



My dad is a 78 year old IT illiterate and still moved himself to Gmail a couple of years ago


----------



## Supine (Sep 19, 2019)




----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 19, 2019)

that's us fucked then ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 19, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> that's us fucked then ...


Whatever numbers were there, that’s still the answer.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 19, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> that's us fucked then ...


Making such judgements from polling now overlooks the fact that any GE will take place at least 4 weeks after 31/10/19.

The political environment could look very different by then.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 19, 2019)

Anyone who reads a poll now, and uses it to construct a narrative about what will happen in the white heat of the coming election is very brave.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 19, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Anyone who reads a poll now, and uses it to construct a narrative about what will happen in the white heat of the coming election is very brave.


Although I will make a prediction that the libdems will 100% definitely not get a higher vote share than labour and will have circa 200 seats less


----------



## brogdale (Sep 19, 2019)

Not wishing to go too OT, but if the GE were to fall after the UK's exit from the EU...being a party with one policy (to revoke A50) is going to look a pretty threadbare offer tbh.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 19, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Although I will make a prediction that the libdems will 100% definitely not get a higher vote share than labour and will have circa 200 seats less



They will definitely have less seats. On the former point it depends how the Revoke A50 policy plays long. My view is badly. How badly is debatable. But they are starting from a point where they deliberately excluded 52% of the electorate


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 19, 2019)

Just for fun, based on those figures, electoral calculus predicts...


----------



## Wilf (Sep 19, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Not wishing to go too OT, but if the GE were to fall after the UK's exit from the EU...being a party with one policy (to revoke A50) is going to look a pretty threadbare offer tbh.





Proper Tidy said:


> Although I will make a prediction that the libdems will 100% definitely not get a higher vote share than labour and will have circa 200 seats less



I'm somebody who did make that prediction (Libs beating Labour on votes, but not seats). Hedging slightly, I think I said something like 'could well beat Labour in vote share' or something, but I'll own it. But yeah, timing is everything and it's also about the Horlicks that Labour come out with at their conference in terms of their brexit stance. Some version of renegotiations, 2nd referendum and Corbyn not letting on what he thinks doesn't look like a formula for attracting more Labour voters. But regardless of whether they beat the Libs, Labour won't be losing purely on the back of their brexit stance, it'll be the longer term failure of project Corbyn/momentum.


----------



## killer b (Sep 19, 2019)

Ipsos have a 3-point LD bump too fwiw (it is the end of their conference week so not necessarily meaning much, but their revoke policy is likely to be very popular among the remain fundies)


----------



## killer b (Sep 19, 2019)




----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> Ipsos have a 3-point LD bump too fwiw (it is the end of their conference week so not necessarily meaning much, but their revoke policy is* likely to be very popular among the remain fundies*)


65% of Labour voters voted to remain.
71% of people below 24 in 2016
The under 30s are an absolutely critical demographic for Labour in any up coming election. 
How Britain voted at the EU referendum | YouGov

Green voters, voted by 80/20 to remain. 

I read your posts with amusement. Its just fantasies masquerading as analysis. But you are too thick to ever really understand this.


----------



## killer b (Sep 19, 2019)

what... what fantasies do you think I'm indulging?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 19, 2019)

Always find the 'x number of labour voters voted to remain' argument quite odd/funny. Labour didn't win. Ok they need to retain voters but they also need to get some new ones. Perhaps old new ones that used to vote labour but stopped.  Anyway it's a shit argument regardless.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 19, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> 65% of Labour voters voted to remain.
> 71% of people below 24 in 2016
> The under 30s are an absolutely critical demographic for Labour in any up coming election.
> How Britain voted at the EU referendum | YouGov
> ...


As Proper Tidy has just said, Labour are going to get anywhere they need to find a way through and round brexit, to start increasing their vote. My line has always that Labour should have built a politics and organisation that worked with/represented/organised * the whole working class. That would have been the way into and beyond brexit. That they haven't done this is Labour's real problem - failing to settle on a 'line' on brexit is just a symptom of that (a rather big one as it happens, but still a symptom).

Oh, by the way, silly rants about people being thick are a bit shit (whoever they are from or aimed at). And, needless to say, Killer b certainly ain't thick.

* Choose yer term, depending on your politics


----------



## killer b (Sep 19, 2019)

He can call me thick if he likes, but I dunno where he's read posts by me that suggest I don't think people who voted remain and under 30s are a crucial part of Labour's support. Certainly not here.


----------



## Supine (Sep 21, 2019)

Posted mainly because I like the design. Results not eye opening.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 21, 2019)

Labour is fucked.


----------



## chilango (Sep 21, 2019)

Let's wait and see.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 21, 2019)

chilango said:


> Let's wait and see.



What?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 21, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> What?


31/10/19


----------



## chilango (Sep 21, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> What?



I think things will shift significantly in the coming weeks.

In what direction I don't know.

But we're in a weird limbo right now.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 21, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> What?



Labour _may well _be fucked, the numbers are not good, and they aren't any kind of blip - but they were also not good, and settled, prior to the 2017 GE, and what happened on the night bore no relationship whatsoever to what anyone would have predicted 6 weeks beforehand.

I have no idea how Labour - or anyone else - will do on the night. Politics in the last 4 years is so unpredictable that anyone betting the house on a particular result 8 weeks in the future, and the other side of a GE campaign, is guaranteed only one result - to lose.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 21, 2019)

Add Opinium to the pile


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 21, 2019)

Labour down 3, Brexit down 1, LD up 1. Where did the other three percent go?


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 21, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> 65% of Labour voters voted to remain.
> How Britain voted at the EU referendum | YouGov


Not sure how they work that out. Most labour voters are working class so according to that analysis should have voted leave not remain. 

Even odder when most labour constituencies voted leave.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Sep 22, 2019)

Labour really have fucked it haven't they? 

Time to retire magic grandpa.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 22, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Not sure how they work that out. Most labour voters are working class so according to that analysis should have voted leave not remain.
> 
> Even odder when most labour constituencies voted leave.



I'm sure you understand polling better than Yougov with all your AOL polling experience


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 22, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Not sure how they work that out. Most labour voters are working class so according to that analysis should have voted leave not remain.
> 
> Even odder when most labour constituencies voted leave.



You can take a seat with about 40% of the vote, so not that difficult to be an MP in an area where you don’t represent a majority opinion. Plus people don’t vote on single issues, care about things other than Brexit so don’t mind a party’s stance being different than their own. 

It’s only become a defining issue lately because that’s what some parties want, for the tories it’s all they have to offer since they’ve fucked up everything else and little else they offer is popular, for the lib dems everything else they stand for is so wishy-washy business-as-usual that this is the only policy they can stand out on. Labour may not have been keen to take a strong position on this, but they haven’t been able to set the agenda and raise other issues when Brexit has been the only topic in town.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 22, 2019)

Dom Traynor said:


> I'm sure you understand polling better than Yougov with all your AOL polling experience


Didn't say I did. It just doesn't make sense. Also how many people did you gov poll to find out their age, class and political leanings to then extrapolate this onto the referendum polling data?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Sep 22, 2019)

Time for Starmer to take over.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 22, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Didn't say I did. It just doesn't make sense. Also how many people did you gov poll to find out their age, class and political leanings to then extrapolate this onto the referendum polling data?



Yougov make all of that information available.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 22, 2019)

Dom Traynor said:


> Yougov make all of that information available.


So they do, I've just found it. ~5500 people surveyed so about 8 people per constituency  and out of those that voted in the referendum then that's 0.01%
There's going to be a hell of an error trying to scale that up to get an accurate view of who voted which way.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> So they do, I've just found it. ~5500 people surveyed so about 8 people per constituency  and out of those that voted in the referendum then that's 0.01%
> There's going to be a hell of an error trying to scale that up to get an accurate view of who voted which way.


What do they do to manage that error?


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 22, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> What do they do to manage that error?


No idea. They would need to use a crystal ball with a sample size that small.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> No idea. They would need to use a crystal ball with a sample size that small.


bye


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 22, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> bye


What ever they use is worthless as their own breakdown contradicts what they claim. All the groups that are more likely to vote labour, they claim voted leave and then claim that most labour supporters voted remain. What a joke.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> What ever they use is worthless as their own breakdown contradicts what they claim. All the groups that are more likely to vote labour, they claim voted leave and then claim that most labour supporters voted remain. What a joke.


I apologise, i misread your question as someone playing a game. If you're interested as to how they come to their fixed results that you pretend to be like that, here.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 23, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I apologise, i misread your question as someone playing a game. If you're interested as to how they come to their fixed results that you pretend to be like that, here.


And that states that it is possible to be wildly out. As someone has posted above political polls are very rarely accurate these days so why should this be any different?
If in that poll 5 out of 8 people in a constituency said they voted "monster raving loony party" does that mean that the MRLP have actually got an MP? Or is it more likely to show that either the sample size was too small or as some people do they have lied as to how they voted.

If you think Labour are onto a winner by backing remain then you are delusional. Round here NE Derbyshire which was previously labour for 94 years fell to the conservatives at the last GE. Like wise Mansfield which was previously held by labour for 98 years also fell to the conservatives. This is not due to a large influx of tories into the area it's because die hard labour voters are sick and tired of being ignored by the labour party when they voted leave. It's not just here it's in lots of other places as well. On the news the other week they were talking to the public in Wolverhampton N about brexit where the labout majority has dropped from ~22000 down to 220 of was it 22 Votes. 

If labour are so intouch with the people and their voters who 'mostly voted remain' then why is the labour vote falling as shown in polls above (if you can beleive them)?

It really comes to something when most die hard labour voting ex-miners round here are prepared to vote conservative because they are not being listened to. Most would vote brexit party but don't want to split the vote so will be voting conservative at the next GE if things don't change.  

So if you're not careful it will be virtually bye-bye labour party at the next election


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 23, 2019)

I linked to that to answer your question as to their methodologies etc. I'm not really interested in the rest of that post.


----------



## Supine (Sep 23, 2019)

BBC must have seen this thread 

Poll tracker: How popular are Westminster parties?

It includes the questions asked by each poll company and a discussion on weighting of answers.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 24, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I linked to that to answer your question as to their methodologies etc. I'm not really interested in the rest of that post.


Remind us how well labour did in the EU elections. 

Since the labour vote went down then if as you assert that most labour voters voted remain then they must have lost faith in the labour party and voted Lib dems instead.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2019)

I'm not sure that you have the right person and, if you have, then you've seriously misread anything I've ever said on the issue of the EU and the referendum.


----------



## belboid (Sep 24, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Remind us how well labour did in the EU elections.
> 
> Since the labour vote went down then if as you assert that most labour voters voted remain then they must have lost faith in the labour party and voted Lib dems instead.


which is what every single commentator said did happen.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 24, 2019)

Next lot of polls should be interesting I reckon


----------



## brogdale (Sep 24, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Next lot of polls should be interesting I reckon


If I were a betting man, I'd wager not that interesting tbh. Reckon those minded to back the psychoblustercunt to give them their Brexit will be fairly unmoved by the Supremes


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 24, 2019)

Johnson will get a bounce for being a bold maverick fighting the crusty institutions of state.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 24, 2019)

brogdale said:


> If I were a betting man, I'd wager not that interesting tbh. Reckon those minded to back the psychoblustercunt to give them their Brexit will be fairly unmoved by the Supremes


Yeah didn't mean will be sea change. I just want to see what effect this has on voting intentions (including on libdem vote as labour seems only remain game in town)


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 24, 2019)

Dp


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 24, 2019)

belboid said:


> which is what every single commentator said did happen.


That won't help labour at the next GE. 




Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah didn't mean will be sea change. I just want to see what effect this has on voting intentions (including on libdem vote as labour seems only remain game in town)


Libdems are def remain. Labour has just voted at conference to wait and see. Any one would think they don't want to be in power.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 25, 2019)




----------



## Wilf (Sep 25, 2019)

brogdale said:


> If I were a betting man, I'd wager not that interesting tbh. Reckon those minded to back the psychoblustercunt to give them their Brexit will be fairly unmoved by the Supremes


Yes, there's enough volatility in the polls already, at least in terms of the tory lead, for the next set of polls to look like more of the same. However I can't see Labour getting a lead any time soon. They might have seen a bounce around the new policies on prescriptions, social care and the rest, though brexit drowns everything else out at the moment.


----------



## treelover (Sep 25, 2019)

Fez909 said:


>




Mathew Goodwin is posting something like this, crazy?

"A very rough estimation of how seats fall based on current polls Conservative 323 Lab 222 Lib Dem 32 Green 2 Brexit P 1 SNP 48 Plaid 4 & what happens if half of #*Brexit* Party jump to Johnson: Con 365 Lab 191 Lib Dem 29 Green 2 Brexit 0 SNP 41 Plaid 4"


----------



## killer b (Sep 25, 2019)

treelover said:


> Mathew Goodwin is posting something like this, crazy?
> 
> "A very rough estimation of how seats fall based on current polls Conservative 323 Lab 222 Lib Dem 32 Green 2 Brexit P 1 SNP 48 Plaid 4 & what happens if half of #*Brexit* Party jump to Johnson: Con 365 Lab 191 Lib Dem 29 Green 2 Brexit 0 SNP 41 Plaid 4"


he's using the polling average across all polling companies, not a single poll from Comres


----------



## treelover (Sep 25, 2019)

I know, but is it viable, 100 seat loss?


----------



## killer b (Sep 25, 2019)

Who knows? If you make a load of broad assumptions it's a projection you could get to. But broad assumptions are really all we've got to go on atm, so it's as viable as anything else, and it's within the range of results indicated by current polling.

 Broad assumptions have led to Goodwin eating his own book in the past, mind.


----------



## killer b (Sep 25, 2019)

this poll from Opinium of 2017 Labour voters is interesting.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 25, 2019)

killer b said:


> this poll from Opinium of 2017 Labour voters is interesting.


Amazing.  Total impasse.  And I assume the other 13% are don’t knows?


----------



## killer b (Sep 25, 2019)

Or 'none of these' perhaps.

Worth considering that a lot of the top and bottom categories will not currently be planning to vote for Labour, I'd imagine.


----------



## killer b (Sep 25, 2019)

This graph of Leave/remain split in key Labour target seats also illustrates the Labour leadership's desire not to fully support remain in any upcoming election.


----------



## killer b (Sep 25, 2019)

(from this blog: Which Brexit strategy, if any, would get Labour an overall majority? - Opinium)


----------



## killer b (Sep 27, 2019)

Also this from Stephen Bush in the staggers 

Is Boris Johnson's electoral strategy working? Here's why it's so hard to tell


----------



## Kuke (Sep 27, 2019)

What's the source for that last graph?


----------



## killer b (Sep 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> (from this blog: Which Brexit strategy, if any, would get Labour an overall majority? - Opinium)





Kuke said:


> What's the source for that last graph?


----------



## Kuke (Sep 28, 2019)

Cheers.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 29, 2019)

Quiet on the polling front - nothing new out, or the RW press not wanting to publish anything that might tarnish golden boy’s reputation as a winner?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 29, 2019)

Wait & see, innit?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 29, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Quiet on the polling front - nothing new out, or the RW press not wanting to publish anything that might tarnish golden boy’s reputation as a winner?



This one came out overnight.

 

Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 29, 2019)

Nothing going on then! Thought there might be a post-honeymoon dip at some point.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 29, 2019)

Where are libdems getting their persistently high polling from? I've not met a single person in the real world who has said they'd vote libdem, have for labour, tory, brexit party, and plaid, but not a single libdem. Is shy libdem the new shy tory?


----------



## killer b (Sep 29, 2019)

All the new Lib Dem supporters are well off people in big cities. I know a few and they're really boring about their plans to vote lib dem on the whole.


----------



## chilango (Sep 29, 2019)

I know a few too.

I'm not convinced that they'll all go through with it though.

Some I think will just not get around to it, others will bottle it and vote Tory. Whilst a few might hold their nose and vote Labour.

We'll see.

But I really don't think that the Lib Dem vote is at all solid.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 29, 2019)

They’re probably all on mumsnet.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 29, 2019)

Be interesting to see who the main beneficiary would be if libdem vote collapses, I'd assume tory normally but if labour seen as more or less remain and only runner. Or what difference it makes if most of that 20% is concentrated in a couple of dozen constituencies


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 29, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Be interesting to see who the main beneficiary would be if libdem vote collapses, I'd assume tory normally but if labour seen as more or less remain and only runner. Or what difference it makes if most of that 20% is concentrated in a couple of dozen constituencies



Tories only really got back in against expectations in 2015 because of the complete collapse of the Lib Dem vote. I suspect they might take back some of the seats lost then, sort of outer London, West Country and places like that. There are some lib-labour marginals (Leeds NW is one I know of) but they’re more likely to do damage by knocking back the labour vote in Tory/labour marginals where people don’t have the sense to vote tactically, or get fooled by crooked bar charts in ‘only we can win here’ leaflets.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 29, 2019)

killer b said:


> All the new Lib Dem supporters are well off people in big cities. I know a few and they're really boring about their plans to vote lib dem on the whole.


Probably a few well off people in the shires too, especially in the south west.


----------



## Supine (Sep 29, 2019)

No labour bounce from the conference then


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 29, 2019)

Supine said:


> No labour bounce from the conference then



Hardly surprising, considering the shambles it was.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 29, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Where are libdems getting their persistently high polling from? I've not met a single person in the real world who has said they'd vote libdem, have for labour, tory, brexit party, and plaid, but not a single libdem. Is shy libdem the new shy tory?


Well, as I live in Brakey-boy's (near 60% Leave!) constituency, I have...obviously.
Around these parts they tend to be avid voters when it comes to GEs. Many of them love to say that they have 'Labour values at heart' but clearly "have to vote for Tom" to keep the tories out.
Yeah, right.


----------



## killer b (Sep 29, 2019)

Supine said:


> No labour bounce from the conference then


They'll be happy with no dip tbf.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 29, 2019)

killer b said:


> They'll be happy with no dip tbf.


Could easily be a dip from Manchester when folk are exposed to the full horror.


----------



## belboid (Sep 29, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Hardly surprising, considering the shambles it was.


the conference where all but two motions were carried overwhelmingly? Probly the most united conference in years?  Where even the two 'controversial' debates were held in good humour and respect?   Wasn't shambolic at all.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 29, 2019)

Conference got drowned out by the ongoing Brexit shambles, maybe the tories fucked it up on purpose to have this effect, though doubt they’re that clever.


----------



## killer b (Oct 2, 2019)

There's some interesting number crunching on this thread - click through for details (let's ignore for a second the fact that his numbers show the Lib Dems getting more seats than Labour - his points about distribution of voters is worth considering I think)


----------



## brogdale (Oct 3, 2019)

Britain Elects updated their poll-tracker today (as of 01/10/19):



That's:
Con  : 31.9
Lab  : 24.0
LD   : 20.5
BP   : 12.9
Gr   :   3.5
UKIP:  0.5
ChUK: 0.2


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 6, 2019)

Probably an outlier, but depressing.

Opinium poll for the Observer, 

Tories 38
Labour 23
Libs 15
BP 12
Green 4


Poll shows Conservative party 15 points ahead of Labour


----------



## brogdale (Oct 6, 2019)

Useful (annotated) poll tracker graph from Goodwin:


----------



## WouldBe (Oct 6, 2019)

Latest AOL poll has
Cons 49%
LD 22%
BP 14%
Lab 10%


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Latest AOL poll has
> Cons 49%
> LD 22%
> BP 14%
> Lab 10%


What's an AOL poll?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 6, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Latest AOL poll has
> Cons 49%
> LD 22%
> BP 14%
> Lab 10%



Where have you got this nonsense from?

They are clearly not a proper polling company, but can you provide a link, for a laugh?


----------



## Supine (Oct 6, 2019)

People who still have AOL email accounts


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 6, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Latest AOL poll has
> Cons 49%
> LD 22%
> BP 14%
> Lab 10%



America Online? Blimey! Do you still connect to the internet by dial-up, by any chance?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 6, 2019)

Yeah well I seen a facebook poll which had labour on 78% and the greens on 9% so everything is sound


----------



## greenfield (Oct 6, 2019)

I seriously don't understand why the polling is so bad


----------



## agricola (Oct 6, 2019)

greenfield said:


> I seriously don't understand why the polling is so bad



Because they have a bad argument that they are communicating badly.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 6, 2019)

agricola said:


> Because they have a bad argument that they are communicating badly.



Or, looked at the other way round, those leading the polls have an easily understood position communicated relentlessly through predominantly compliant media. It’s not called populism for nothing.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 7, 2019)

Ipsos MORI's "Who is on the people's side?" polling:



Fairly predictable, I suppose...but the respective BP/Tory numbers would suggest that current Westminster polling includes a chunk of 'lent' votes to the Tories contingent on Brexit delivery.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2019)

lol

80% _don't_ think The Queen is on the side of the Establishment. 

I wonder how they asked the question. Was it either/or? Interesting underlying assumptions - ie that the 'establishment', whatever it is, is by its nature against 'the people', whatever that is.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 7, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> lol
> 
> 80% _don't_ think The Queen is on the side of the Establishment.
> 
> I wonder how they asked the question. Was it either/or? Interesting underlying assumptions - ie that the 'establishment', whatever it is, is by its nature against 'the people', whatever that is.


Not sure of methodology, but the fact that nearly 60% did not, apparently, offer a definite view on whether or not the monarch is on the side of the people might be a little worrying for 'palace authorities'.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Not sure of methodology, but the fact that nearly 60% did not, apparently, offer a definite view on whether or not the monarch is on the side of the people might be a little worrying for 'palace authorities'.


tbh the mere fact that she is listed among the options in a political opinion poll ought to be worrying for them.

She actually comes out of it pretty well considering she is _the head of the establishment_.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 7, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Ipsos MORI's "Who is on the people's side?" polling:
> 
> View attachment 186212
> 
> Fairly predictable, I suppose...but the respective BP/Tory numbers would suggest that current Westminster polling includes a chunk of 'lent' votes to the Tories contingent on Brexit delivery.


The red lines for Johnson and the Tories don't bode well for his we the people strategy


----------



## brogdale (Oct 7, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> The red lines for Johnson and the Tories don't bode well for his we the people strategy


Right party of capital finding the limits of 'populism'?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 7, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Right party of capital finding the limits of 'populism'?


Innit. Interesting that labour has had more success despite being on (or perceived to be on) wrong side of underlying brexit issue (more think remainers on side of establishment than no dealers)


----------



## Wilf (Oct 7, 2019)

The whole Tory vote/support for Johnson via 'lets get brexit done' has the potential to crumble and even in the poll above you can see potential lines of attack. Just can't see Labour putting themselves in a place where they can do it or escaping from their own brexit morass.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Not sure of methodology, but the fact that nearly 60% did not, apparently, offer a definite view on whether or not the monarch is on the side of the people might be a little worrying for 'palace authorities'.


It appears that something close to half the respondents probably thought the terms and assumptions of the questions were wrong, though.

'I can't answer that as it's a meaningless question' will get lumped in with the 'don't knows'.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 7, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It appears that something close to half the respondents probably thought the terms and assumptions of the questions were wrong, though.
> 
> 'I can't answer that as it's a meaningless question' will get lumped in with the 'don't knows'.


Oh, yes.


----------



## WouldBe (Oct 7, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Where have you got this nonsense from?
> 
> They are clearly not a proper polling company, but can you provide a link, for a laugh?


No they aren't a 'proper polling company' they are an ISP, but it is a political poll so I posted it for the lol's. 

If it comes up again I'll post the link but no guarantees as the poll occasionally appears on pages about political news.


----------



## killer b (Oct 7, 2019)

in that case, this latest U75 poll should be on here, as it's been conducted with the same amount of rigour

Con - 1.5
Lab - 59.1
LD - 1.5
Green - 6.6
Spunking Cock - 24.8

Fieldwork 5-17 September


----------



## Guineveretoo (Oct 7, 2019)

I was polled by yougov yesterday. Usual crap questions. 

Who did i think would make a better prime minister - Johnson or Corbyn? 

Then, the 3 most important issues in the UK atm, one of which was “Britain leaving the EU” - no option to say whether I thought it was important because I wanted to stop it or continue it. Then the usual questions about who I voted for before and who I will vote for next. 

Not seen it reported yet.


----------



## WouldBe (Oct 7, 2019)

killer b said:


> in that case, this latest U75 poll should be on here, as it's been conducted with the same amount of rigour
> 
> Con - 1.5
> Lab - 59.1
> ...


I've not seen that poll. How many people voted in it?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Oct 7, 2019)

Guineveretoo said:


> I was polled by yougov yesterday. Usual crap questions.



I got a yougov poll a couple of days ago that asked what constituency I was in. The last time I got one of those was just before the last GE, and that turned out to be the very accurate one they eventually shat themselves about. So someone's paid for a very large sample I guess.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Oct 8, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> I got a yougov poll a couple of days ago that asked what constituency I was in. The last time I got one of those was just before the last GE, and that turned out to be the very accurate one they eventually shat themselves about. So someone's paid for a very large sample I guess.


The one I did didn’t ask about which constituency I was in. Slightly strangely


----------



## Wilf (Oct 8, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> I've not seen that poll. How many people voted in it?


A statistically valid cross section of the UK electorate the usual weirdos.


----------



## WouldBe (Oct 14, 2019)

Found the AOL link again not sure if it will work though. Now has cons on 51% 
https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2019/10/13/johnson-under-pressure-from-brussels-as-brexit-deadline-looms/
Scroll to bottom.


----------



## killer b (Oct 14, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Now has cons on 51%


so what.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 14, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Found the AOL link again not sure if it will work though. Now has cons on 51%
> https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2019/10/13/johnson-under-pressure-from-brussels-as-brexit-deadline-looms/
> Scroll to bottom.



Seriously?  You got ridiculed last time you posted this aol shite and now you've just repeated it.	Astonished smillie face indeed.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Seriously?  You got ridiculed last time you posted this aol shite and now you've just repeated it.	Astonished smillie face indeed.


----------



## WouldBe (Oct 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Seriously?  You got ridiculed last time you posted this aol shite and now you've just repeated it.	Astonished smillie face indeed.


I was asked to post it so you could have a laugh about it so I have you muppet. FFS


----------



## kabbes (Oct 14, 2019)

It certainly tells you something about the demographic makeup of AOL users.


----------



## WouldBe (Oct 14, 2019)

killer b said:


> so what.


Can't you see the  in my post.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 14, 2019)

The what


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> I was asked to post it so you could have a laugh about it so I have you muppet. FFS


Yeah, but probably best in here to stick to polling based on a published methodology tbh; self-selecting ones are so obviously prone to be so completely unrepresentative.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2019)

Wales, Wales, Wales...*shakes head*


----------



## WouldBe (Oct 15, 2019)

kabbes said:


> It certainly tells you something about the demographic makeup of AOL users.


Doesn't it just. Let's hope it's not reflective of society as a whole.


----------



## Supine (Oct 15, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Doesn't it just. Let's hope it's not reflective of society as a whole.



I think it's safe to say it isn't


----------



## brogdale (Oct 16, 2019)

Don't know methodology, but the sample's yuge...



For TV programme, I think?


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 16, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Don't know methodology, but the sample's yuge...
> 
> View attachment 187252
> 
> For TV programme, I think?



Which kind of flies in the face of this article:

Have UK voters changed their minds on Brexit?

As normal, its all a mess.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 16, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Which kind of flies in the face of this article:
> 
> Have UK voters changed their minds on Brexit?
> 
> As normal, its all a mess.


Looks like different questions eliciting different responses, tbh.
If the ComRes/Vine question was about honouring the 2016 outcome, that would yield a different to response to preferred outcomes.


----------



## killer b (Oct 16, 2019)

Yeah, it's a different question.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Wales, Wales, Wales...*wails*
> 
> View attachment 187153


c4u


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 16, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Don't know methodology, but the sample's yuge...
> 
> View attachment 187252
> 
> For TV programme, I think?



It's for a special live Brexit debate tonight on Channel 5.



> *Channel 5 *has commissioned* ITN Productions *to produce a live Brexit debate, hosted by *Jeremy Vine* ahead of a make-or-break European Council Brexit summit (in Brussels on Oct 17th).
> 
> *Live Brexit Referendum: Do We Want No Deal? *is a 90-minute programme which will take place on *Wednesday, October 16th at 9pm.*
> ---
> Central to the programme is the biggest ever Brexit opinion poll since the EU Referendum - conducted by ComRes - with more than 26,000 people across the UK asked for their views on how, when or if we should leave the EU.



Channel 5 to broadcast live Brexit debate


----------



## killer b (Oct 16, 2019)

There is an issue with just adding together the two leave options to get a majority for leave, as not all the people who chose leave with a deal as their first choice would necessarily choose leave without a deal as their second (and also vice versa I guess).


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 16, 2019)




----------



## Fez909 (Oct 16, 2019)

While the above is interesting, there's the small fact that Labour doesn't have a candidate and it was a 'named candidate prompt' survey:



I still can't see Labour winning there, but those figures above will probably not be accurate.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 16, 2019)

Only LibDems can win here! (polling conducted on behalf of the libdems)


----------



## killer b (Oct 16, 2019)

I'm sure those numbers are reasonably representative of what people in F&GG think right now, but it offers the intriguing prospect that if Labour get a decent candidate in and run a good campaign, that Berger might take enough tory votes to let Labour in.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Only LibDems can win here! (polling conducted on behalf of the libdems)


Beware the 'named candidate' polling methodology; who's heard of Mike Freer, Julie Pelter or Nathan Wade? Let alone the, as yet unselected (?) LP candidate?
Not how most folk choose where to put the X in the polling station.


----------



## Supine (Oct 19, 2019)




----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2019)

Fucking conspiracy loons


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 19, 2019)

Wonder why some people were stupid enough to be fooled by facebook adverts and some weren't, what's the underlying implication here, I cannot think


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 19, 2019)

Christ, Orwell Prize winner. Tells you all you need to know about journalists.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 19, 2019)

And the arch remainiacs show once again why they couldn't talk a anyone out of a burning car...

_It's not fair, and I'm going to stamp and stamp my foot until you agree with me.
_
It's done, it's over. Move on to the next fight.  The reason they didn't make any headway in 2017, 2018 and 2019 is because they were still in 2016.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 19, 2019)

kebabking said:


> And the arch remainiacs show once again why they couldn't talk a anyone out of a burning car...
> 
> _It's not fair, and I'm going to stamp and stamp my foot until you agree with me.
> _
> It's done, it's over. Move on to the next fight.  The reason they didn't make any headway in 2017, 2018 and 2019 is because they were still in 2016.


Well, 2006 for a lot of them tbh


----------



## brogdale (Oct 19, 2019)

Just the 13 point lead now.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 23, 2019)

JFF...





Burgon really is a plank.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 23, 2019)

Sky's recent (1.5k sample) 'state of the nation polling.

*The UK is an increasingly divided country since the 2016 Brexit referendum and people's trust in parliament is low.*

No shit.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2019)

Supine said:


> View attachment 187523


What happened in March 2017, something else on facebook?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Just the 13 point lead now.
> 
> View attachment 187603


Still, my predictions about the libdem lice polling higher than Labour haven't come to pass.
 (((small mercies)))


----------



## Supine (Oct 23, 2019)

Wilf said:


> What happened in March 2017, something else on facebook?



I went on holiday to Thailand and posted some pics on fb. Doubt that had an impact though


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 23, 2019)

Wilf said:


> What happened in March 2017, something else on facebook?


Presumably it was the inevitable rise of rationality after all the russian bots moved onto the trump election in late 16 or something. Either that or the poll weightings were fucked and really there was no swing to remain. Who can know.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 26, 2019)

...aaand...into the 40's


----------



## Supine (Oct 26, 2019)

brogdale said:


> ...aaand...into the 40's
> 
> View attachment 188236



The opposition won't replace corbyn so a remain alliance won't happen. Looks like a post brexit post corbyn landscape is labours next chance at power.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 26, 2019)

Those sort of numbers fed into a prediction given a Tory majority of 150+ so it  really won't matter at all what the other parties do, but that said the Polls are all over the shop these days. I don't think Labour can win an election but it's still possible for the Tories to lose.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 26, 2019)

The Tory poll is probably a bit of an outlier, but Labour’s ratings are shocking. 

Labour’s strategies are not working, it’s running out of money and doesn’t dare go for an election. What to do?


----------



## WouldBe (Oct 26, 2019)

Get rid of Corbyn.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 26, 2019)

brogdale said:


> ...aaand...into the 40's


Yup. Hating Germans and wondering what bananas taste like.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 27, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> The Tory poll is probably a bit of an outlier, but Labour’s ratings are shocking.
> 
> Labour’s strategies are not working, it’s running out of money and doesn’t dare go for an election. What to do?



Delay an election for long enough until the Arcuri crap catches up with Johnson and he’s barred from office, then see how they fare against whichever charmless marionette takes his place.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 27, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Delay an election for long enough until the Arcuri crap catches up with Johnson and he’s barred from office, then see how they fare against whichever charmless marionette takes his place.



Nice thought, but these things have a habit of getting delayed and frustrated by lawyering.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Oct 27, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> The Tory poll is probably a bit of an outlier, but Labour’s ratings are shocking.
> 
> Labour’s strategies are not working, it’s running out of money and doesn’t dare go for an election. What to do?


Finally ditch magic grandpa


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 27, 2019)

The Tory polling also doesn’t suggest that Brexit supporters are particularly bothered by the failure to hit the 31 October deadline or hold no deal as the only true Brexit. If that is the case, then the Brexit Party’s chances of holding the balance of power may be receding further.

If a weak Brexit or delayed Brexit isn’t going to dent Tory hopes, then Labour’s tactics on Brexit, while important for watering down the deal, don’t appear to be likely to help its electoral chances one way or another.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 27, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> The Tory polling also doesn’t suggest that Brexit supporters are particularly bothered by the failure to hit the 31 October deadline or hold no deal as the only true Brexit. If that is the case, then the Brexit Party’s chances of holding the balance of power may be receding further.
> 
> If a weak Brexit or delayed Brexit isn’t going to dent Tory hopes, then Labour’s tactics on Brexit, while important for watering down the deal, don’t appear to be likely to help its electoral chances one way or another.


It may not have a significant effect on polling...but it's probably best to actually wait until the 1st week of November, when Johnson's failure will be obvious to even the most news averse punters, until writing it off as a factor.
If the incessant vox popping in 'Leavy' seats oop North is anything to go by (??) there also has to be some question mark over the strength of those pro-Brexit (vermin+Farageist) votes...so many folk responding that they'll 'never vote again', 'not bother voting', 'won't make any difference'. Makes me think that Johnson may not be as keen to actually go to the electorate as he makes out.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2019)

Vox popping is not anything to go by and should be outlawed.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 27, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Vox popping is not anything to go by and should be outlawed.


I just asked some passers by and they agree.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 27, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Vox popping is not anything to go by and should be outlawed.



that would leave the BBC’s Brexit reporting a bit barren, at least 25% of which comprises vox pops with older white voters in places like Stoke or market towns in the sticks.


----------



## Supine (Oct 27, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I just asked some passers by and they agree.



I'm waiting to hear what the bloke down the market thinks. He's bound to be interviewed on the BBC again soon.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 27, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> that would leave the BBC’s Brexit reporting a bit barren, at least 25% of which comprises vox pops with older white voters in places like Stoke or market towns in the sticks.



Why not though? That’s where at least 25% of the population lives. 

And getting vox pops is not a science. It’s a matter of getting someone/anyone to speak as most people will not want to.


----------



## Serge Forward (Oct 27, 2019)

I don't know where we'd be without the daily dose of reckons from the man/woman in the street that have been carefully dredged up by the tip top journos at the BBC. Surely, it's what the licence fee is for, innit?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 27, 2019)

Probs shouldn't have mentioned vox pops

That said, I've a gut feeling that that opportunity to adopt the "it's not worth voting anymore; they never do what we want" line will be a very attractive option for many folk who are naturally disengaged with party politics anyway.
Suppose I'm predicting that the recent 4 GE trend of gradually rising turnout figures will be bucked this time around?


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 27, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> I don't know where we'd be without the daily dose of reckons from the man/woman in the street that have been carefully dredged up by the tip top journos at the BBC. Surely, it's what the licence fee is for, innit?



I enjoy it on the rare occasions there is a strike (esp a rail strike or teacher’s strike) and they find someone who backs the strikers. Good for those people and good to hear their voice.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2019)

Britain Elects noting that the early indications are that the polling immediately following the GE announcement is more 'muted' that the more dramatic moves seen after May's 2017 call:


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 31, 2019)

I like to keep an eye on Survation, because they have called it best in the last two GE's - in 2015 they had the Tories on a 6% lead -v- the 6.6% they got, in 2017 it was 1% -v- 2.5% they got. 

Their poll published today has the Tories on a 8% lead. 

Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 31, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Britain Elects noting that the early indications are that the polling immediately following the GE announcement is more 'muted' that the more dramatic moves seen after May's 2017 call:
> 
> View attachment 188646


That would give Boris more or less the same majority as Maggie T in 1983 and she won an actual war to get that, I think he's more likely to win than Corbyn but not by that margin surely.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 31, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> That would give Boris more or less the same majority as Maggie T in 1983.


How can you tell that without any info on intentions per constituency?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 31, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> That would give Boris more or less the same majority as Maggie T in 1983 and she won an actual war to get that, I think he's more likely to win than Corbyn but not by that margin surely.



Predicting anything, based on the polls, is a dangerous thing to do. My feeling is that every type of outcome is possible. 

However, if Labour attempt to recreate the 2017 GE they will get hammered. Johnson is not May. Brexit cannot be swept aside in the mind of voters and Corbyn is known now and views formed.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 31, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Predicting anything, based on the polls, is a dangerous thing to do. My feeling is that every type of outcome is possible.
> 
> However, if Labour attempt to recreate the 2017 GE they will get hammered. Johnson is not May. Brexit cannot be swept aside in the mind of voters and Corbyn is known now and views formed.



Sadly the latest approval leadership ratings put Johnson on +2% & Corbyn on -40%, which will play into the GE results.

Leadership approval opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Predicting anything, based on the polls, is a dangerous thing to do. My feeling is that every type of outcome is possible.
> 
> However, if Labour attempt to recreate the 2017 GE they will get hammered. Johnson is not May. Brexit cannot be swept aside in the mind of voters and Corbyn is known now and views formed.


by the end of this unhappy election johnson will be known and views formed. the denoument is unlikely imo to be to his advantage.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Sadly the latest approval ratings put Johnson on +2% & Corbyn on -40%, which will play into the GE results.
> 
> Leadership approval opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia


yeh there's only one poll that matters and this isn't it


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 31, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> by the end of this unhappy election johnson will be known and views formed. the denoument is unlikely imo to be to his advantage.



I agree. But he is polarising. May united the country in believing that she was fucking useless. It is an important difference.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I agree. But he is polarising. May united the country in believing that she was fucking useless. It is an important difference.


But May united the country before the election campaign in believing she was the iron lady reborn. The campaign changed that. Johnson is similarly oversold IMO, and similarly open to everyone changing their minds on him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I agree. But he is polarising. May united the country in believing that she was fucking useless. It is an important difference.


people only really saw through her during that election campaign tho, where at the outset she was anticipated to piss all over corbyn and that didn't happen, in part due to her own failure to frame the campaign as she wished to. 

i think that may was polarising just as johnson is polarising. but johnson is indelibly linked to one city, london, and this is i think a weakness. his harping on to those unfortunate cops about how he'd been mayor of london and in charge of the met will have lost him support as much as anything else he did that day, like being late and trying to make political capital out of being surrounded by plod. 

johnson's fucking useless, too, he's very much a broad picture sort of person with a lying streak a mile long. and at the end of the election i think that this will be more apparent to people. there's really only one way for the tory support to go and that's down and one way for the labour support to go and that's up. it's going to be much closer than so many urban pundits are making it out to be now.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 31, 2019)

killer b said:


> But May united the country before the election campaign in believing she was the iron lady reborn. The campaign changed that. Johnson is similarly oversold IMO, and similarly open to everyone changing their minds on him.



I agree on May. But Johnson is already known. She wasn't really. People have firm views on Corbyn and Johnson. I do not see major shifts unless there is a major fuck up or foul up. A lot of people hate Johnson and will continue to do so. But after the last 6 months if people still like him the next 6 weeks aren't going to change that.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2019)

It's absolute bollocks that she 'wasn't known', sorry. But what wasn't known about her was how she'd perform as party leader in a general election campaign - Johnson has the same issue. Whether he'll come unstuck in a similar way remains to be seen, but I wouldn't bet against it.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 31, 2019)

killer b said:


> It's absolute bollocks that she 'wasn't known', sorry. But what wasn't known about her was how she'd perform as party leader in a general election campaign - Johnson has the same issue. Whether he'll come unstuck in a similar way remains to be seen, but I wouldn't bet against it.



She was known by you and those interested in politics. Most people didn't have a clue who she was or what she was about. There are very few politicians who have deep public recognition. 

As for your bets let's hope you do better than you've done of late.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 31, 2019)

Johnson is useless as soon as any pressure is applied to him. He's really not some sort of slick bullshitter (obviously he's a massive liar but that's not the same thing) who can talk his way out of any situation - he just umms and ahhs and avoids the question in a really clumsy way. Generally he gets away with it because it's rare that pressure is applied and if it is it's only in trivial situations but it's definitely a weakness that a general election campaign could show up badly.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> She was known by you and those interested in politics. Most people didn't have a clue who she was or what she was about. There are very few politicians who have deep public recognition.
> 
> As for your bets let's hope you do better than you've done of late.


She was the prime minister, and one with insane levels of recognition and approval when she called the general election. The idea that she was obscure to the general public beyond politics buffs is... a stretch. 

I'm sure I've got my share of things wrong recently - we live in unusually febrile times and no-one gets it nailed on every time anyway.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 31, 2019)

killer b said:


> She was the prime minister, and one with insane levels of recognition and approval when she called the general election. The idea that she was obscure to the general public beyond politics buffs is... a stretch.
> 
> I'm sure I've got my share of things wrong recently - we live in unusually febrile times and no-one gets it nailed on every time anyway.



I'm not saying she was obscure. I am saying very few people had formed a view. If you need evidence look at the way the ratings you menton shifted as soon as the election was called. The public by contrast do _know_ Johnson. People already_ know_ if they like him or loathe him.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2019)

But they had formed a view, that's the thing. It just turned out that view dissolved into air during the campaign. The view many people have of Johnson is - IMO - as constructed (actually much more so) as May's - and is also vulnerable to crumbling under pressure. 

The Tories are a zombie party right now, and even the most skilled and sophisticated politician - and for her faults, May actually was one of those - is going to struggle to sell their policy platform and defend their record. That's why in 2017 they wanted (and failed) to make it purely about Brexit, and it all came off the rails when it became about a whole lot of other things. That's why again they're trying to do the same now - and if they don't manage to keep the focus for the whole campaign, then there's a good chance it'll all come off the rails for them again.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 31, 2019)

I've just seen an ipsos mori poll with the Tories 17% ahead on 41%.  Just went to see if it had been posted on this page:
Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia
It hasn't, but there is a comres with Labour in the lead!  Comres have tended to have smaller Tory leads, but still...


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 31, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I've just seen an ipsos mori poll with the Tories 17% ahead on 41%.  Just went to see if it had been posted on this page:
> Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia
> It hasn't, but there is a comres with Labour in the lead!  Comres have tended to have smaller Tory leads, but still...



The last ComRes poll, showing a Labour lead, was back in July.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 31, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> The last ComRes poll, showing a Labour lead, was back in July.


I think somebody fucked up - it was there a moment ago i.e. a comres poll posted today!  Perhaps posted maliciously or incompetently and then removed??  Or was I seeing things? 

Edit: it was exactly that. I went back to the page I had open showing the Comres with today's date and Labour in a 1% lead, refreshed the page and it disappeared.

Can we have Dr Jazzz back to explain these things to me?


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I think somebody fucked up - it was there a moment ago i.e. a comres poll posted today!  Perhaps posted maliciously or incompetently and then removed??  Or was I seeing things?


it was there...


----------



## Wilf (Oct 31, 2019)

killer b said:


> it was there...
> 
> View attachment 188703


Thanks! The fieldwork dates go up to today, which suggests these might be unapproved or unadjusted figures, hurriedly removed.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Thanks! The fieldwork dates go up to today, which suggests these might be unapproved or unadjusted figures, hurriedly removed.


The Trump un-endorsement paying dividends already!


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 31, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Thanks! The fieldwork dates go up to today, which suggests these might be unapproved or unadjusted figures, hurriedly removed.



It was supposed to be a Comres poll for Britain Elects, but neither of them have it on their websites, and it's not on the BE's twitter feed, the edit history on the wiki page says, "Reversed an edit adding what appears to be a fake poll." 

So, yeah, a load of old bollocks.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2019)

Fieldwork over last week, so not particularly fresh...but quite a large sample to enable the cohort cross-breaks.
Unsurprising results, but quite a clear presentation.
LD vote share remarkably consistent across all age groups.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2019)

Here's a similar, though reversed, presentation of the 2017 GE vote shares:


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2019)

...and those old fuckers vote...


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 31, 2019)

Are the broadcasters able to affect the debate? Does anyone pay attention to them these days -  I don't know. It seems to me BBC is keen to promote the non-Brexit issues (as well as the C4 Johnson/Corbyn head-to-head debate which doesn't leave room for SNP or LibDems or Plaid or Green or anyone else (even Farridge)). And if they do succeed in shifting the focus off Brexit, will that make a difference do you reckon?

FWIW I reckon it would and it would help Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2019)

bluescreen said:


> Are the broadcasters able to affect the debate? Does anyone pay attention to them these days -  I don't know. It seems to me BBC is keen to promote the non-Brexit issues (as well as the C4 Johnson/Corbyn head-to-head debate which doesn't leave room for SNP or LibDems or Plaid or Green or anyone else (even Farridge)). And if they do succeed in shifting the focus off Brexit, will that make a difference do you reckon?
> 
> FWIW I reckon it would and it would help Labour.


The neutral BBC to save us by bringing some sense or something? Are you fucking mad?


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 1, 2019)




----------



## Teaboy (Nov 1, 2019)

Interesting shrink away from the smaller parties there.  2017 was the election where people deserted the smaller parties, 2019 was supposed to be different.  Interesting in a totally random and probably hopelessly wrong poll sort of way.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Interesting shrink away from the smaller parties there.  2017 was the election where people deserted the smaller parties, 2019 was supposed to be different.  Interesting in a totally random and probably hopelessly wrong poll sort of way.


2017 was where they went back to the big parties.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 1, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> 2017 was where they went back to the big parties.



Yeah, sorry it was a typo. I've edited.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 1, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Interesting shrink away from the smaller parties there.  2017 was the election where people deserted the smaller parties, 2019 was supposed to be different.  Interesting in a totally random and probably hopelessly wrong poll sort of way.


Always going to be the way in election period isn't it. Outside of that people will tell pollsters who they like, or least dislike. Inside it's focussed on who can form a govt.


----------



## Supine (Nov 1, 2019)




----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 1, 2019)

I'm sceptical about that Panelbase poll above, but if Tories really end up getting 40% and Labour only 29%, that would be a Tory landslide ... 

<prays that scepticism about the poll is justified  >


----------



## killer b (Nov 1, 2019)

There's a whole general election campaign to go at first - get out doorknocking.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 1, 2019)

ill be chatting with a very-Labour mate Eddie about that this evening .... he was ward organiser in Antonia Antoniazzi's constituency last time, should be again. And he and comrades did a lot to help get people out and voting on the Swansea side of Gower -- she won big.

I want actually to get involved myself this time, somehow.


----------



## killer b (Nov 1, 2019)

Momentum have done this really good campaign map - click on the marginal closest to you and it'll give you a list of campaign events/locations/dates, and you can just turn up and get involved this time, somehow. 

My Campaign Map


----------



## marty21 (Nov 1, 2019)

killer b said:


> Momentum have done this really good campaign map - click on the marginal closest to you and it'll give you a list of campaign events/locations/dates, and you can just turn up and get involved this time, somehow.
> 
> My Campaign Map


lol, that is blocked at work, I guess Councils don't like that sort of thing - we are in purdah too during the election


----------



## Wilf (Nov 1, 2019)

marty21 said:


> lol, that is blocked at work, I guess Councils don't like that sort of thing - we are in purdah too during the election


It just doesn't load for me.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 1, 2019)

Wilf said:


> It just doesn't load for me.


Not me either. Well it loads but doesn't let me use the search on post code which is the point. I suspect you have to register so they can harvest all that lovely data, there is a sign in/register thing at bottom


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Not me either. Well it loads but doesn't let me use the search on post code which is the point. I suspect you have to register so they can harvest all that lovely data, there is a sign in/register thing at bottom


yeh but you do know you can find out other postcodes, you don't have to be entirely honest with them


----------



## killer b (Nov 1, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Not me either. Well it loads but doesn't let me use the search on post code which is the point. I suspect you have to register so they can harvest all that lovely data, there is a sign in/register thing at bottom


why do you need your postcode? I'm guessing you've some idea where on that big map of the UK you live...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 1, 2019)

killer b said:


> why do you need your postcode? I'm guessing you've some idea where on that big map of the UK you live...


You on a desktop? No map on mobile, just brings up a search post code function
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





That button thing doesn't work by the way


----------



## killer b (Nov 1, 2019)

ah, fair point, I hadn't checked on my mobile. it works well on a desktop anyway!


----------



## killer b (Nov 1, 2019)

postcode search works fine on my mobile too, without having to sign in or anything.


----------



## belboid (Nov 1, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Not me either. Well it loads but doesn't let me use the search on post code which is the point. I suspect you have to register so they can harvest all that lovely data, there is a sign in/register thing at bottom


works fine on the phone for me, no need to register.  Of course they want your email address to 'keep you up to date'


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 1, 2019)

Yeah just tried again and works for me now, wasn't before and tried on whatever browser links on here opens and on chrome. Anyway I'm not going to do fuck all beyond turning up to vote so dunno why I bothered


----------



## killer b (Nov 1, 2019)




----------



## maomao (Nov 2, 2019)

Telegraph has the Tories only 8 points ahead now but they won't be wanting a clear lead at this point. They need fear of a Labour government to get the vermin vote out.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 2, 2019)

On Smithson's site Harry Hayfield has this actual polling data:



> ...there have been over *500 local by-elections up and down the country since the last general election* and how have those local by-elections come out:
> 
> *Conservatives* 278,329 votes (*32%* -5% on last time) winning 191 seats (-37 seats on last time)
> *Labour* 256,801 votes (*29%* -1% on last time) winning 166 seats (-5 seats on last time)
> ...



but...


> ...since the middle of 2018, there has been a distinct drop in Labour support. Case in point, just look at the last few months or so. Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%)


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 2, 2019)

maomao said:


> Telegraph has the Tories only 8 points ahead now but they won't be wanting a clear lead at this point. They need fear of a Labour government to get the vermin vote out.



The last survation poll, a few days ago, had the Tories on a 8% lead, which should still give them a comfortable majority of around 40.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 2, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> The last survation poll, a few days ago, had the Tories on a 8% lead, which should still give them a comfortable majority of around 40.



Hasn’t the maths shifted a little from the usual predictions? There is a danger for the Tories that they rack up huge votes in Little England, but get squeezed in the Remainey areas around the big cities and in Scotland.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 2, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Hasn’t the maths shifted a little from the usual predictions? There is a danger for the Tories that they rack up huge votes in Little England, but get squeezed in the Remainey areas around the big cities and in Scotland.


That seems to be BoZo's master plan, abandon his Scottish MP's to the SNP and the strong Remain areas to the LDs' but take enough Leave votes off Labour in Tory-Lab marginals to get victory overall, his record when it comes to master plans is fairly dire but fortunately his immense arrogance blinds him to this.


cupid_stunt said:


> The last survation poll, a few days ago, had the Tories on a 8% lead, which should still give them a comfortable majority of around 40.


We'll see, I'm not optimistic at the moment but when into the 2017 election expecting a massive Tory majority, I'm hopeful I will be proven wrong a 2nd time.
They can't be completely discarded but the reputation of pollsters has taken a knock these last few years and there are lots of complex factors in this election that probably can't be modelled.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 2, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> That seems to be BoZo's master plan, abandon his Scottish MP's to the SNP and the strong Remain areas to the LDs' but take enough Leave votes off Labour in Tory-Lab marginals to get victory overall, his record when it comes to master plans is fairly dire but fortunately his immense arrogance blinds him to this.
> 
> We'll see, I'm not optimistic at the moment but when into the 2017 election expecting a massive Tory majority, I'm hopeful I will be proven wrong a 2nd time.
> They can't be completely discarded but the reputation of pollsters has taken a knock these last few years and there are lots of complex factors in this election that probably can't be modelled.


Talking about difficulties of modelling...yesterday's FT ran a piece on how this (potential) 2 & 2 halves/4-way GE may see some seats being won on remarkably low vote shares seeing a significantly lowered median winning %.



> Brexit has splintered the UK political landscape to such a degree that Boris Johnson could win the upcoming general election by seizing marginal constituencies with as little as a quarter of the vote share in those seats. During the 27 UK general elections since 1918, the average seat winner secured 53 per cent of the vote, and there have only been seven occasions when a party won a seat with less than 30 per cent of the vote. But a constituency-level forecast produced by Focal Data for the pro-Remain group Best for Britain, shows how the Conservatives could triumph in many seats with even less. The Best for Britain/Focal Data 2019 model predicts that the median seat winner’s vote share will be 39 per cent, and forecasts that 15 seats will be won with vote shares of less than 30 per cent.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 2, 2019)

Couple of days old, but YG's Anthony Well's piece on what the current polling means is pretty good.



> It’s worth noting that that Tory lead is largely down to a split opposition. Even in the MORI poll the Conservatives have lost support since the election (in the YouGov and Survation polls they’ve lost a _lot _of support). This is not a popular government – in the MORI poll, their satisfaction rating is minus 55 – it’s just that the main opposition have lost even more support. The healthy Conservative lead is down to the fact that the Conservatives are retaining the bulk of the Leave vote, while the remain vote is split between Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, the SNP, Plaid and so on.





> For as long as this is the case, the Conservatives should do well. If it should change they’ll struggle. If the Brexit party manage to get back into the race and take support from the Tories it would eat into their lead. The other risk for the Tories is if the Remain vote swings more decisively behind either Labour or the Liberal Democrats (or that there are signs of more effective tactical voting, winning seats off the Conservatives despite a split vote). Essentially Boris Johnson needs to keep the Leave vote united and the Remain vote divided.





> It is also worth considering how the Conservative lead might translate into seats. In 2017 the Conservative lead over Labour was only two and a half percentage points. You would therefore expect an eight point Conservative lead to translate into a majority, and a fifteen or seventeen point lead to be a landslide. In reality that Survation poll could easily be touch-and-go for a Tory majority and, while the bigger leads would likely get a Tory majority, it may not be landslide territory.





> The reason that the Conservatives translated votes more effectively into seats in 2015 and 2017 was to do with the distribution of the vote. The Conservative re-emergence in Scotland meant that Tory votes up there were no longer wasted (but Labour votes increasingly were), the collapse of the Liberal Democrats in the South-West meant that the Tories vote there returned more MPs. If at the coming election we see those trends reverse, and the Conservatives lose seats to the SNP in Scotland and the Lib Dems in the South, then suddenly their votes won’t be translated so effectively into seats, and they’ll need to win more seats off Labour to make up for it.


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2019)

Quite a bounce for Labour in the new YouGov


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 2, 2019)

killer b said:


> Quite a bounce for Labour in the new YouGov


Anyone know how this compares to the early climb in 2017?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 2, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Anyone know how this compares to the early climb in 2017?


No but this is interesting...



Though whether the Cummings campaign will have anything as vote killing as May’s “Dementia tax” or as useless as her Maybot campaigning to effect poll convergence is another matter.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 3, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Though whether the Cummings campaign will have anything as vote killing as


Has DC he not stood down, from the campaign, and possibly even for good?
Dominic Cummings says he won't run the Tory election campaign. Here's why
"And, should Johnson return as prime minister, he might not need to worry about that either: Cummings, who is due to undergo surgery in the near future, implied to spads that he would not be returning to Downing Street should Johnson win. “Dom never had a hard or fast exit date, but his operation was always going to be a factor in how long he stayed,” a fellow No 10 staffer says. Handing the reins to Levido might well be his final act."
?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 3, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Has DC he not stood down, from the campaign, and possibly even for good?



Nope. 

Dominic Cummings to remain at Boris Johnson's side in election campaign after delaying surgery


> Dominic Cummings is to continue in his role as Boris Johnson’s special adviser through the General Election after postponing a planned operation for a second time.
> 
> Mr Cummings, who was campaign director for Vote Leave, delayed the operation in July when he was recruited by the Prime Minister to help deliver Brexit by October 31st.
> 
> He was due to take time off after that but Government sources confirmed that he will stay on for the pre-Christmas election to work alongside Isaac Levido, the campaign director at Conservative Campaign Headquarters.


----------



## JimW (Nov 3, 2019)

Apparently he was due in to get a malignant fatty lump removed but they've said Johnson will only go at the election so he's thought fuck it.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 4, 2019)

The beginnings of poll convergence?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 4, 2019)

What first Welsh poll of election shows as Labour faces huge losses



> On a uniform swing since the last election in 2017, this would see Labour losing nine seats to the Conservatives (Alyn and Deeside, Bridgend, Cardiff North, Clwyd South, Delyn, Gower, Newport West, Vale of Clwyd, Wrexham) and Ynys Môn to Plaid Cymru.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> What first Welsh poll of election shows as Labour faces huge losses


still shows Labour up 4 points on a month ago, tories down 1.  All to play for.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 4, 2019)

Also while I appreciate 2019 isn't 2017, these were all seats the tories were favourites to take, except cardiff north which had a tory incumbent, and labour vote ended up increasing with labour taking cardiff north...


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Also while I appreciate 2019 isn't 2017, these were all seats the tories were favourites to take, except cardiff north which had a tory incumbent, and labour vote ended up increasing with labour taking cardiff north...


Plaid have been 'poised' to win back Ynys Mon ever since Labour gained it in 2001. Yet, somehow....


----------



## killer b (Nov 4, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


>


Why are you doing this about polls you reckon you don't trust anyway, a month out of the election? even your fav survation had the Tories with a 17 point lead at this point in 2017.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 4, 2019)

killer b said:


> Why are you doing this about polls you reckon you don't trust anyway, a month out of the election? even your fav survation had the Tories with a 17 point lead at this point in 2017.



The polls are generally nonsense as we all know, but that doesn't stop people having some fun quoting & commenting on them.

And, yes survation had the Tories with a 17 point lead at this point in 2017, but moved as the campaigns changed, as they may do so this time, but at the end of the day there's only one poll that matters.


----------



## killer b (Nov 4, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> at the end of the day there's only one poll that matters.


The Yougov MRP model?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 4, 2019)

killer b said:


> The Yougov MRP model?



I am assuming you're taking the piss, but in case not - no, the actual election poll, you know, held on polling day, at polling stations across the land.


----------



## killer b (Nov 4, 2019)

I was just having some fun quoting and commenting on the polls.


----------



## killer b (Nov 4, 2019)

Posted on the GE thread, but should be here too - Chris Hanretty managed to scrape the seat by seat source data for the Best for Britain tactical voting MRP model from their website, and has stuck it on a google spreadsheet for us all.

Best for Britain MRP estimates


----------



## ska invita (Nov 4, 2019)

brogdale said:


> The beginnings of poll convergence?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the electorate are starting to catch sight of Corbyns new powder blue suit. It's a definite vote winner


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2019)

Suppose I could go and look for myself, but does anyone have any handy links on the/any methodological changes pollsters made after 2017, to try and get their house in order? Seem to remember one of their problems was ignoring what the raw data was telling them, particularly about younger voters.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 5, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Suppose I could go and look for myself, but does anyone have any handy links on the/any methodological changes pollsters made after 2017, to try and get their house in order? Seem to remember one of their problems was ignoring what the raw data was telling them, particularly about younger voters.


Believe they have not sorted that. For 2017, they decided to just junk anyone who reported as not being registered to vote. Because most people who are not registered will not vote, regardless of what they say their intentions are. And they have kept it that way. 

It seems pretty obvious that this causes a bias in terms of excluding young voters who may not yet have registered for the first time, or who may tend to move address more regularly. 

But the pollsters don't see if that way, apparently.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2019)

A slight aside, but what YG polling respondents think will be important media/campaigning tools during this GE:



Think quite a few oldies will be disappointed at the lack of door to door at this time of the year.


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Think quite a few oldies will be disappointed at the lack of door to door at this time of the year.


Labour had 200 canvassers out in Bolton West alone on Sunday morning, another 100 in the afternoon - mostly young people doing the knocking too. There's going to be no lack of door to door over the next month...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> Labour had 200 canvassers out in Bolton West alone on Sunday morning, another 100 in the afternoon - mostly young people doing the knocking too. There's going to be no lack of door to door over the next month...


That maybe so, but undeniably the (traditional) evening sessions of the usual May/June election timing will be diminished and, particularly for older voters, there will be a lower propensity to answer the door in the dark.


----------



## bluescreen (Nov 5, 2019)

I'm a bit surprised at the weight people attribute to TV debates. They seem to attract surprisingly big audiences though. I guess it's more likely to have negative effects for bad performers (be careful what you wish for, Swinson!) than anything else.


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

brogdale said:


> That maybe so, but undeniably the (traditional) evening sessions of the usual May/June election timing will be diminished and, particularly for older voters, there will be a lower propensity to answer the door in the dark.


The opportunity for evening doorknocking is diminished, but there's a lot more bodies available to do it and better tools for organising them which should more than make up for that. 

That momentum nearest marginal tool is gold for Labour - on Sunday afternoon in Bolton while there was a few organised groups there, most of the people there seemed to be individuals or small groups of people who just used the site and turned up under their own steam - most were new to doorknocking too. Previously this way of working just wasn't possible. 

That said, I dunno how important doorknocking is anymore. It's good for the activists if nothing else though.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> That said, I dunno how important doorknocking is anymore. It's good for the activists if nothing else though.



Really? I can't think of anything more important. It's a chance to _talk to people _and for them to talk back rather than just consume the piss issued by the media and the parties.


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Really? I can't think of anything more important. It's a chance to _talk to people _and for them to talk back rather than just consume the piss issued by the media and the parties.


I did quite a bit in Lancaster in 2017, there was hundreds of people out for the whole campaign, completely blanketed the whole constituency for a month - I spoke to very few people who seemed amenable to changing their minds - on election day the returns from the GOTV were pretty dispiriting and I left at 10 with local campaigners thinking they'd lost - in the end the margin of victory was in the thousands. 

There was zero canvassing done in Preston (where I live) - but the Labour vote went up by more or less the same %

I think door knocking is important and political parties should be doing it, but the mind-changing conversations happen outside election periods - galvanising the bulk of activists to do this without an election looming is pretty difficult though...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> I did quite a bit in Lancaster in 2017, there was hundreds of people out for the whole campaign, completely blanketed the whole constituency for a month - I spoke to very few people who seemed amenable to changing their minds - on election day the returns from the GOTV were pretty dispiriting and I left at 10 with local campaigners thinking they'd lost - in the end the margin of victory was in the thousands.
> 
> There was zero canvassing done in Preston (where I live) - but the Labour vote went up by more or less the same %
> 
> I think door knocking is important and political parties should be doing it, but the mind-changing conversations happen outside election periods - galvanising the bulk of activists to do this without an election looming is pretty difficult though...



I think the last point you make is the important one. At some point I'd be interested in why this hasn't happened but not on this thread. 

I'm very surprised at your first point. Normally canvas returns are the most accurate barometer of the vote.


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I'm very surprised at your first point. Normally canvas returns are the most accurate barometer of the vote.


Since when? One of the key features of election night in 2017 was Labour MPs expecting a drubbing 'cause of their canvas returns ending up with increased majorities. There's a substantial mass of voters who aren't getting picked up by canvassers anymore.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> Since when? One of the key features of election night in 2017 was Labour MPs expecting a drubbing 'cause of their canvas returns ending up with increased majorities. There's a substantial mass of voters who aren't getting picked up by canvassers anymore.



I haven't volunteered for a Labour election campaign for a long time! We used to have canvas sheets showing Labour voters in the last election. These voters would be prioritised, spoken to and we would want to know in forensic detail on election day how many had voted. They would all be knocked up. 

In my experience it was the most accurate measurement tool of turnout and vote share.


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I haven't volunteered for a Labour election campaign for a long time! We used to have canvas sheets showing Labour voters in the last election. These voters would be prioritised, spoken to and we would want to know in forensic detail on election day how many had voted. They would all be knocked up.
> 
> In my experience it was the most accurate measurement tool of turnout and vote share.


Yeah, they still do that. It isn't an accurate measure of turnout and vote share anymore.


----------



## belboid (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> Since when? One of the key features of election night in 2017 was Labour MPs expecting a drubbing 'cause of their canvas returns ending up with increased majorities. There's a substantial mass of voters who aren't getting picked up by canvassers anymore.


it goes back way before 17. They're nothing more than an indication, and have always been massively inaccurate. Loads of people (especially young uns) dont answer the door, quite a few have always just said 'yes' to every canvasser.

In terms of conversations, we have decent ones with 'dont knows' and brief ones with labour voters will politely saying goodbye to tories. You get to hear what topics seem to matter,  which is good for how to target materials. Thankfully little on Brexit so far on the NE Derbyshire doorstep.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 5, 2019)

belboid said:


> Thankfully little on Brexit so far on the NE Derbyshire doorstep.


Forage was in Bolsover earlier.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2019)

Not much change, tbh, but if YG are struggling to boost the blustercunt...well.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 7, 2019)

Thanks Rory; looks like my bus pass is safe


----------



## brogdale (Nov 7, 2019)

Seriously, though...nearly a quarter of London voters considering that racist Bailey.


----------



## FiFi (Nov 7, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Seriously, though...nearly a quarter of London voters considering that racist Bailey.


Well, when we're discussing the judgement of (some) Londoners, we have to remember that they voted for Johnson twice


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 7, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Seriously, though...nearly a quarter of London voters considering that racist Bailey.


They haven't heard of him though have they. He's just the Tory candidate.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 8, 2019)

Slow to little movement.


----------



## Smangus (Nov 8, 2019)

Going to be very dependent on turnout this time. Got my works xmas do on the 12th, so, vote before getting pissed or get pissed then vote? Choices, choices


----------



## Poi E (Nov 9, 2019)

Get pissed, realise voting is pointless. Keep drinking.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 9, 2019)

Yougov has done one of their big polls, 11,000 sample, and broken it down by regions, if this bears anything like what happens on polling day, it's going to be grim for Labour, especially in the midlands & north.



> The Labour vote has taken its hardest hit in the North West, with support for the party falling by a massive 25 percentage points to 30% since 2017. Worse still for Labour, this now puts them behind the Conservatives (33%) in a region the party considers its own.



Overall Labour remains ahead in the North East by 6%, London 10% & Wales 1%.

Tories ahead in North West by 3%, Yorkshire and Humberside 5%, East Midlands 23%, West Midlands 20%, East 27%, South East 18% & South West 20%.

The 3 underlined regions are the lead over second place LibDems. 

The SNP is 20% ahead of the Tories in Scotland, Labour has dropped to 4th place, 1% behind the LibDems. 

Regional voting intentions show both main parties down everywhere, with Labour hit particularly hard | YouGov


----------



## Ptolemy (Nov 9, 2019)

These are compared with the actual 2017 results right? I think a fairer comparison would be with polling at the equivalent stage in the campaign last time.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Yougov has done one of their big polls, 11,000 sample, and broken it down by regions, if this bears anything like what happens on polling day, it's going to be grim for Labour, especially in the midlands & north.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When these were originally posted on twitter people pointed out the data set was a few weeks old


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Labour has dropped to 4th place, 1% behind the LibDems.


 That’s particularly funny.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 10, 2019)

ska invita said:


> When these were originally posted on twitter people pointed out the data set was a few weeks old



That's only partly true, as the field work was carried out from 17th Oct., and right up to the 4th Nov., and there hasn't been much polling movement in that time, although still plenty to play for over the coming weeks. 

Anyway, this weekend's polls...

 

Opinium shows a drop of 4% on their last poll, which at 16% was at least 4% above other polls published at the same time. Panelbase is down 1%, Deltapoll unchanged, and yougov up 2% - all within the 'margin of error'.


----------



## Supine (Nov 10, 2019)

Wow. Those polls are very consistent


----------



## Poi E (Nov 10, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Yougov has done one of their big polls, 11,000 sample, and broken it down by regions, if this bears anything like what happens on polling day, it's going to be grim for Labour, especially in the midlands & north.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Look on the bright side. Yougov now thinks Scotland is part of the world and not part of the UK


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 10, 2019)

Supine said:


> Wow. Those polls are very consistent



TBF, they were at this stage in 2015, although giving the Tories even bigger leads, a downward trend didn't start to happen until about 2 weeks before the election. 

Although at that point different polling companies, whilst showing a downward trend, were all over the place, with leads between 1% & about 12%


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2019)

Maybe a sign of some convergence? But...trends is all...


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 12, 2019)

That will probably put the willies up the Tories a bit.

But, yeah, trends.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> That will probably put the willies up the Tories.


Fieldwork before Farage's 'reveal' and we've yet to get any idea how that might play out with the 'Remainer" 2017 Tory voters. Smithson has some DeltaPoll numbers (again before Johnson went full Farage):



Could get interesting if that substantial leakage to the yellow vermin holds or increases following the Faragist alliance.


----------



## marty21 (Nov 12, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Maybe a sign of some convergence? But...trends is all...
> 
> View attachment 189766


We'll have to see if the Farage sordid deal has any impact on that


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 12, 2019)

Yougov is now excluding parties not standing in respondents' constituencies, which is logical. 



> Respondents were shown only some of the names of candidates standing in their constituency, meaning that Brexit Party voters can no longer vote for the Brexit Party in the survey.
> 
> Candidates who have stood down as part of the "Remain alliance" between the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru and Greens have also been removed.
> 
> ...



Meaning the Brexit party is now on only 4%, Tories on 42%, Labour on 28% and Lib Dems on 15% - Tory lead of 14%.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Yougov is now excluding parties not standing in respondents' constituencies, which is logical.
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning the Brexit party is now on only 4%, Tories on 42%, Labour on 28% and Lib Dems on 15% - Tory lead of 14%.


OK, this is now a 'spoons enhanced response ...but...I refuse to believe that 42% of my compatriots are that fucking stupid.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 12, 2019)

brogdale said:


> OK, this is now a 'spoons enhanced response ...but...I refuse to believe that 42% of my compatriots are that fucking stupid.



43.5% were last time.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 12, 2019)

There is a possibility that by taking themselves out of the tory held seats, the BP reduce their 'appeal'/make themselves an irrelevance across the board. Who knows, but it's something to look out for in the (next) weekend's clutch of polls.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> 43.5% were last time.


More


----------



## Wilf (Nov 12, 2019)

Wilf said:


> There is a possibility that by taking themselves out of the tory held seats, the BP reduce their 'appeal'/make themselves an irrelevance across the board. Who knows, but it's something to look out for in the (next) weekend's clutch of polls.


Labour should have course be pushing the 'tory/bp coalition line' like mad. Spitting image used to do a puppet of David Owen with a wee David Steele in his top pocket. If Labour strategists have any nous they do one of Johnson with farage in his top pocket. The other way round works too.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 12, 2019)

Wilf said:


> There is a possibility that by taking themselves out of the tory held seats, the BP reduce their 'appeal'/make themselves an irrelevance across the board. Who knows, but it's something to look out for in the (next) weekend's clutch of polls.



This is possibly one of the unintended consequences of the announcement. If the BP have relinquished the ownership of the leave brand in the popular imagination then it’s hard to see where they go next but to oblivion. Farage was mental not to have announced 20-40 seats at the outset where they could realistically win. But then of course, he’s not bothered about the party - only what it delivers for him


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 12, 2019)

It’s also notable that the LD support is beginning to crumble to Labour:



The political commentariat always predict the end of two party politics (and to be fair it is now 3 with the SNP) citing polls, euro elections, local govt and by-elections as evidence. But at the General Election this type of narrowing always happens


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 12, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Farage was mental not to have announced 20-40 seats at the outset where they could realistically win.



Not sure he could have gotten the momentum with a targeted seats line, it would have looked too much like a gimmick and severely limited takeup. A national push allowed the red-faced hordes to feel broadly involved with something excitingly epic.


----------



## killer b (Nov 13, 2019)

Some interesting detail in a recent Ashcroft poll about how much individual political stories cut through:


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> Some interesting detail in a recent Ashcroft poll about how much individual political stories cut through:


Not sure that we Urbz are totally representative


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 13, 2019)

Yougov poll indicating voters willing to see the 6 counties out of the union... if brexit goes their way

Majority of Remainers and Leavers willing to see NI leave Union for preferred Brexit outcome


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2019)

krtek a houby said:


> Yougov poll indicating voters willing to see the 6 counties out of the union... if brexit goes their way
> 
> Majority of Remainers and Leavers willing to see NI leave Union for preferred Brexit outcome





> Around four in 10 Britons said they cared little or not at all about the region.


Genuinely surprised around 6 did.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2019)

Goodwin comparing 2017 & 2019 polling, but it's a bit apples & oranges tbh


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 13, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> It’s also notable that the LD support is beginning to crumble to Labour:
> 
> 
> 
> The political commentariat always predict the end of two party politics (and to be fair it is now 3 with the SNP) citing polls, euro elections, local govt and by-elections as evidence. But at the General Election this type of narrowing always happens




Where are the remaining 7% in that poll? SNP/NI parties/UKIP?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 13, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Where are the remaining 7% in that poll? SNP/NI parties/UKIP?



GB poll only, so nothing for NI parties.

SNP - 4%, PC - 1%, 'others' - 3%

Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 13, 2019)

Two more polls published today...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2019)

Proper remainiac trigger findings from YG...


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 14, 2019)

ComRes suggesting the drift back to the two main parties continues.


SNP 4%, Others 1% - making 101% because of rounding up/down to the nearest percentage point.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 14, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> ComRes suggesting the drift back to the two main parties continues.
> 
> View attachment 189911
> SNP 4%, Others 1% - making 101% because of rounding up/down to the nearest percentage point.


Yeah, the _Britain Elects _tracker poll (of polls) [updated to this Tuesday] is *beginning* to show the 'normal' convergence expected during a GE campaign:


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 14, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> ComRes suggesting the drift back to the two main parties continues.
> 
> View attachment 189911
> SNP 4%, Others 1% - making 101% because of rounding up/down to the nearest percentage point.



Lib dems slipping away again as reality hits.  As remainers become to realise that in most cases a vote for _Jo Swinson's_ Lib Dems is a vote for a tory hard brexit.  Its pretty mad the lib dems didn't see this coming and actually thought they could compete in these seats.  It didn't take long for their hubris and arrogance to reappear.  _I agree with Nick!_


----------



## rekil (Nov 14, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Where are the remaining 7% in that poll? SNP/NI parties/UKIP?


Spunking Cock Proletarian Democracy Historic Alliance. #mediablackout


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 14, 2019)

Brexit still a Trojan Horse for the Tories.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, the _Britain Elects _tracker poll (of polls) [updated to this Tuesday] is *beginning* to show the 'normal' convergence expected during a GE campaign:
> 
> View attachment 189920


everyone pissing on the yellow scum


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 14, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Brexit still a Trojan Horse for the Tories.




This Chris Curtis is apparently from Yougov & commenting on those above figures.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Genuinely surprised around 6 did.


6 don't knows


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 14, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Brexit still a Trojan Horse for the Tories.



On a positive note Labour are now formally the party of the narrating section of the British middle class. Applause all round.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 14, 2019)

The Guardian has just posted this from John Curtice...

*hances of Labour majority 'as close to zero as it is possible to be', says John Curtice*




Peter Walker

We have received a briefing from the monarch of UK psephologists, *Prof Sir John Curtice* of Strathclyde University, about what might happen in the election, and the short version is this: while there are many imponderables in play, it seems a toss-up between a Boris Johnson majority and a hung parliament.

Curtice said it was “pretty much a binary contest” between the two. And what of a Labour majority? The answer will not be welcomed by Jeremy Corbyn:

The chances of a Labour majority are as close to zero as it is possible to be.

He said the issues for Labour included Corbyn’s personal unpopularity with voters (although he also noted that Johnson was “the most unpopular new prime minister in polling history”), and the fact that they had lost both remain and leave votes through a middle-ground approach to Brexit. Cutice said:

Where they have demonstrated Blairite moderation is the one issue on which you shouldn’t demonstrate Blairites moderation, as it won’t get you anywhere.

The current Tory lead of about 10 percentage points would most likely be enough for Boris Johnson, Cutice said.

With a 10-point lead, however you look at it, if that was to transpire in the ballot box it would be highly likely the Conservatives would win a majority of a size that would be sufficient to get the withdrawal treaty through.

But given the likelihood the Tories will lose a “fair chunk” of seats in Scotland and to the Lib Dems, Johnson needed to keep the lead above about six or seven percentage points:

If it get below that, the odds are beginning to swing in favour of a hung parliament. So be aware: just because the Tories are ahead in the polls, it doesn’t mean to say that Boris is going to get a majority.

The key battle in northern Tory target seats, he said, would be for the Conservatives to hang on to gains made by Theresa May in 2017, and for the Lib Dems to take seats from Labour. Curtice said: “Boris Johnson would love the Liberal Democrats to go up.”

The one exception to the binary end point, he noted, would be the very particular result where the Tories won 320 or so seats, just below a working majority, and the DUP held the balance. With the Northern Irish party wanting neither to support Corbyn or back Johnson’s Brexit deal, this could bring a new deadlock.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> On a positive note Labour are now formally the party of the narrating section of the British middle class. Applause all round.



And also pretty much as unpopular or popular across the social classes. An achievement to be noted.


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2019)

I always see people complaining that C2DE is not actually analogous to 'working class' as it takes in a huge number of pensioners which heavily favour the tories and skew the results - but it doesn't seem to be a totally uncontroversial complaint and I'm not sure how true this is - anyone got a definitive answer on this?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 14, 2019)

killer b said:


> I always see people complaining that C2DE is not actually analogous to 'working class' as it takes in a huge number of pensioners which heavily favour the tories and skew the results - but it doesn't seem to be a totally uncontroversial complaint and I'm not sure how true this is - anyone got a definitive answer on this?



According to the link below, it applies to "every Household Reference Persons (HRP) aged 16 to 64", so doesn't include pensioners.

Social Grade   A, B, C1, C2, D, E - UK Geographics


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 14, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Brexit still a Trojan Horse for the Tories.


How are they defining working class here, non graduates/manual occupations or C2/D/E or?


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> How are they defining working class here, non graduates/manual occupations or C2/D/E or?


C2DE I think.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 14, 2019)

This is based on nothing but instinct and could well be completely wrong but I'd be very surprised to see one in every two working class people - by any normal definition of working class - voting tory. Brexit or no brexit.


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2019)

I mean it isn't great whatever, but it's not the tory party doing drives to get working class voters registered - in fact they've spent a lot of energy recently trying to disenfranchise them.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> How are they defining working class here, non graduates/manual occupations or C2/D/E or?



Favourite Gogglebox contributor. Those who prefer Giles and Mary can do one.

Good point though.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 14, 2019)

The left always respond to surveys of the working class that highlight declining support for the Labour Party by stating that the definition of working class is wrong.

There is no doubt that the old classifications are outdated. The seven class model adopted by Mike Savage certainly defines the current structure of the UK economy better: Social Class in the 21st Century by Mike Savage review – the emotional effect of class

But whichever way you classify it the fact remains - Labour is losing working class support.

On the latest figures the link between Brexit and the dwindling support for Labour (and increasing support for the Tories) couldn't be more stark. But I think we've all had our say on that issue for now.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The left always respond to surveys of the working class that highlight declining support for the Labour Party by stating that the definition of working class is wrong.
> 
> There is no doubt that the old classifications are outdated. The seven class model adopted by Mike Savage certainly defines the current structure of the UK economy better: Social Class in the 21st Century by Mike Savage review – the emotional effect of class
> 
> ...


I have absolutely no doubt that labour support is declining amongst working class and have posted a fair bit about the slow divorce between LP and its working class constituency. But that's a different thing to voting tory, most of the people I know won't vote tory, they just won't vote.


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2019)

I don't deny there's dwindling support for Labour in the working class, but there's a difference - or there could be a difference - between _dwindling support_ and _a massive tory lead_. It would be useful to have some idea what the true figures are, rather than just going  at poll data using apparently inaccurate classifications.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I have absolutely no doubt that labour support is declining amongst working class and have posted a fair bit about the slow divorce between LP and its working class constituency. But that's a different thing to voting tory, most of the people I know won't vote tory, they just won't vote.



The yougov poll shows an 11% decease in support for the BP and a 10% increase in support for the Tories among those defined at working class.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2019)

killer b said:


> I don't deny there's dwindling support for Labour in the working class, but there's a difference - or there could be a difference - between _dwindling support_ and _a massive tory lead_. It would be useful to have some idea what the true figures are, rather than just going  at poll data using apparently inaccurate classifications.


the only way to determine the true support is to await the declarations of constituencies which will be made on the night of 12/13 december


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 14, 2019)

killer b said:


> I don't deny there's dwindling support for Labour in the working class, but there's a difference - or there could be a difference - between _dwindling support_ and _a massive tory lead_. It would be useful to have some idea what the true figures are, rather than just going  at poll data using apparently inaccurate classifications.



I agree with that. It is far from objective. But I think we can safely draw out trends. The extent is the key question - but I suspect we won't know until the 12th December


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> the only way to determine the true support is to await the declarations of constituencies which will be made on the night of 12/13 december



Snap.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The yougov poll shows an 11% decease in support for the BP and a 10% increase in support for the Tories among those defined at working class.


Right, and it's fair to ask how yougov is defining working class. Tories had an unassailable lead in c2de last time which didn't materialise in most parts of UK (notably did in some).


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I agree with that. It is far from objective. But I think we can safely draw out trends. The extent is the key question - but I suspect we won't know until the 12th December


sure, but if we're trying to discuss and analyse what might happen then, it's useful to know what polling we're looking at is useful information, and what is cherry-picked data being presented by partisan actors to influence how things go on the 12th December.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Right, and it's fair to ask how yougov is defining working class. Tories had an unassailable lead in c2de last time which didn't materialise in most parts of UK (notably did in some).



If we assume that the numbers are similar to last time (I don't - I think there are significantly more switchers this time due to Brexit) then you are right, the patterning is critical. You are also right a lot of people, especially given the timing, just won't vote.  

But, there is zero evidence anywhere which offers optimism for Labour at present. As Mr. Moose points out even its 2017 middle class support is drifting down and not up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2019)

killer b said:


> sure, but if we're trying to discuss and analyse what might happen then, it's useful to know what polling we're looking at is useful information, and what is cherry-picked data being presented by partisan actors to influence how things go on the 12th December.


anything presented by partisan actors will have been cherry-picked


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 14, 2019)

killer b said:


> sure, but if we're trying to discuss and analyse what might happen then, it's useful to know what polling we're looking at is useful information, and what is cherry-picked data being presented by partisan actors to influence how things go on the 12th December.



Not sure I follow. It's yougov polling data (Goodwin has linked to it). Leaving aside the general point about polls have you got another point? Are you claiming Yougov or Goodwin are partisan actors manipulating data?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 14, 2019)

Well Goodwin does a lot of stuff of value and wouldn't try and make case he's intentionally manipulating data but he does have a specific view based on a need for labour to switch to an economically left culturally conservative position which is apparent in everything he does. Hence the live book eating on Sky a couple of years ago.


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2019)

Goodwin is certainly partisan, and I while I'm sure the data says all that, if C2DE doesn't just mean working class, presenting it as such - as he does, and so does Guido Fawkes from the same results - misleads.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Well Goodwin does a lot of stuff of value and wouldn't try and make case he's intentionally manipulating data but he does have a specific view based on a need for labour to switch to an economically left culturally conservative position which is apparent in everything he does. Hence the live book eating on Sky a couple of years ago.



Yes he does. But' it's a massive stretch to suggests he's manipulating data to do it.


----------



## chilango (Nov 14, 2019)

We need to think about what the relevance of class is here. There's a difference between arguing that the Labour Party should be representing the more deprived (in all the various forms of capital) sections of society and that it should be representing those who, well, _labour _for a living.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Yes he does. But' it's a massive stretch to suggests he's manipulating data to do it.


I'm not though. I'm suggesting he's interpreting data in line with his worldview, something everybody is guilty of and something he has past form for given previous errors. 

Anyway I maintain my position, based on my worldview and biases, that there is no way one in every two working class voters will put a cross next to a fucking tory. I recognise that there are working class voters who are considering or have already crossed the rubicon and once they've voted tory that represents a significant ongoing threat to old class based voting patterns - just not in any way close to numbers like 47%.

I also think labour is a long way down the road of severing its roots with its historical working class constituency, I just think that will be mainly represented by people not voting with occasional swings to challenger parties like eg brexit party.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm not though. I'm suggesting he's interpreting data in line with his worldview, something everybody is guilty of and something he has past form for given previous errors.
> 
> Anyway I maintain my position, based on my worldview and biases, that there is no way one in every two working class voters will put a cross next to a fucking tory. I recognise that there are working class voters who are considering or have already crossed the rubicon and once they've voted tory that represents a significant ongoing threat to old class based voting patterns - just not in any way close to numbers like 47%.
> 
> I also think labour is a long way down the road of severing its roots with its historical working class constituency, I just think that will be mainly represented by people not voting with occasional swings to challenger parties like eg brexit party.



I don't disagree with any of that with the exception of your view on the number of rubicon crossers we will see.

There are old blokes in their 70's in my local who have voted Labour their entire lives who won't this time because of Brexit. You are right that some of them are in the 'fuck the lot of them' camp but many are planning to vote Tory.


----------



## ignatious (Nov 14, 2019)

The results are rather different if economic status is considered...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 14, 2019)

Never knew sheffield hallam was so posh. Labour really fucked it putting up that arsehole didn't they


----------



## belboid (Nov 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Never knew sheffield hallam was so posh. Labour really fucked it putting up that arsehole didn't they


It's got the _very _posh bits of the city in, the parts even doctors can't afford to buy...as well as lots of students. It used to be even worse, the poshest seat in the whole country.

I think it would be fucked anyway, as the Tory vote returned to the libs to keep labour out.  But, yeah, putting that arsehole up really didn't fucking help at all.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 14, 2019)

belboid said:


> It's got the _very _posh bits of the city in, the parts even doctors can't afford to buy...as well as lots of students. It used to be even worse, the poshest seat in the whole country.
> 
> I think it would be fucked anyway, as the Tory vote returned to the libs to keep labour out.  But, yeah, putting that arsehole up really didn't fucking help at all.



Do you live in Sheffield Hallam Belboid?


----------



## belboid (Nov 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Do you live in Sheffield Hallam Belboid?


thankfully not, Brightside.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> There are old blokes in their 70's in my local who have voted Labour their entire lives who won't this time because of Brexit. You are right that some of them are in the 'fuck the lot of them' camp but many are planning to vote Tory.


My parents have always voted labour and dad was even a union shop steward, but they stopped voting labour a few years ago because of the state of the party.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 14, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> My parents have always voted labour and dad was even a union shop steward, but they stopped voting labour a few years ago because of the state of the party.



Anecdotes do not equal statistically useful evidence 

And anyway, you're insanely biased against Labour yourself, if your occasional recent posts are anything to go by. Are they?


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 14, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> Anecdotes do not equal statistically useful evidence


Didn't claim it does. 



> And anyway, you're insanely biased against Labour yourself, if your occasional recent posts are anything to go by. Are they?


They have voted labour all their lives until recently and how can having been a union rep make them 'insanely biased against labour'?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 14, 2019)

I meant you, WouldBe , not them. 
As in you using them for your bias-confirmation ...


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 14, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> I meant you, WouldBe , not them.
> As in you using them for your bias-confirmation ...


Not using my parents for any such thing.


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2019)

Bit weird William. Wouldbe's mam & dad dont like Corbyn, like 80% of the rest of the old people in the country. I dont think that should be much of a surprise.


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2019)

*90% sorry.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 14, 2019)

killer b said:


> Bit weird William. Wouldbe's mam & dad dont like Corbyn, like 80% of the rest of the old people in the country. I dont think that should be much of a surprise.



It's not them I'm criticising, at all. And yes, if they dislike Corbyn they're not alone.
But it's WouldBe himself that I think isn't capable of being objective.


----------



## killer b (Nov 15, 2019)

I dunno, it looks like you're the one struggling with objectivity here tbh. Some people are just talking about people in their 70s not voting labour anymore. The data - and doorstep conversations, and literally everything we know about the voting intentions of the older cohort right now - says that's true.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 15, 2019)

killer b said:


> I dunno, it looks like *you're the one struggling with objectivity here* tbh. Some people are just talking about people in their 70s not voting labour anymore. The data - and doorstep conversations, and literally everything we know about the voting intentions of the older cohort right now - says that's true.



You're correct in all that. 
I've bolded the bit you're *most* right about 
That doesn't mean WouldBe is all that objective either.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 15, 2019)

My dad left the Labour Party in the early nineties over the selection of Glenys Kinnock for the MEPs list. He won't vote for Corbyn on the basis that he doesn't wear a tie. Seriously. Even though there's plenty of photographic evidence that Corbyn does wear a tie, and even though I reckon it's probably a decade since my dad did. 

Not sure what the moral of the tale is.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 15, 2019)

More from Goodwin on the YouGov poll data. You can see the obvious task here. Squeeze the LD and Green vote. The Tory/BP support is gone.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 15, 2019)

Here’s a cut by age given the discussion up thread.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 15, 2019)

Usual (multiple) caveats about Council ward by-elections etc....but these are actual votes. Can't think that CCHQ will be thrilled with how things are going atm...

e2a: wrong image...see post below; apols


----------



## brogdale (Nov 15, 2019)




----------



## WouldBe (Nov 15, 2019)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 190031


The 1st and last don't make sense as there are big discrepancies between the losses and gains.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 15, 2019)

Long time since I noticed a Lab gain from Con.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 15, 2019)

Another poll. Never heard of Panel MD but again it shows the two main parties squeezing the others:


----------



## brogdale (Nov 15, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Another poll. Never heard of Panel MD but again it shows the two main parties squeezing the others:



Brexit doing a UKIP; maybe Dick Braine will fancy his chances of leading another party?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 15, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Brexit doing a UKIP; maybe Dick Braine will fancy his chances of leading another party?



Massive missteps from Farage. But, the writing was on the wall after Peterborough for them. His clunking handling of the last month merely accelerated the demise


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 16, 2019)

But that lot have all hated Labour pretty much more than anything else, so surely this is a good result anyway? They’ve pressured the Tory party into some hardline Brexit, drawn people into their sphere of thinking and shifted everything to the right. Very much mission accomplished. I doubt Farage gives that much of a fuck, and he still gets plenty of attention for now.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 17, 2019)

Round-up of this weekend's polls - the figure in RED is the change in the Tory lead since that polling company's last poll. 

 
* BMG hasn't yet removed the Brexit Party from the areas where they are not standing.

Bear in mind that at this stage in 2017, the Tories were leading by 15% to 20%, so anything can happen.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 17, 2019)

It seems the Tories are under pressure from the LibDems, and Labour is in melt-down, in some London seats:

Wimbledon constituency voting intention: CON: 38% (-8) LDEM: 36% (+21) LAB: 23% (-13)

Kensington constituency voting intention: CON: 36% (-6) LDEM: 33% (+21) LAB: 27% (-16)

Finchley & Golders Green constituency voting intention: CON: 46% (-1) LDEM: 32% (+25) LAB: 19% (-25)

via
@DeltapollUK
, 07 - 13 Nov Chgs. w/ GE2017

Britain Elects (@britainelects) on Twitter


----------



## Poi E (Nov 17, 2019)

Right wing arseholes appeal to about 70% of voters in those electorates. Always useful to know which parts of town to avoid.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 17, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> It seems the Tories are under pressure from the LibDems, and Labour is in melt-down, in some London seats:
> 
> Wimbledon constituency voting intention: CON: 38% (-8) LDEM: 36% (+21) LAB: 23% (-13)
> 
> ...




Golders Green is, I think, a strongly Jewish community so that sadly makes sense. Interesting elsewhere in London, the LDs are beginning to crumble nationally so London may be there only hope of seats


----------



## Whagwan (Nov 17, 2019)

Kantar polling for absolutely shocking drops in turnout in the youth vote and over 65's going from 80to 90% engagement!!!  Given 1 million under 34's have signed up in the last two weeks (double the numbers of 2017) I'm struggling to see their reasoning.


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> It seems the Tories are under pressure from the LibDems, and Labour is in melt-down, in some London seats:
> 
> Wimbledon constituency voting intention: CON: 38% (-8) LDEM: 36% (+21) LAB: 23% (-13)
> 
> ...



1) Deltapoll are a very new company with little track record
2) Hardly anyone ever does constituency polls because weighting for the precise social/economic make up of it is incredibly hard
3) However, Opinium actually did poll F&GG last month and got C29, L25, LD41. Which, unless something very weird has been happening over the last few weeks, kind of bears out my point 2 above
4) As Whagwan notes above, at least some polling orgs seem to be using a turn out model that is laughable anyway. Ten point higher turnout for over 65s than last time in the middle of December?! Astonishing drops in youth turnout when loads more have been registering this time?! I just can't see the justification for the figures he's posted, turnout hasn't made 90% in any age group since the 70s
5) Labour are turning out ridiculous numbers of canvassers in London atm and Kensington is obviously a massive focus for them. I'm sorry but the idea that they're suddenly going to drop by that much is laughable. Canvassing matters, so does voter ID and GOTV
6) Conclusion from all of that is that even with questionable polling, the Lib Dems still can't imagine themselves a win in London so just vote Labour eh


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 17, 2019)

JTG, whilst Deltapoll is firmly new, they have done several GB wide polls for this coming election, and seem fairly inline with other polling companies, and some of their founders came from Yougov & ICM.

But, as you say, constituency polls are very difficult & samples tend to be very small, which is why I started that post with 'it seems'.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 17, 2019)

Whagwan said:


> Kantar polling for absolutely shocking drops in turnout in the youth vote and over 65's going from 80to 90% engagement!!!  Given 1 million under 34's have signed up in the last two weeks (double the numbers of 2017) I'm struggling to see their reasoning.



Predictions about how  much of a specific age group are going to vote can't be anything more than just making stuff up based on gut feel.
I know it's purely anecdotal but I have a 17 yr old who is seriously narked that she won't get to vote but clearly the statement that young people aren't interested is simplistic


----------



## maomao (Nov 17, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Predictions about how  much of a specific age group are going to vote can't be anything more than just making stuff up based on gut feel.
> I know it's purely anecdotal but I have a 17 yr old who is seriously narked that she won't get to vote but clearly the statement that young people aren't interested is simplistic


I missed being able to vote in the 92 GE by 2 months and lived in a constituency where Labour lost to the Tories by a very slim margin (Edmonton). Was gutted at the time.


----------



## Supine (Nov 17, 2019)

The pendulum model.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Nov 17, 2019)

311 + 268 = 579

With the SNP on course for 40+, 17 NI, presumably one Green, a small handful of Plaid and a speaker, doesn't look good for the Jo Swinson's Lib Dems Stopping Brexit Party.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Predictions about how  much of a specific age group are going to vote can't be anything more than just making stuff up based on gut feel.
> I know it's purely anecdotal but I have a 17 yr old who is seriously narked that she won't get to vote but clearly the statement that young people aren't interested is simplistic


It's done on past elections. There has been a pattern in the UK of dipping youth vote (not mirrored everywhere in the world - iirc, in Italy, young people are _more likely _to vote than older people - so a phenomenon that must have its roots in peculiarly UK conditions). The graphs here show the youth vote consistently lower than the oldies vote since the 60s, but not way lower until the 90s/2000, when it dropped off a cliff.

I believe that figure of over 60% for 2017 is disputed now btw, but either way, the question modellers have to address is 'why did the youth turnout fall off that cliff?' It would appear to me to be related to something to do with Blair and New Labour, perhaps a disillusionment and feeling of disenfranchisement, particularly following the Iraq War. Obviously, if that's the case, it is something Corbyn's Labour can potentially tap into, but new sources of disillusionment threaten - most notably of course brexit, which around three quarters of under 25s who voted in the referendum voted against (likely to be even higher than that among Labour-voting under 25s).


----------



## maomao (Nov 17, 2019)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> 311 + 268 = 579
> 
> With the SNP on course for 40+, 17 NI, presumably one Green, a small handful of Plaid and a speaker, doesn't look good for the Jo Swinson's Lib Dems Stopping Brexit Party.


They'll be Jo Swinson's Getting Brexit Done (in ministerial jags) party by mid December.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 17, 2019)

Supine said:


> The pendulum model.



If these numbers turn out to be correct (And it's a big if) then Friday morning is going to be interesting. Even if Bozo hadn't burnt his bridges with the DUP it wouldn't be enough whereas Lab+SNP would be just enough


----------



## maomao (Nov 17, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> If these numbers turn out to be correct (And it's a big if) then Friday morning is going to be interesting. Even if Bozo hadn't burnt his bridges with the DUP it wouldn't be enough whereas Lab+SNP would be just enough


Tories + piss Tories would be enough though. And the lib dems are always fucking up for it.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 17, 2019)

maomao said:


> Tories + piss Tories would be enough though. And the lib dems are always fucking up for it.


If those numbers turn out to be correct then no it still wouldn't be enough since there would only be 9 or 10 LD's so the Tories would need them and the DUP 
Personally I don't think the LD's would be willing to prop up the Tories anyway since the Tory Party now is a very different beast than it was under Cameron
In fact whilst I personally expect them to do modestly well this time I think they will probably find themselves completely irrelevant come 13 Dec. I don't think they can work with the Tories and their condition for working with Labour (dump Corbyn) is a non starter


----------



## maomao (Nov 17, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> I don't think they can work with the Tories and their condition for working with Labour (dump Corbyn) is a non starter


Well if the people of East Dunbartonshire oblige they'll be some other fucker's Liberal Democrats by then anyway so they can drop all Swinson's crap and just follow the sound of the ministerial motors.


----------



## Whagwan (Nov 17, 2019)

Whagwan said:


> Kantar polling for absolutely shocking drops in turnout in the youth vote and over 65's going from 80to 90% engagement!!!  Given 1 million under 34's have signed up in the last two weeks (double the numbers of 2017) I'm struggling to see their reasoning.



Someone has reweighted that Kantar poll to 2017 turnout.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2019)

Whagwan said:


> Someone has reweighted that Kantar poll to 2017 turnout.



innit?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 18, 2019)

New Survation poll that canvassed voters on the basis of who was actually standing in their constituency rather than a generic list of parties. They are claiming theirs is the first poll to do this in this election:


----------



## chilango (Nov 18, 2019)

Don't trust the Polls.

I've been ignoring YouGov's emails and will then tactically answer them "in response to Labour's manifesto". Wait for the surge


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2019)

Whagwan said:


> Someone has reweighted that Kantar poll to 2017 turnout.



Thanks for posting that. I needed a bit of good news today.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Thanks for posting that. I needed a bit of good news today.


whether this kind of 'reweighting'  is possible from the data they provided has been disputed by polling people I've read. sorry.


----------



## Whagwan (Nov 18, 2019)

Still can't see much point really even looking at polls when they were so close last time.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 18, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> New Survation poll that canvassed voters on the basis of who was actually standing in their constituency rather than a generic list of parties. They are claiming theirs is the first poll to do this in this election:




At 14%, that's one hell of a lead compared to their poll last weekend, which was only 8%, because Survation tends to give a lower lead than most other polling companies.

They also polled well in 2015 giving the Tories a 6% lead compared to the 6.6% result, and in 2017 when they gave the Tories a 1% lead compared to the 2.5% result, making them the most accurate by a country mile.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 19, 2019)

All the polling is showing a substantial tory lead that is showing no signs of decreasing (if anything - its growing) . The labour surge and wonky polling last time was atypical - there is no indication that it will happen again. Brexit and the toxicity of corbyn are likely to deliver a tory majority government led by boris johnson. I really hope im wrong - but i see people all over facebook and on here seeming to assume that jezz-mania and da kidz are going to pull it out the bag again. I would really really like that to be true - but i am very much fearing the worse.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> All the polling is showing a substantial tory lead that is showing no signs of decreasing (if anything - its growing) . The labour surge and wonky polling last time was atypical - there is no indication that it will happen again. Brexit and the toxicity of corbyn are likely to deliver a tory majority government led by boris johnson. I really hope im wrong - but i see people all over facebook and on here seeming to assume that jezz-mania and da kidz are going to pull it out the bag again. I would really really like that to be true - but i am very much fearing the worse.


Yeah, the polling is certainly signalling that atm. With the Brexit Party numbers collapsing faster than the LDs, it's hard to see how the 10 point(ish) tory lead will be eroded:


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 19, 2019)

There are definite trends here:

1. Tory vote solid.
2. BP collapse 
3. LD ticking down 
4. Well over 70% of the electorate are backing the two establishments parties
5. Labour needs to start eating the LD vote now


----------



## chilango (Nov 19, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Fuck.




yuk. hate this generational stuff.

but does tally with what i saw in 2017


----------



## belboid (Nov 19, 2019)

It's not really surprising that the Brexit vote is collapsing, since they are now only standing in half the seats, its gonna have a bit of an impact.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> There are definite trends here:
> 
> 1. Tory vote solid.
> 2. BP collapse
> ...



Unfortunately the polling is not really suggesting that the tory vote is solid...more like expanding.


----------



## chilango (Nov 19, 2019)

I think there's still at least three things that the polling isn't showing;

the possibility of a lib dem collapse in labour/tory fights
youth votes
vote distribution (e.g. Tories piling up votes from UKIP etc in safe seats)

So...I remain optimistic that it'll be closer the headline polls suggest.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 19, 2019)

belboid said:


> It's not really surprising that the Brexit vote is collapsing, since they are now only standing in half the seats, its gonna have a bit of an impact.



Esp. as most of the polling companies have removed them from the options, in areas where they are not standing.

But, it's funny seeing them drop from 25%+ to as little as 4% now.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2019)

chilango said:


> I think there's still at least three things that the polling isn't showing;
> 
> the possibility of a lib dem collapse in labour/tory fights
> youth votes
> ...


Certainly yes to the latter; the vermin never got their way with the boundaries review to favour their vote spread...I suppose we can expect that if/when Johnson gets his majority?


----------



## binka (Nov 19, 2019)

There was something on one of the live news updates the other day (guardian I think) where someone had been on radio 4 saying she'd done a focus group where they asked what messages were getting through from the election, just under 50% said nothing, the highest was around 5% for Jacob Rees Mogg's Grenfell bullshit and every other issue was at 1-2%. She went on to say that for the majority of people the election hasn't even registered with them yet and they won't start to engage until the final fortnight, which I think matches what happened in 2017 where at the same stage everyone was saying it would be a Tory landslide


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2019)

binka said:


> There was something on one of the live news updates the other day (guardian I think) where someone had been on radio 4 saying she'd done a focus group where they asked what messages were getting through from the election, just under 50% said nothing, the highest was around 5% for Jacob Rees Mogg's Grenfell bullshit and every other issue was at 1-2%. She went on to say that for the majority of people the election hasn't even registered with them yet and they won't start to engage until the final fortnight, which I think matches what happened in 2017 where at the same stage everyone was saying it would be a Tory landslide


That's right, but I think tonight's ITV head to head might resonate.


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2019)

This from Ashcroft?



killer b said:


> Some interesting detail in a recent Ashcroft poll about how much individual political stories cut through:


----------



## binka (Nov 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> This from Ashcroft?


Ah right must have been her quoting that then


----------



## Supine (Nov 19, 2019)

brogdale said:


> That's right, but I think tonight's ITV head to head might resonate.



The big question is for who. Biggest gaff goes to...


----------



## Supine (Nov 19, 2019)

Posted without comment!


----------



## Supine (Nov 19, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Today's YouGov:-
> 
> CON 29% (31), LAB 42% (40), LD 11% (12), UKIP 12% (12); Govt app -40
> 
> ...



feck! Just accidentally looked at the OP polling figures and almost had a polling heart attack.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 19, 2019)

binka said:


> There was something on one of the live news updates the other day (guardian I think) where someone had been on radio 4 saying she'd done a focus group where they asked what messages were getting through from the election, just under 50% said nothing, the highest was around 5% for Jacob Rees Mogg's Grenfell bullshit and every other issue was at 1-2%. She went on to say that for the majority of people the election hasn't even registered with them yet and they won't start to engage until the final fortnight, which I think matches what happened in 2017 where at the same stage everyone was saying it would be a Tory landslide



this does not feel remotely like 2017. the wheels started coming off the tory campaign almost straight away and you could sense the excitement around the labour campaign as it steadily closed the gap. Right now the opposite is happening as the tories are hoovering up the brexit vote. And brexit is  far more the defining issue than it was last time.  I want to be wrong but I think we are fucked.


----------



## miktheword (Nov 19, 2019)

Supine said:


> Posted without comment!





and, whilst all polling this week will show a misleading 'BXP not standing' increase in Tory headline figures, Kantar also asked two questions prior to voting intention. 1) Why are you voting /most important issue (Brexit leading q) 
2) who do you think would make best PM? (BJ obvious lead atm) putting some in mindset to vote Tory in q3.

Apparently, without weighting for 'intention / likelihood to vote', the lead would be 10%


----------



## binka (Nov 19, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> this does not feel remotely like 2017. the wheels started coming off the tory campaign almost straight away and you could sense the excitement around the labour campaign as it steadily closed the gap. Right now the opposite is happening as the tories are hoovering up the brexit vote. And brexit is  far more the defining issue than it was last time.  I want to be wrong but I think we are fucked.


Come on Kaka Tim there's no need for that kind of negativity. I am 100% sure everything will work out in the end


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 21, 2019)

ComRes has the Tory lead up 3% to 11%.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 21, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> this does not feel remotely like 2017. the wheels started coming off the tory campaign almost straight away and you could sense the excitement around the labour campaign as it steadily closed the gap. Right now the opposite is happening as the tories are hoovering up the brexit vote. And brexit is  far more the defining issue than it was last time.  I want to be wrong but I think we are fucked.



The momentum of the Tory campaign plummeted very rapidly in 2017. Brexit got them over the line then and probably will do now.

However you cannot escape the feeling that the Tories are vulnerable in a number of regions. There will be enough votes against them to unseat them in dozens of constituencies if played right. If they don’t get an overall majority, huge votes in rural Toryshires won’t mean anything. The bastards are friendless now and won’t get support from anyone else without massive compromise.


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> The bastards are friendless now and won’t get support from anyone else without massive compromise.


sure sure.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2019)

killer b said:


> sure sure.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 21, 2019)

killer b said:


> sure sure.




Fuck. It’s almost it’s almost as if you can’t believe a word the Lib Dems say.

To be fair though, looks like a fantasy that Johnson will agree to a second ref.


----------



## Flavour (Nov 21, 2019)

how utterly unsurprising


----------



## chilango (Nov 21, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> To be fair though, looks like a fantasy that Johnson will agree to a second ref.



Sure.

But they'll worry* about that once they've signed up to support a Tory government.



*i.e. forget


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Nov 21, 2019)

Personally I have not met a Lib Dem who was not either
A/ Terminally naive
B/ A completely duplicitous “apolitical“ chancer
Or
C/ A closet Tory/Tory in denial/Tory in a social situation where open Toryism is unacceptable or a career hindrance


----------



## treelover (Nov 21, 2019)

> Definitely decided which party to vote for?
> 
> All: 59%
> Con: 71%
> ...





> Guardian update
> 
> New polling from Ipsos Mori gives the Conservatives a comfortable 16-point lead over Labour. The research for the Evening Standard has the Conservatives on 44%, Labour on 28%, the Liberal Democrats on 16%, the Brexit party on 3% and the Greens on 3%.
> 
> ...



bad poll out


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 21, 2019)

Those not certain of voting for their party may just be considering a tactical vote, suspect some Labour supporters will vote Lib Dem where it can make a difference and vice versa, whereas tories have nowhere else to go (or a need to). So maybe not as bad as it sounds.


----------



## spitfire (Nov 23, 2019)

I reckon this place is a good place to ask a question regarding YouGov.

I recently signed up to YouGov, can't remember why or how but there you go.

Anyway I was getting a survey every other day or so, very regular. Obviously my answers to the political stuff would have been very left leaning. I did about 10 or so and now I've not heard from them for a fortnight. Would this be normal for keeping data randomised or are they filtering out people giving them answers they don't want?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Nov 23, 2019)

spitfire said:


> I reckon this place is a good place to ask a question regarding YouGov.
> 
> I recently signed up to YouGov, can't remember why or how but there you go.
> 
> Anyway I was getting a survey every other day or so, very regular. Obviously my answers to the political stuff would have been very left leaning. I did about 10 or so and now I've not heard from them for a fortnight. Would this be normal for keeping data randomised or are they filtering out people giving them answers they don't want?



i think the theory is they try and keep some proportion, in terms of region / age / gender, and also they ask questions about how you voted in the last election, or the referendum, and then try and select people for their next survey based on trying to match known proportions in the population as a whole, so if particular demographics are under / over represented in the people who have signed up to it, then presume they will be sent surveys less / more often than average.

and think you can also select roughly how often you get sent surveys, to avoid getting overloaded.  you didn't select something about that, did you?


----------



## spitfire (Nov 23, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> i think the theory is they try and keep some proportion, in terms of region / age / gender, and also they ask questions about how you voted in the last election, or the referendum, and then try and select people for their next survey based on trying to match known proportions in the population as a whole, so if particular demographics are under / over represented in the people who have signed up to it, then presume they will be sent surveys less / more often than average.
> 
> and think you can also select roughly how often you get sent surveys, to avoid getting overloaded.  you didn't select something about that, did you?



Thanks puddy tat.

I did. They said, would you like to get more surveys more often and I said yes.


----------



## spitfire (Nov 23, 2019)

And they said.

UHUH.


----------



## spitfire (Nov 23, 2019)

As if by magic they just sent me a new one! last one was 8/11.

*dons tinfoil hat*


----------



## killer b (Nov 23, 2019)

They have lots of politically engaged people on their books, so if you're very left wing (or very right wing) they wont need to ask you about politics much. If you were a floating voter or didn't vote at all theyd be emailing you every day...


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 23, 2019)

Tory lead down 3% on their last poll.


----------



## killer b (Nov 23, 2019)

The Alan Moore effect.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 23, 2019)

killer b said:


> The Alan Moore effect.


----------



## Santino (Nov 23, 2019)

spitfire said:


> As if by magic they just sent me a new one! last one was 8/11.
> 
> *dons tinfoil hat*


I read somewhere that the best way to get more surveys is say that you're very likely to vote but not sure for which party.


----------



## chilango (Nov 23, 2019)

Is the pill Ng taking account of this kind of thing...



> Some 103,000 people who registered on Friday were under the age of 25 while some 103,000 others were between 25-34.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 23, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Tory lead down 3% on their last poll.



So Brexit Party vote has evaporated, which benefits Tories overall. Tories might yet lose a couple of points but cant see them finishing much less than 39-40%, Labour on 35%?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 23, 2019)

Very small changes, but backing-up the trend that the 2 main parties are taking votes from the others.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 23, 2019)

The thing with the LibDems is that few people vote LibDem because they want a LibDem, they mostly vote LibDem because they want the alternative (usually a Tory) even less. I did think after the way their vote crashed in 2015 and Cable had the sense not to go into Coalition in 2017 that they had learnt that lesson.
Death of Squirrels seems to have forgotten that already and even worse has been deluding herself that people are really buying into what she's saying and she has an actual chance of being PM.
Their one big draw other than being the protest vote was the "Vote For Us and We will cancel Brexit" schtick which did give them some momentum but they have screwed themselves by stating they won't work with anyone else to stop Brexit even though that is entirely why Remainers might vote for them.
They've sidelined themselves and even the people who really don't want Brexit  realise that voting for the LibDems won't stop it, in fact their best bet for stopping it is to vote Labour, let Labour try and negotiate a better deal, fail miserably and put it to the vote in another referendum where they will end up campaigning against their own deal.
I started off expecting the LibDems to do well in this election picking up 30 or so seats, now I reckon they will get 10-15, they might pick up a few key marginals but they will probably lose some especially in Scotland where Death of Squirrels might even be unseated by the SNP. 
Their big message is wasted in Scotland where everyone wants to stop Brexit and the SNP is almost certainly going to hold more seats than the LD come 13 Dec and is prepared to be pragmatic.


----------



## killer b (Nov 23, 2019)

Finally there's another MRP to work with - hopefully the seat projections will be landing soon...


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 23, 2019)

Brexit lot empty handed then, suppose that goes with the collapse of their vote to 3% or whatever.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 24, 2019)

The six polls this weekend -

 

* All polling companies have now removed parties from areas where they are not standing, hence the Brexit Party only polling between 3 & 5% across all 6 polls this weekend.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 24, 2019)

I simply refuse to believe 47% for the Tories. Even Blair at the height of his powers (  )  never managed a vote share that high.

And I'm a pessimist ....


----------



## weepiper (Nov 24, 2019)

First Scottish poll of the campaign out today.

First Scottish election poll predicts electoral wipeout for Labour


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 24, 2019)

weepiper said:


> First Scottish poll of the campaign out today.
> 
> First Scottish election poll predicts electoral wipeout for Labour





> Of the seven seats held by Labour, only Edinburgh South's incumbent Ian Muray would return to the House of Commons according to the Panelbase study for the Sunday Times.
> 
> If the poll is accurate, support for Conservatives could also see a minor drop of 1% as the party is expected to lose just one Scottish seat.



Blimey!


----------



## weepiper (Nov 24, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Blimey!


What's going on there is the pro-independence people who have been voting for Labour switching to the SNP. The Tory vote is almost completely a unionist vote but quite a lot of Labour people are pro-indy despite the official party line. I think the Tories are probably picking up a few Labour voters too for the opposite reason though.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 24, 2019)

Time for Labour to cut ScotLab loose after this election. How about a crazy idea of internationalism uniting the Labour movement?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 24, 2019)

weepiper said:


> What's going on there is the pro-independence people who have been voting for Labour switching to the SNP. The Tory vote is almost completely a unionist vote but quite a lot of Labour people are pro-indy despite the official party line.



I am still surprised, as I was expecting the Tories to be almost wiped out in Scotland, like they were in 2015, winning just 1 seat.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 24, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> I am still surprised, as I was expecting the Tories to be almost wiped out in Scotland, like they were in 2015, winning just 1 seat.


2015 was a massive high water mark for the SNP though. That's unlikely to be repeated.

Re Edinburgh South and Ian Murray btw, an interesting article here

‘We are running this campaign as a marginal seat’ – Ian Murray’s  Edinburgh South battle

That's my seat. Ian Murray's constituency office has floor-to-ceiling campaign posters on the side of it and the word 'Labour' does not appear once. If I remember I'll try to take a photo on my way to work tomorrow.


----------



## chilango (Nov 24, 2019)

I always get predictions wrong so here goes...

I'm not seeing anything on the ground to suggest a late Labour surge.

Everywhere, and everyone, is quiet. Nobody seems to be shifting. Apart from the collapse of the BxP. 

The polls seem to back that up.

I don't think it'll result in a Tory landslide though, just generally stacking up votes in safe seats for all sides.

The difference between a Tory minority propped up by Swinson's succesor and a working majority will be the Balance between Labour losing Northern seats and the Tories losing Southern seats. I'm not confident. I


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2019)

My prediction? It will end in tears


----------



## mauvais (Nov 24, 2019)

It's alright, we'll just try again in another few months.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 24, 2019)

It’s always interesting to watch these things from a slightly different mainstream atmosphere. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that the public discourse in Scotland has diverged from the U.K. as a whole. Here there are different events and different players and the last few years have played out differently.

That is not to say that the same large trends are not affecting Scotland. Neoliberalism is still the dominant establishment ideology. The interests of business remain the same. The battle playing out between neoliberalism and neoconservativism is still going to have a bearing on Scotland’s future. The media class in Scotland is very much a part of the U.K. media class. And so on.

But all that said, the party system here is very different. Labour in Scotland has no presence. I look at the party grassroots in Stirling and just don’t see it. There is no activist base. The foot soldiers are the local councillors. That’s about it. And they’re not visible. The SNP, on the other hand, can mount stalls in the high streets of neighbouring towns. There can be a busy stall on a Saturday in Dunblane, Bridge of Allan and in Stirling at the bottom of Kings Street simultaneously. (Maybe in other places in the constituency too, I can only report my own observations). Labour can’t do that.

The Tories hold Stirling by a very slim majority. My feeling is that they’ll lose it. I think the SNP’s showing in Scotland in terms of seats will be up on 2017, but not as high as 2015. I think Labour will lose seats. I also think Swinson will lose her seat.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 24, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I also think Swinson will lose her seat.



That would be truly amazing, and bloody funny.


----------



## Sue (Nov 24, 2019)

So danny la rouge, what do you think the scores on the Scottish doors will be? Assuming Alister Jack will hang on to his seat?


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 24, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> That would be truly amazing, and bloody funny.


The swing she won with in 2017 was 
7.13% (from the SNP). But this time the SNP needs only a 5.15% swing to take it back. I think they’re going to do it.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 24, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> That would be truly amazing, and bloody funny.



It’d certainly take the sting out of a Tory victory & brighten the festive hols.


----------



## Sue (Nov 24, 2019)

weepiper said:


> First Scottish poll of the campaign out today.
> 
> First Scottish election poll predicts electoral wipeout for Labour


Can't read that article weepiper without registering. What're the numbers?


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 24, 2019)

Sue said:


> So danny la rouge, what do you think the scores on the Scottish doors will be? Assuming Alister Jack will hang on to his seat?


I wouldn’t like to put exact numbers on it, but I think Jack will stay in Dumfries (Tory). The SNP might lose North East Fife, though. But overall they’ll be up. Labour will lose most of their central belt seats. Maybe all but one.


----------



## Sue (Nov 24, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I wouldn’t like to put exact numbers on it, but I think Jack will stay in Dumfries (Tory). The SNP might lose North East Fife, though. But overall they’ll be up. Labour will lose some of their central belt seats.


Thanks. Dumfries and Galloway (though its name/boundaries have changed a couple of times since) is my old constituency so I feel personally embarrassed that it's so Tory. Bloody farmers.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 24, 2019)

Sue said:


> Can't read that article weepiper without registering. What're the numbers?



That's odd, I can without registering.

Anyway...


Spoiler: Full article



The first Scottish opinion poll is proving disappointing to Labour, showing the party stands to lose all but one of its seats in Scotland. 

Of the seven seats held by Labour, only Edinburgh South's incumbent Ian Muray would return to the House of Commons according to the Panelbase study for the Sunday Times. 

This would not be the first time Mr Murray would be the sole Labour representative in Scotland as he was also the only Labour MP north of the border in 2015. 

According to an analysis from Strathclyde University Professor Sir John Curtice, the SNP are also on course for another electoral win in Scotland. 

SNP could see their sear count rise from 35 to 41, with support rising from 37% to 40%. 

The poll shows that the party only stands to lose North East Fife, which is the seat with the smallest majority in the UK after Stephen Gethins only secured two votes more than the Lib Dems in 2017. 


If the poll is accurate, support for Conservatives could also see a minor drop of 1% as the party is expected to lose just one Scottish seat. 

Stirling is predicted to move from Stephen Kerr to SNP MEP Alyn Smith. 

On the issues voters believe to be harmful to the UK, 37% of Scots said Scottish independence, with 39% saying the same of Brexit.

Almost half of all those surveyed said Scottish independence would be a "good opportunity" for the country, at 45%, while just 24% said the same of Brexit.

According to the poll, Nicola Sturgeon is the only leader who has Scottish approval, with a positive approval rating of +3%. 

Prime Minister Boris Johnson's popularity rose slightly from -36% to -34%, while the Labour leader also improved but still found himself trailing the Tory leader on -41%.

SNP candidate for Aberdeen North Kirsty Blackman commented: “Only the SNP can beat the Tories in Scotland. 

“While we take nothing for granted, the SNP is in a strong position – and we’re well and truly the party with the momentum. 

“This poll underlines the fact that neither Labour nor the Lib Dems can take seats off the Tories.

“Boris Johnson is desperate to get a majority, force through a disastrous Brexit and inflict yet more years of Tory misery on Scotland. 

“The only way to stop him is to unite around the SNP and help lock him out of Downing Street. 

“A vote for the SNP is a vote to escape Brexit and put Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands.”


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 24, 2019)

How do the SNP stay insulated from being in govt for so long? I mean, labour are eternally in govt here in wales but it's a very apathetic and disillusioned base with labour barely able to cobble together a majority. SNP seem to manage to marry being party of govt and trusted to govern with challenger upstarts. From outside looking in, doesn't look to me like it's all based on indy position either...


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 24, 2019)

Britain Elects tracker of this week's polls.


----------



## Sue (Nov 24, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> That's odd, I can without registering.
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> ...


Thanks! You can only read a maximum number of articles a month without registering and I'd hit the limit.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 24, 2019)

Sue said:


> Thanks. Dumfries and Galloway (though its name/boundaries have changed a couple of times since) is my old constituency so I feel personally embarrassed that it's so Tory. Bloody farmers.


The Tory campaign is targeting Unionist sympathy, hoping to be the antiSNP vote. In Dumfries I think it’ll work.


----------



## Sue (Nov 24, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> The Tory campaign is targeting Unionist sympathy, hoping to be the antiSNP vote. In Dumfries I think it’ll work.


Yep. There's the traditional Tory farming vote then the anti-Indy feeling (as evidenced by Indyref) in the non-Tory bits. Imagine Labour aren't trying too hard either...


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 24, 2019)

Sue said:


> Yep. There's the traditional Tory farming vote then the anti-Indy feeling (as evidenced by Indyref) in the non-Tory bits. Imagine Labour aren't trying too hard either...


I don’t think Labour has the resources to try hard. But you’re right, some of their vote is working class Unionist and will go Tory.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 24, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> How do the SNP stay insulated from being in govt for so long? I mean, labour are eternally in govt here in wales but it's a very apathetic and disillusioned base with labour barely able to cobble together a majority. SNP seem to manage to marry being party of govt and trusted to govern with challenger upstarts. From outside looking in, doesn't look to me like it's all based on indy position either...


They can play Scottish government against UK government. After all that's what Labour councils do up and down the country - _it's not us it's them in Westminster_. Added factor of independence just strengthens that.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 24, 2019)

chilango said:


> I always get predictions wrong so here goes...
> 
> I'm not seeing anything on the ground to suggest a late Labour surge.
> ...
> I don't think it'll result in a Tory landslide though, just generally stacking up votes in safe seats for all sides.


That's my prediction also (FWIW I called both the EU referendum and 2017 GE wrong). I can easily see a Tory majority but I don't see a _huge_ Tory majority (at least at this stage) there is just not enough swing seats in play. 



danny la rouge said:


> I also think Swinson will lose her seat.


Fingers crossed.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 24, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> How do the SNP stay insulated from being in govt for so long? I mean, labour are eternally in govt here in wales but it's a very apathetic and disillusioned base with labour barely able to cobble together a majority. SNP seem to manage to marry being party of govt and trusted to govern with challenger upstarts. From outside looking in, doesn't look to me like it's all based on indy position either...


It isn’t based all on Indy position. The SNP is the anti Tory vote.  Lots of people who aren’t completely happy with the SNP would nevertheless not vote Tory.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 24, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> How do the SNP stay insulated from being in govt for so long? I mean, labour are eternally in govt here in wales but it's a very apathetic and disillusioned base with labour barely able to cobble together a majority. SNP seem to manage to marry being party of govt and trusted to govern with challenger upstarts. From outside looking in, doesn't look to me like it's all based on indy position either...


It's at least partly because most people here think they've done a good job in government. There are obviously people who don't, but certainly most people I know irl like what they've seen and are happy for them to carry on.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 24, 2019)

weepiper said:


> It's at least partly because most people here think they've done a good job in government. There are obviously people who don't, but certainly most people I know irl like what they've seen and are happy for them to carry on.



∆∆∆This.∆∆∆

When I lived in Scotland - admitted over a decade ago - the SNP, whatever you might think of their particular policies, were the only political party who at least looked like they could find their own arse in the dark.

I grudgingly - for I'm a unionist - voted SNP in both local and Holyrood elections because, having had the _pleasure _of living in the one (Labour) party state of Glasgow with a Labour Scottish Government in Edinburgh, I needed boring stuff like the roads being gritted and the school meals service to work - labour in Scotland couldn't even get achieve that level of competence, and the SNP did at least look like it could.

I'm still a unionist, but Sturgeon is the stand out political figure in the UK but about 50,000 miles, she's always had an air of diligent competence about her - if your house flooded, or you got run over, she's the one political figure I can think of who would inspire confidence if she turned up to deal with it. The rest are just oxygen thieves in comparison.

Actually, not just in comparison...


----------



## kabbes (Nov 24, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Sturgeon is the stand out political figure in the UK but about 50,000 miles


Are you sure it’s not by 500 miles and then by 500 more?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 24, 2019)

Latest Survation poll...


----------



## weepiper (Nov 24, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> But all that said, the party system here is very different. Labour in Scotland has no presence. I look at the party grassroots in Stirling and just don’t see it. There is no activist base. The foot soldiers are the local councillors. That’s about it. And they’re not visible. The SNP, on the other hand, can mount stalls in the high streets of neighbouring towns. There can be a busy stall on a Saturday in Dunblane, Bridge of Allan and in Stirling at the bottom of Kings Street simultaneously. (Maybe in other places in the constituency too, I can only report my own observations). Labour can’t do that.


Just saw this tweet which perfectly illustrates your point (but with a Tory).


----------



## treelover (Nov 24, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Britain Elects tracker of this week's polls.





isn't that roughly the same as the 1983 election vote?, Labour seem to have a bedrock vote of about 26/28% when presenting with a left wing leader/manifesto.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 25, 2019)

A fairly large shift in the leaders approval ratings over the last week.

 

Leadership approval opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 25, 2019)

The long wait is nearly over


----------



## elbows (Nov 25, 2019)




----------



## weepiper (Nov 25, 2019)

weepiper said:


> 2015 was a massive high water mark for the SNP though. That's unlikely to be repeated.
> 
> Re Edinburgh South and Ian Murray btw, an interesting article here
> 
> ...



 

What party is he standing for? WHO KNOWS


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 25, 2019)

Another poll showing the gap closing, ICM down from a 10% Tory lead in their last poll (15-18 Nov.) to 7% now (22-25 Nov.)



Don Troooomp  is going to hate that.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 25, 2019)

weepiper said:


> View attachment 191030
> 
> What party is he standing for? WHO KNOWS


The word Labour is visible in one of the newspaper headlines he must have missed that one.


----------



## treelover (Nov 25, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Another poll showing the gap closing, ICM down from a 10% Tory lead in their last poll (15-18 Nov.) to 7% now (22-25 Nov.)
> 
> 
> 
> Don Troooomp  is going to hate that.




wonder how nasty Tories will get if that continues, Cummings's Götterdämmerung


----------



## killer b (Nov 25, 2019)

treelover said:


> wonder how nasty Tories will get if that continues, Cummings's Götterdämmerung


makes a change from unleashing Crosby I guess. 


treelover said:


> Crosby will be fully unleashed now.


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 25, 2019)

Quite a surge for Labour in Wales. Keep going at this rate and they could possibly hold on to Gower and Cardiff North and maybe (please please please) unseat Cairns in Vale of Glamorgan.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 25, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> Quite a surge for Labour in Wales. Keep going at this rate and they could possibly hold on to Gower and Cardiff North and maybe (please please please) unseat Cairns in Vale of Glamorgan.


I hate myself for saying this, and with usual caveat that welsh labour is dogshit that can go fuck itself, but that's a lovely sight


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 25, 2019)

Also that polling does suggest some movement from brexit party to labour (yeah I know it's one poll)


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 25, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Also that polling does suggest some movement from brexit party to labour (yeah I know it's one poll)



That's what happened in 2017, I think. And yes, Welsh Labour are shite, and yes, some will no doubt convince themselves this is happening 'despite' Corbyn, but I'd love to see the leftwards pressure a Corbyn government could exert on them. Particularly as Plaid seem to have regressed into a pile of corporation tax-reducing toss.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 25, 2019)

It's the hope that kills you.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 25, 2019)

weepiper said:


> What party is he standing for? WHO KNOWS


Scottish co-operative party is the most visible.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 25, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> Quite a surge for Labour in Wales. Keep going at this rate and they could possibly hold on to Gower and Cardiff North and maybe (please please please) unseat Cairns in Vale of Glamorgan.


Not what was claimed on news at midday. BBC claimed labour could lose most of it's seats in Wales apart from a few in the south.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 26, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Not what was claimed on news at midday. BBC claimed labour could lose most of it's seats in Wales apart from a few in the south.


It's the BBC though. They probably cut out the bit of audio with the word 'not' in it.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 26, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Not what was claimed on news at midday. BBC claimed labour could lose most of it's seats in Wales apart from a few in the south.



On the basis of what poll was that??


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 26, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> Quite a surge for Labour in Wales. Keep going at this rate and *they could possibly hold on to Gower* and Cardiff North and maybe (please please please) unseat Cairns in Vale of Glamorgan.




My drinking mate Eddie (ward Labour organiser in the bit of Gower that's most in Swansea) said yesterday they're having few problems in Gower -- overall, not just in the Swansea bit only. 
He has lots of volunteers, several of whom he's been encouraging to go into the more rural/Toryish bits.

I'll be helping with a leaflet drop (a new Antoniazzi one) in his area on Friday


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 26, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Not what was claimed on news at midday. BBC claimed labour could lose most of it's seats in Wales apart from a few in the south.



If that poll Labour might lose four seats, a month ago the polls indicated that they could lose nine. Now with very marginal swings they could hold some of the four, and if the surge continues at 2017 pace maybe, just, make a gain (this is unlikely, but the Vale has some ahem personality issues in the race)
It's utter bullshit that Labour will get wiped out in Wales, but also this new poll came out at 5pm.


----------



## chilango (Nov 26, 2019)

Seems to be a slight shift in the polls...is that right?


----------



## ignatious (Nov 26, 2019)

Seems so yes. Tomorrow at 10pm YouGov release their MRP poll which is the one that predicted a hung parliament last time. Should give us a much better idea of where things stand.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 26, 2019)

ignatious said:


> Seems so yes. Tomorrow at 10pm YouGov release their MRP poll which is the one that predicted a hung parliament last time. Should give us a much better idea of where things stand.


Or, at least where things stood at the time of the fieldwork...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Or, at least where things stood at the time of the fieldwork...


Crucial point; esp. given their assumptions about predicted turn-out by age cohort. 
Where the fieldwork end point is along this line will also be important; of the 366k of voters registering yesterday, the vast majority were <35 years of age.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 26, 2019)

The higher number of younger voters registering will partly be indicative of younger people generally moving about more, insecure tenancies, students etc. People tend to settle down in one place as they get older, or be part of the ‘home owning generation’ so won’t need to reregister, whereas someone who has moved to a new rented place will need to sign up again.

I saw on Twitter that there was a huge spike in people accessing the registration site in the early hours, which might have been a failed attempt to knock it over. Fortunately it’s quite a robust site, but a little worrying that someone would try.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> The higher number of younger voters registering will partly be indicative of younger people generally moving about more, insecure tenancies, students etc. People tend to settle down in one place as they get older, or be part of the ‘home owning generation’ so won’t need to reregister, whereas someone who has moved to a new rented place will need to sign up again.
> 
> I saw on Twitter that there was a huge spike in people accessing the registration site in the early hours, which might have been a failed attempt to knock it over. Fortunately it’s quite a robust site, but a little worrying that someone would try.


Are you referring to the Stormzy moment (clearly visible on the usage graph)?


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 26, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Are you referring to the Stormzy moment (clearly visible on the usage graph)?
> 
> View attachment 191069



It was something around 4am I think, which seemed an odd time to be using the site, but might just be fake news bollocks (although the person tweeting it wasn’t claiming a grand conspiracy or screaming Russia, seemed pretty legit)


----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> It was something around 4am I think, which seemed an odd time to be using the site, but might just be fake news bollocks (although the person tweeting it wasn’t claiming a grand conspiracy or screaming Russia, seemed pretty legit)


Doesn't show on the usage graph.
Stormzy tweeted just after 7pm and the peak shows the response.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 26, 2019)




----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2019)

The timing of the deployment of the anti-semitism attack would seem to indicate that the tories own polling is beginning to show convergence.


----------



## elbows (Nov 26, 2019)

brogdale said:


> The timing of the deployment of the anti-semitism attack would seem to indicate that the tories own polling is beginning to show convergence.



I saw the timing as being related to Labour launching their 'race and faith manifesto' today.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2019)

elbows said:


> I saw the timing as being related to Labour launching their 'race and faith manifesto' today.


Could well be.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2019)

_Britain Elects' _updated tracker poll of polls:



With only a few % of the BP left to squeeze, it's even clearer now that voting LD in anything other than about 13 Tory held/LD marginals (below) is probably the best way to secure a 'hard', tory Brexit.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 26, 2019)

And of course the seats the lib dems hold which are vulnerable to the tories.  I don't know how many there are of those but there does appear to be an option for that in the polling but its a screenshot with no hyperlink.

I know predicting anything politically is a fools game these days but I'd bet the house on Zac Goldsmith being out of a job just before Christmas.  Racist wanker.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> And of course the seats the lib dems hold which are vulnerable to the tories.  I don't know how many there are of those but there does appear to be an option for that in the polling but its a screenshot with no hyperlink.
> 
> I know predicting anything politically is a fools game these days but I'd bet the house on Zac Goldsmith being out of a job just before Christmas.  Racist wanker.


These are the LD holds most vulnerable to swing --> Con


Source


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 26, 2019)

Third poll since the weekend, showing the gap is narrowing.



If this continues with the next weekend polls, auld Don Troooomp will start going into meltdown.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 26, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> If this continues with the next weekend polls, auld Don Troooomp will start going into meltdown.


Talking of which here's hoping Trumps visit on the 3rd December produces some embarrassing hand holding moments


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 26, 2019)

brogdale said:


> These are the LD holds most vulnerable to swing --> Con
> 
> View attachment 191107
> Source



I think that might just be their vulnerable seats.  Aren't most of the Scottish ones vulnerable to the SNP?

Anyway, its interesting.  Despite the tiny majority I'd be surprised if they lose Oxford West.  Actually I wonder if many are vulnerable?  Tom Brake in Carshalton may be shitting it I guess.  Eastbourne as well.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Talking of which here's hoping Trumps visit on the 3rd December produces some embarrassing hand holding moments


Got to be worth a couple % swing to Jez?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 26, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Got to be worth a couple % swing to Jez?


You'd think. I think they should be pushing the Trump connection a lot harder. A Boris Brexit is very much tied in with Trump and Trump is a sitting duck, right now more than ever.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> I think that might just be their vulnerable seats.  Aren't most of the Scottish ones vulnerable to the SNP?
> 
> Anyway, its interesting.  Despite the tiny majority I'd be surprised if they lose Oxford West.  Actually I wonder if many are vulnerable?  Tom Brake in Carshalton may be shitting it I guess.  Eastbourne as well.


Looking at the local Lab campaign in C&W, I don't think Brake will be too worried tbh...he's even been campaigning himself over the border in Sutton & Cheam.


----------



## ignatious (Nov 26, 2019)

Fez909 said:


>



This one shows the same poll if you discount turnout weighting. Obviously turnout weighting is quite important but it shows how much those voter registrations could change the picture.


----------



## chilango (Nov 26, 2019)

Brace yourselves for the Labour surge?


----------



## Flavour (Nov 26, 2019)

As ever, its the marginals that count. I don't know what the key lab/tory marginals are besides a couple in London, where I know labour have been pretty active in canvassing. But elsewhere?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2019)

Flavour said:


> As ever, its the marginals that count. I don't know what the key lab/tory marginals are besides a couple in London, where I know labour have been pretty active in canvassing. But elsewhere?


Tory target seats


----------



## kabbes (Nov 26, 2019)

Any poll that ignores turnout weighting is to be immediately binned as irrelevant.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Any poll that ignores turnout weighting is to be immediately binned as irrelevant.


It's daft really. only two thirds of 18-25s are even registered to vote, that's a substantial weight they have to apply to that cohort straight off the bat.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 27, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Any poll that ignores turnout weighting is to be immediately binned as irrelevant.


Plus any poll that doesn't.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 27, 2019)

Raheem said:


> Plus any poll that doesn't.


Where would be the fun in that?


----------



## chilango (Nov 27, 2019)

Goodwin tweeting a polling showing Labour up 22% to 63% of the student vote.


----------



## Argonia (Nov 27, 2019)

I might adopt the Harold Shipman manoeuvre in order to reduce the aging Tory vote.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 27, 2019)

New YouGov poll out today, like others this week it shows the gap narrowing, from 17% less than 2 weeks ago, to 11% now.

 

It's going to piss off Don Troooomp.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 27, 2019)

Argonia said:


> I might adopt the Harold Shipman manoeuvre in order to reduce the aging Tory vote.



The thing people forget about old voters with a vested interest in retaining the status quo is that upon their death they are usually replaced by people whose material interests have just moved towards having more of an interest in retaining the status quo.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> New YouGov poll out today, like others this week it shows the gap narrowing, from 17% less than 2 weeks ago, to 11% now.
> 
> View attachment 191177
> 
> It's going to piss off Don Troooomp.


Interesting to see that, despite the collapse of the Brexit Party vote, the vermin are, at best constant (if not in slight decline). Shows they're shedding as much as they're gaining as the public are exposed more and more to the blustercunt.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 27, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> The thing people forget about old voters with a vested interest in retaining the status quo is that upon their death they are usually replaced by people whose material interests have just moved towards having more of an interest in retaining the status quo.


That's why you need to go full Shipman - take the assets.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 27, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Interesting to see that, despite the collapse of the Brexit Party vote, the vermin are, at best constant (if not in slight decline). Shows they're shedding as much as they're gaining as the public are exposed more and more to the blustercunt.



The public aren’t seeing much of him, I think they’re stage managing him very carefully.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 27, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> New YouGov poll out today, like others this week it shows the gap narrowing, from 17% less than 2 weeks ago, to 11% now.
> 
> View attachment 191177
> 
> It's going to piss off Don Troooomp.


reality constantly pisses off Don Troooomp


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> The public aren’t seeing much of him, I think they’re stage managing him very carefully.


Quite a few watch the telly and stuff, though.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 27, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> The thing people forget about old voters with a vested interest in retaining the status quo is that upon their death they are usually replaced by people whose material interests have just moved towards having more of an interest in retaining the status quo.


'You'll be old yourself one day'.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 27, 2019)

Oi, Don Troooomp, you have been tagged several times on this thread, over the last few days, over the shifting in the polls, have you not any comment to make?


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 27, 2019)

tag him three times in a row and the cunt will appear. don't do it though, you will only regret it!


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Oi, Don Troooomp, you have been tagged several times on this thread, over the last few days, over the shifting in the polls, have you not any comment to make?


why would you do this.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

a little entre ahead of the main course of the Yougov MRP (dropping at 10pm)


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 27, 2019)

Hope that's sort of a trend, and not an outlier ... 

ETA : the very beginning of the start of a trend I should have said, with maybe other polls showing a smaller Tory lead


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

aaand the Yougov MRP is out.


----------



## The Boy (Nov 27, 2019)

Tories with majority of 68 according to the Yougov MRP.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

on a 11% national lead, 43/32


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 27, 2019)

Yes, those percentages maybe a bit more realistic??




> *Sam Coates Sky*‏Verified account @*SamCoatesSky*





> 42s42 seconds ago
> 
> 
> 
> YouGov / Times MRP Con 43%, Labour 32%, SNP 3%, Lib Dems 14%, Plaid <1%, Green 3%, BP 3%


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

more realistic than what?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 27, 2019)

OK, sorry. Belatedly realising ...


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> aaand the Yougov MRP is out.



jesus


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

It's the kind of result you'd expect with an 11 point lead isn't it?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 27, 2019)

Well that's fucking shit. 68. Fucks sake.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> It's the kind of result you'd expect with an 11 point lead isn't it?



Pretty much. If the lead tightens down to 7 or so, then that's back in shoogly-peg territory.


----------



## ffsear (Nov 27, 2019)

Given the size and methodology of the MRP poll I think people shouldn’t read too much into this. Survey was taken from last two weeks and more recent field work has shown the gap is narrowing. Two weeks is a long time in politics!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 27, 2019)

68 though. Was hoping the tories were piling up votes in safe seats.


----------



## Flavour (Nov 27, 2019)

I won't believe it til 13 December.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 27, 2019)

Here's the non-paywalled YouGov stuff

The key findings from our MRP | YouGov


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

There's two weeks to go and the polls are tightening across all the polling companies - I'd chill out for now. 

If nothing else, this demonstrates what a waste a lib dem vote is - they'll be fucked off with this.


----------



## belboid (Nov 27, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Here's the non-paywalled YouGov stuff
> 
> The key findings from our MRP | YouGov


Squirrel killer holds her seat 

this cannot pass


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> If nothing else, this demonstrates what a waste a lib dem vote is - they'll be fucked off with this.



No LD/CON marginals left? I can't think of the name of one to have a look.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

silver linings.

_The model currently shows none of the MPs who have defected to the Lib Dems in recent months winning the seats in which they are standing. Among the defectors from the Conservatives, Sarah Wollaston is 19 points behind in Totnes, Antoinette Sandbach is trailing by 33 points in Eddisbury, Philip Lee is behind by 10 points in Wokingham, and Sam Gyimah is 8 points down in Kensington.

The three Labour defectors are also struggling. Chuka Umunna is 13 points behind in Cities of London and Westminster, Luciana Berger is 18 points behind in Finchley and Golders Green, and Angela Smith is trailing by 34 points in Altrincham and Sale West._


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

also some interesting analysis in this thread of Tory targeted ad spend on FB - shifting recently to defending seats they currently hold


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2019)

Don't know about the fieldwork dates for this YG MRP, but for those looking for straws to clutch at...


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Don't know about the fieldwork dates for this YG MRP, but for those looking for straws to clutch at...
> 
> View attachment 191222


all carried out over the last 7 days

How YouGov's 2019 General Election model works | YouGov


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

there's a CSV file here with all the seat estimates: https://t.co/dmV7wfujAR?amp=1


----------



## Hollis (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> There's two weeks to go and the polls are tightening across all the polling companies - I'd chill out for now.
> 
> If nothing else, this demonstrates what a waste a lib dem vote is - they'll be fucked off with this.



That's not true for all constituences... there are still some where if people vote tactically it'll mean one less Tory - e.g. South Cambs.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> There's two weeks to go and the polls are tightening across all the polling companies - I'd chill out for now.


True, but the PVs are dropping now (our constituency dropped on Monday) and they could = up to 25% of turn-out this time around.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 27, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Don't know about the fieldwork dates for this YG MRP, but for those looking for straws to clutch at...
> 
> View attachment 191222


Given British and America election results in 2016 (let alone the 2017 general), I wouldn't even call it straw-clutching. Polls can only go on previous elections. Unweighted polls already show Lab and Con neck-and-neck, leaving us with a solidly hung parliament. If younger demographics turn out in sufficient numbers, weighting's out and the polls are void. Still all to play for.


----------



## ignatious (Nov 27, 2019)

Azrael said:


> Given British and America election results in 2016 (let alone the 2017 general), I wouldn't even call it straw-clutching. Polls can only go on previous elections. Unweighted polls already show Lab and Con neck-and-neck, leaving us with a solidly hung parliament. If younger demographics turn out in sufficient numbers, weighting's out and the polls are void. Still all to play for.


Surely the whole point of weighting is that it takes into account turnout?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2019)

Azrael said:


> Given British and America election results in 2016 (let alone the 2017 general), I wouldn't even call it straw-clutching. Polls can only go on previous elections. Unweighted polls already show Lab and Con neck-and-neck, leaving us with a solidly hung parliament. If younger demographics turn out in sufficient numbers, weighting's out and the polls are void. Still all to play for.


Yep, but I'd think that Labour are presently quite pleased to have a real fear factor to motivate those newly registered youngsters to actually get down to the polling stations.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2019)

ignatious said:


> Surely the whole point of weighting is that it takes into account turnout?


Predicted turn-out.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 27, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Predicted turn-out.


Exactly. One polling prediction kicking around Twitter was +90% turnout for the oldest voters and -20% for the youngest. If that's bourne out then of course, we're in solid Tory majority territory. But given the surge of voter registrations, there's every reason to suppose that it won't be.


----------



## ignatious (Nov 27, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Predicted turn-out.


Yes I thought that went without saying. They can’t know it (hence it being a prediction) but they can guesstimate it based on their research. I think most pollsters ask if you’re going to vote as well as who you’re going to vote for and then factor that into their final numbers. 

Presumably this includes factoring in voter registration and the likelihood of those new voters actually getting off their arses.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 27, 2019)

Or not even that, if they've a postal vote. Anyone making the effort to register's at least seriously considering making their mark, and Labour's got a solid ground game of highly motivated activists doing all they can to get the vote out.


----------



## Hollis (Nov 27, 2019)

Based on pissing around with the spreadsheet here are the Tory/Lab marginals...

Tory/Lab/LD
Keighley 43 42 6
Dewsbury 42 41 6
Workington 41 40 6
Bedford 40 39 11
Leigh 40 39 7
West Bromwich East 40 39 7
Stoke-on-Trent Central 40 39 5
Darlington 43 41 6
Vale of Clwyd 43 41 6
Clwyd South 43 41 6
Scunthorpe 42 40 6
Dagenham and Rainham 40 38 7
Hendon 43 40 14
Bury South 43 40 7
Warwick and Leamington 42 39 12
West Bromwich West 41 38 6
Stroud 47 43 0
Warrington South 45 41 9
Crewe and Nantwich 43 39 8
Ipswich 43 39 7
Peterborough 43 39 6
Hyndburn 43 39 5
Wolverhampton North East 43 39 5
Wrexham 42 38 6
Bolsover 42 38 5
Putney 38 34 23


----------



## Hollis (Nov 27, 2019)

And here are some Tory/LibDem marginals

constituency Con Lab LD
South Cambridgeshire 42 17 40
Winchester 47 7 44
Cheadle 47 11 42
Guildford 44 9 39
Lewes 47 8 41
North Norfolk 46 7 40
St Ives 46 10 40
Kensington 37 26 29
Hazel Grove 48 13 39
Eastbourne 48 8 38
Wokingham 46 12 36
Wells 51 8 40
Esher and Walton 49 11 38
Chelsea and Fulham 43 23 32


----------



## Hollis (Nov 27, 2019)

So basically in noddy land, if everyone voted tactically there's 40+ marginals up for grabs..


----------



## treelover (Nov 28, 2019)

Bolsover, Tory, Stoke on Trent Central, Tory, Wrexham, Tory, how has this happened?


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 28, 2019)

Wolves SW is a Lab/Tory marginal


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 28, 2019)

treelover said:


> Bolsover, Tory, Stoke on Trent Central, Tory, Wrexham, Tory, how has this happened?


Find it striking that wrexham (historically one of safest labour seats) & ynys mon (plaid in '97 and plaid always close 2nd until last GE when tories got a 100 votes more, labour majority of 5k) predicted to go tory while cardiff north - mostly middle class, flipped between tory and labour for both westminster and senedd - predicted to stay labour (gain in 2017) according to yougov mrp


----------



## belboid (Nov 28, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> ynys mon (plaid in '97 and plaid always close 2nd until last GE when tories got a 100 votes more, labour majority of 5k) predicted to go tory


ynys mon is, along with east dunbartonshire, the only seat to have elected a labour, a tory a liberal, and a  nationalist MP. [/saddo]


----------



## Marty1 (Nov 28, 2019)

MRP poll predicts a Conservative win of 359 seats.

Election poll: Boris Johnson heads for big majority — The Times and The Sunday Times


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 28, 2019)

So, the YouGov MRP headline figure is 359 seats for the Tories, however the margin of error is interesting...



> Taking into account the margins of error, our model puts the number of Conservative seats at between 328 and 385, meaning that while we can be confident that the Conservatives would currently get a majority, it could range from a modest one to a landslide.
> 
> More importantly, there is still a fortnight to go until polling day. While we can measure people's current support and work out what the estimated seat totals would be today, we cannot tell how people's minds may change over the next two weeks.



YouGov MRP: Conservatives 359, Labour 211, SNP 43, LD 13, Plaid 4, Green 1 | YouGov


----------



## Azrael (Nov 28, 2019)

So, scanning through psephologist chatter on the Twittersphere (and they say politics is dull), the swing constituency breakdowns are close races, and the polls have been moving steadily in Labour's direction. No pollster's claiming this is a sure prediction, just a snapshot of where things (may be) now. Result remains wide open.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 28, 2019)

I think ‘wide open’ is stretching it. There are two outcomes: Tory win and NOC. Tactical voting in the seats you mention and GOTV in the same will now decide everything. The rest is noise


----------



## Azrael (Nov 28, 2019)

By wide open, I was referring to the possibility of a hung parliament, although I guess there's a vanishingly remote possibility of a small Lab majority if those extra voters who've just registered swing the right (or rather left) way in the right seats.

Current odds may still back a Tory majority, but the gap's bridgeable.


----------



## Argonia (Nov 28, 2019)

Hollis said:


> And here are some Tory/LibDem marginals
> 
> constituency Con Lab LD
> South Cambridgeshire 42 17 40
> ...



Guildford where I work is an interesting one - Anne Milton the former Tory is standing as an independent and so will split the Tory vote. With the massive number of students involved I predict a Lib Dumb victory.


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2019)

Argonia said:


> Anne Milton the former Tory is standing as an independent and so will split the Tory vote


Will she though?


----------



## Argonia (Nov 28, 2019)

Well it remains to be seen how many votes she picks up - might not be that many - but it could make the difference.


----------



## friedaweed (Nov 28, 2019)

Liverpool, Riverside 14 64
Liverpool, Walton 16 70
Liverpool, Wavertree 13 62
Liverpool, West Derby 16 63 

Tight as always.


----------



## Argonia (Nov 28, 2019)

Isn't Liverpool Walton the safest seat in the country?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 28, 2019)

Azrael said:


> By wide open, I was referring to the possibility of a hung parliament, although I guess there's a vanishingly remote possibility of a small Lab majority if those extra voters who've just registered swing the right (or rather left) way in the right seats.
> 
> Current odds may still back a Tory majority, but the gap's bridgeable.



There is zero chance of a Labour Majority. 

Labour need two things to happen - leave voters in working class seats to come back (vanishingly small chance given its mess of a policy on Brexit) and Lab and Lid dem voters to start looking at the polls and vote accordingly to keep the tory out. If they can achieve this a NOC is still possible.


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2019)

...and for undecideds - still a large number - to break overwhelmingly for Labour (I understand they're mostly Labour leaning anyway)


----------



## steeplejack (Nov 28, 2019)

In Scotland, absolutely no way Tories will hold Aberdeen South or Angus. Sorry, this is just bollocks.


----------



## steeplejack (Nov 28, 2019)

belboid said:


> Squirrel killer holds her seat
> 
> this cannot pass



major favourite at the bookies who are rarely wrong, sadly. Looks like her pisspoor campaign will leave her "leading" the same kind of irrelevant rump of nobodies that she inherited.


----------



## steeplejack (Nov 28, 2019)

Differential turnout and who works hardest to get their voters to the polls will be key. If anything this poll shows that, whilst things are currently not great, it's possible for them still to be turned around. I cannot see the Tories holding 12 seats in Scotland. I predict max 6 (D&G, Alister Jack, Tweedale, Moray, Banff & Buchan because fish).

There's a lot of enthusiastic young idealists making a lot of noise about Scottish Labour on twitter, but they are on course for a wipe out up here in a flatlining non-campaign. Ian Murray will come back but I'm not sure if he's in the Labour Party or not, really.

Workington and Scunthorpe going Tory...fuck...


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2019)

Stephen Bush on the Yougov MRP is good this morning.

Six thoughts on YouGov's MRP model of the 2019 election


----------



## Azrael (Nov 28, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> There is zero chance of a Labour Majority.
> 
> Labour need two things to happen - leave voters in working class seats to come back (vanishingly small chance given its mess of a policy on Brexit) and Lab and Lid dem voters to start looking at the polls and vote accordingly to keep the tory out. If they can achieve this a NOC is still possible.


"Vanishingly remote" is effectively zero (poll king John Curtice put odds of a Lab majority at as close to zero as is statistically possible, and I find he of the wild hair oddly disconcerting, so I won't argue). Unless something wild happens with swings and those new voters, I'm not seriously considering it.

Lab's starting a new Brexit strategy today, dispatching Lexiteer front benchers to Leave areas to talk up a new Lab deal. Worked in '17, may work again. As for tactical voting, Lab's stock among remainers has risen by some 10 points since the campaign began, and as a stark choice between a Labour referendum and a Tory no-deal crash out roars into view, minds should be focused.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 28, 2019)

steeplejack said:


> Differential turnout and who works hardest to get their voters to the polls will be key. If anything this poll shows that, whilst things are currently not great, it's possible for them still to be turned around. I cannot see the Tories holding 12 seats in Scotland. I predict max 6 (D&G, Alister Jack, Tweedale, Moray, Banff & Buchan because fish).
> 
> There's a lot of enthusiastic young idealists making a lot of noise about Scottish Labour on twitter, but they are on course for a wipe out up here in a flatlining non-campaign. Ian Murray will come back but I'm not sure if he's in the Labour Party or not, really.
> 
> Workington and Scunthorpe going Tory...fuck...


Labour's dead in Scotland and isn't rising from the grave they've dug themselves. They'll never get over the grim spectre of sharing a stage with the Tories in '14, an image entrenched by those council stitch-ups and nudge-nudge encouragement of unionist bloc voting. Best Scottish Labour can hope for is to provide the seedbed of a genuinely independent Scottish labour party that's at least neutral on the constitution. When the mighty fall, boy do they fall far.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 28, 2019)

steeplejack said:


> In Scotland, absolutely no way Tories will hold Aberdeen South or Angus. Sorry, this is just bollocks.



Aberdeen/Angus agree this is bullocks.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 28, 2019)

Azrael said:


> Lab's starting a new Brexit strategy today, dispatching Lexiteer front benchers to Leave areas to talk up a new Lab deal. Worked in '17, may work again. As for tactical voting, Lab's stock among remainers has risen by some 10 points since the campaign began, and as a stark choice between a Labour referendum and a Tory no-deal crash out roars into view, minds should be focused.



Lambs to the slaughter.

Those who pushed Labour to this point should be dispatched there to face the music instead.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 28, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Lambs to the slaughter.
> 
> Those who pushed Labour to this point should be dispatched there to face the music instead.


Very well, what would you have had them do differently?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 28, 2019)

Azrael said:


> Very well, what would you have had them do differently?



Put the shovel down. The damage is done.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 28, 2019)

Azrael said:


> Labour's dead in Scotland and isn't rising from the grave they've dug themselves. They'll never get over the grim spectre of sharing a stage with the Tories in '14, an image entrenched by those council stitch-ups and nudge-nudge encouragement of unionist bloc voting. Best Scottish Labour can hope for is to provide the seedbed of a genuinely independent Scottish labour party that's at least neutral on the constitution. When the mighty fall, boy do they fall far.



No, Labours Scottish problem broke long before that - as soon as the Scottish Parliament went online it became blatantly obvious that in the _ingrained culture _of Scottish Labour if you were bright and plausible you were selected for  a Westminster seat, but if you were thick as mince you were selected for a dog shit and hospital trollies seat at Holyrood.

Because that's how labour saw the two parliament's - one for the serious stuff, and one for the no-marks you'd not leave in charge of a bag of crisps. That, I'm afraid, was obvious to anyone living in Scotland all  the way through the 2000's - even with a Labour council in Glasgow, a Labour SG in Edinburgh, and a Labour government in Westminster, the inability of Scottish Labour to find their own arse in the dark was self-evident.

The spectacle of 2014 barely qualified as the 10pm game of billiards after a four hour dinner of Labour incompetence and entitlement.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 28, 2019)

Labour was polling over 40% earlier in the year. The biggest haemorrhaging of support was to the Lib Dems around the Euro/Local elections, remain types, which are slowly coming back. It isn’t just Labour leavers they have to consider, difficult balancing act.


----------



## Riklet (Nov 28, 2019)

Id be amazed if the Tories get a majority of more than 10 let alone 40+

Theyre gonna lose as many seats as they gain. Lots of marginals out there. Losing Guildord would be great, but...


----------



## Azrael (Nov 28, 2019)

kebabking said:


> No, Labours Scottish problem broke long before that - as soon as the Scottish Parliament went online it became blatantly obvious that in the _ingrained culture _of Scottish Labour if you were bright and plausible you were selected for  a Westminster seat, but if you were thick as mince you were selected for a dog shit and hospital trollies seat at Holyrood.
> 
> Because that's how labour saw the two parliament's - one for the serious stuff, and one for the no-marks you'd not leave in charge of a bag of crisps. That, I'm afraid, was obvious to anyone living in Scotland all  the way through the 2000's - even with a Labour council in Glasgow, a Labour SG in Edinburgh, and a Labour government in Westminster, the inability of Scottish Labour to find their own arse in the dark was self-evident.
> 
> The spectacle of 2014 barely qualified as the 10pm game of billiards after a four hour dinner of Labour incompetence and entitlement.


Oh, I'm not disputing all that preceded their final demise as a major party. Indyref was undoubtedly preceded by decades of rot in Labour's Scotland branch, and the writing was on the wall -- the SNP'S 2011 majority pretty much broke the MMP system -- but the referendums's aftermath was what brought it to a head on a national level: the SNP's jump from six seats in 2010 to 56 in '15 speaks for itself. The cries of Red Tories frequency cite the No campaign's antics, and with good cause.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 28, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Put the shovel down. The damage is done.



It’s a fantasy that Labour was going to manage Brexit any better given the 70/30 split against of its voters. It has been toxic for Labour for that reason.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 28, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> It’s a fantasy that Labour was going to manage Brexit any better given the 70/30 split against of its voters. It has been toxic for Labour for that reason.



This is bollocks.

ETA: But I can't be arsed to have the debate again. 5 years to develop a narrative, a set of ideas, to argue for them, to build support for them, to set out a way forward that could inspire people and command support.

Instead 5 years of allowing the right to own the issue and the entire 'left' strategy handed to a Blairite.

There was _a massive programme of work that could have been undertaken. _


----------



## Chz (Nov 28, 2019)

Hollis said:


> And here are some Tory/LibDem marginals
> 
> constituency Con Lab LD
> South Cambridgeshire 42 17 40
> ...


Going the other way, I'd be surprised to see the LDs hold on to Carshalton and Wallington again. They held it in 2017 (by a thousand) because the election rhetoric wasn't all about Brexit, but it's a Leave-voting area and I don't rate their chances this time. I was wrong in 2017 though, and Brake has a great street presence. I don't like him, but at least he's out there trying. I've never even _seen_ the Labour candidate; the Brexit party is putting more effort in.


----------



## steeplejack (Nov 28, 2019)

STV Scottish Election Poll

A lot more optimistic than youguff's poll last night.

SNP 44%
Tory 26%
Labour 16%
Yellow Scum 11%
Green 2%
Brexit 1%

This would translate into 48 SNP seats, 6 for the Tories, 4 for the yellow scum, with (presumably) only Ian Murray clinging on in Edinburgh.

Interesting a parallel poll shows folk opposed by a majority of 50-42 on having an independence referendum next year. Looks like, much to the chagrin of the UDI roasters and those who want another referendum tomorrow, that waiting until a new mandate is won in 2021- and in bad conditions if the blustercunt wins- is a surer path to success.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2019)

Chz said:


> Going the other way, I'd be surprised to see the LDs hold on to Carshalton and Wallington again. They held it in 2017 (by a thousand) because the election rhetoric wasn't all about Brexit, but it's a Leave-voting area and I don't rate their chances this time. I was wrong in 2017 though, and Brake has a great street presence. I don't like him, but at least he's out there trying. I've never even _seen_ the Labour candidate; the Brexit party is putting more effort in.


Have to say I'd be surprised to see Brake lose. It will be tight again, but the C&W LD operation is pretty slick and very well embedded. You have to remember that the activist base is heavily retired 'professionals' who are time-rich and have MC 'organisational skills'. Added to which, with so few seats to defend, the party can throw the kitchen sink at its marginal holds.

The message to Labour supporters is, as always "lend me your vote to keep the tories out" and to the average punter (not folk like us that hold fixed memories of their coalition culpability) it's quite a persuasive line. Especially so in the more remainy areas further South in the constituency.

Last night's YG MRP for C&W had the tories on 40% & Brake on 41%.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 28, 2019)

> A seat-by-seat poll from YouGov indicated Boris Johnson’s Tories are on course to end up with 359 seats after the general election, securing a hefty majority of 68, with Labour slumping to 211, losing 68 seats in the process.
> 
> But political scientist Sir John Curtice said, leaving aside the latest YouGov poll, other recent figures pose a “clear warning” to the Tories. The Politics Professor at Strathclyde University told BBC News: “But if in the next two weeks the Conservative lead in the poll should fall back to let us say around seven points, then the election could suddenly look much closer and at least the possibility of a hung parliament would come back into view.”
> 
> Polling guru issues dire warning to Tories in terrifying election forecast



Curtice is usually fairly on the ball, and, of course both ComRes & ICM's polls in the last few days have already got the lead down to 7%.

* Sorry for the source link, couldn't find any other outlet currently quoting Curtice on this.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 28, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This is bollocks.
> 
> ETA: But I can't be arsed to have the debate again. 5 years to develop a narrative, a set of ideas, to argue for them, to build support for them, to set out a way forward that could inspire people and command support.
> 
> ...



I wouldn’t want to have the debate either but every week you lament what Labour didn’t do. And yet the vast majority of people you expected to do this didn’t believe in Brexit whatsoever, saw it as toxic. It was a non-starter.


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2019)

I remember _on the ball Curtice_ holding out for a Tory majority long past the exit poll in 2017


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 28, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> I wouldn’t want to have the debate either but every week you lament what Labour didn’t do. And yet the vast majority of people you expected to do this didn’t believe in Brexit whatsoever, saw it as toxic. It was a non-starter.



Except Corbyn and McDonnell? And Lavery? And Trickett etc etc

You also challenge me every week. And yet you never engage on the central point - which is that it is impossible to separate out the issue of Brexit and how it relates to other issues - but that’s what Labour tried to do. To seal it off from everything else. Cannot be done.

In addition to this class permeates the debate and Labour has actively refused to engage on that basis. To actively refuse to even acknowledge the sharp class dimensions and have something to say about it policy wise? Pathetic


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 28, 2019)

killer b said:


> I remember _on the ball Curtice_ holding out for a Tory majority long past the exit poll in 2017



Seriously? 



> Fifty minutes after an exit poll revealed Theresa May could lose her parliamentary majority, the poll’s author, John Curtice, appeared on a balcony above the BBC’s election night studio.
> 
> Like a donnish deity surveying the journalists and politicians scrambling to make sense of the lightning bolt launched at them, Curtice, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, calmly predicted how the night could unfold. And as time went on, commentators started to concede that it was he who had won the election. By 6am on 9 June, the results almost matched Curtice’s exit poll.
> 
> Prof John Curtice, the man who won the election: it’s wonderful to prove the world wrong


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2019)

Hmm, must've been someone else then. Kelner? It was a fairly packed few hours...


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 28, 2019)

killer b said:


> Hmm, must've been someone else then. Kelner? It was a fairly packed few hours...



Yep, must have been someone else.

I certainly remember him being right in 2017, in 2015 when Paddy said he would eat his hat if he was right, and also in 2010. I didn't watch the 2005 results coming in, as everyone knew Labour would win, but he got that spot on, at a maj. of 66. 



> This election is “the fourth time in a row we have said things people regarded as incredible”, he says. In 2005 he predicted a majority for Labour of 66 rather than 100, in 2010 he said the Lib Dems would lose seats and in 2015 that Cameron had won (Paddy Ashdown had promised to publicly eat his hat if the poll was right).


----------



## Hollis (Nov 28, 2019)

I'm wondering what a Stop Johnson strategy would look like over the next two weeks... Other than the apparent obvious..
- LibDems and Lab have tacit agreements in key marginals to step down campaigning
-Both focus on Tories rather than each other
-Both get messages out to vote tactically.

What else...?


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 28, 2019)

Hollis said:


> I'm wondering what a Stop Johnson strategy would look like over the next two weeks... Other than the apparent obvious..
> - LibDems and Lab have tacit agreements in key marginals to step down campaigning
> -Both focus on Tories rather than each other
> -Both get messages out to vote tactically.
> ...


Deploy tactical milkshakes


----------



## Flavour (Nov 28, 2019)

lib dems would never in a million years do anything like that. and tbh, neither would labour re: not contesting key marginals


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 28, 2019)

Do the libdems want to stop Johnson? Serious question - I find it hard to fathom what they want.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do the libdems want to stop Johnson? Serious question - I find it hard to fathom what they want.


equal 'opportunities'


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 28, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Except Corbyn and McDonnell? And Lavery? And Trickett etc etc
> 
> You also challenge me every week. And yet you never engage on the central point - which is that it is impossible to separate out the issue of Brexit and how it relates to other issues - but that’s what Labour tried to do. To seal it off from everything else. Cannot be done.
> 
> In addition to this class permeates the debate and Labour has actively refused to engage on that basis. To actively refuse to even acknowledge the sharp class dimensions and have something to say about it policy wise? Pathetic



Because you say it every week. But there is no simple class take on this. Labour has certainly lost many white working class votes. It has retained plenty of others. 

There isn’t a simple solution like you make out. It’s simply that one argument favours your views, same with me. 

Labour has at least tried to put forward some redistributive politics. It’s part of the toxic nature of Brexit that it has been raised to the level of top trump and this manifesto sadly won’t convince those who currently feel Brexit is all important. Whatever move Labour made in that direction could have led to a catastrophic collapse in its other support and in any case, besides those names what mass of party support would have taken it forward? Skewered.


----------



## Hollis (Nov 28, 2019)

Flavour said:


> lib dems would never in a million years do anything like that. and tbh, neither would labour re: not contesting key marginals



To clarify I mean Con/LibDem or Con/Lab marginals.


----------



## Hollis (Nov 28, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do the libdems want to stop Johnson? Serious question - I find it hard to fathom what they want.



I assume there original strategy was based on having a Macron/Trudeau style breakthrough...and capturing a massive chunk of the centre ground.. that clearly isn't going to happen.  They will now being going back to key marginals, and hoping for a hung parliament.

I think the membership and voters main concern is remain.  I heard an interview wiht Swinson last weekend on Marr, where she stated that Remain would be  the main issue in any negotiations with other parties.

So I see a Con/LibDem arrangement post-election much less probable that a LibDem/Lab/SNP..


----------



## friedaweed (Nov 28, 2019)

Argonia said:


> Isn't Liverpool Walton the safest seat in the country?


Seat yes but that's about as far as safety goes for that hood.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 28, 2019)

Lib dems are pushing all kinds of fibbing bar chart shit in Labour/Tory marginals, can’t see how labour can stand back in Tory/lib dem marginals while this shit is going on. In an ideal world they might both deploy resources according to where they might win, wouldn’t need even an informal agreement, just an acceptance that it doesn’t serve their interests to push down an anti-Tory vote.

I suspect a lot of people pay no attention to tactical voting anyway.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 28, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Lib dems are pushing all kinds of fibbing bar chart shit in Labour/Tory marginals, can’t see how labour can stand back in Tory/lib dem marginals while this shit is going on. In an ideal world they might both deploy resources according to where they might win, wouldn’t need even an informal agreement, just an acceptance that it doesn’t serve their interests to push down an anti-Tory vote.
> 
> I suspect a lot of people pay no attention to tactical voting anyway.


Labour can't stand aside and still claim that they're trying to win rather than simply push the Tories out, just like the Tories can't come to an accomadation with 
the Brexit Party.
The message from both of them is the same, we are the Party of Government, we are going to win and not strike grubby deals. It would make far more sense for Labour to write Scotland off has a lost cause but they can't do that either and still be taken seriously.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 28, 2019)

Not really about standing aside, they have to give people the option of voting for their party. They don’t have to try really hard, or send out misleading literature suggesting they’re in with a chance


----------



## Hollis (Nov 28, 2019)

I get the impression even constituency parties aren't particualarly good at acting stratetically for the benefit of party as a whole..

I'm in a LibDem/Labour contest - with it being a very long-shot for the LibDems - they might as well tell everyone at this stage to forget it and go to Finchley or Chelsea..


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2019)

I've been more than 24 hours without a poll and am starting to cluck. When's the next one out?


----------



## Azrael (Nov 29, 2019)

Flavour said:


> lib dems would never in a million years do anything like that. and tbh, neither would labour re: not contesting key marginals


Except the Lib Dems have already stood down for Green and Paid as part of the fizzled Remain Alliance (though to be fair, who remembers that).

If the refusal of Lib and Lab to co-coperate hands Johnson a majority, there's gonna be overwhelming pressure to avoid a repeat in the next general (which I don't for a minute expect to by anywhere close to five years away). Lab's ban on standing down / expulsion for any member so much as supporting another party in an unwinnable seat will be on borrowed time.

Worst of all is that such co-operation benefits both parties: Lab get a clear run a dozens of crucial marginals, ramping up their chance of a majority, and Libs get to threaten supposedly safe Tory seats. But hey, who ever expects mere self-interest to win out?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 29, 2019)

killer b said:


> I've been more than 24 hours without a poll and am starting to cluck. When's the next one out?



I guess they are all holding back for the weekend polls now.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 29, 2019)

Withdrawal holding off so far ...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 29, 2019)

killer b said:


> I've been more than 24 hours without a poll and am starting to cluck. When's the next one out?


There yer go...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 29, 2019)

Azrael said:


> Except the Lib Dems have already stood down for Green and Paid as part of the fizzled Remain Alliance (though to be fair, who remembers that).
> 
> If the refusal of Lib and Lab to co-coperate hands Johnson a majority, there's gonna be overwhelming pressure to avoid a repeat in the next general (which I don't for a minute expect to by anywhere close to five years away). Lab's ban on standing down / expulsion for any member so much as supporting another party in an unwinnable seat will be on borrowed time.
> 
> Worst of all is that such co-operation benefits both parties: Lab get a clear run a dozens of crucial marginals, ramping up their chance of a majority, and Libs get to threaten supposedly safe Tory seats. But hey, who ever expects mere self-interest to win out?


Any kind of agreement like that can only happen if they both stand for the same kind of thing, which they don't at the moment, and long may that continue tbh, unless the libdums can fundamentally change themselves. If the libdems were to embrace a bit of social democracy, it might work, but until then, Labour should steer well clear. The lds are still very much the same party as the one that enabled tory cuts in return for a few ministerial cars.


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2019)

brogdale said:


> There yer go...
> 
> View attachment 191321


Uh huh


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 29, 2019)

brogdale said:


> There yer go...
> 
> View attachment 191321









etc etc


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 29, 2019)

I have heard it said that at a 7% or below Tory lead is where their overall majority comes into doubt. All to play for then.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 29, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The lds are still very much the same party as the one that enabled tory cuts in return for a few ministerial cars.



Unfair.

They also got carrier bag charges.


----------



## Supine (Nov 29, 2019)

Polls make depressing reading at the moment. This one made me laugh though


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Any kind of agreement like that can only happen if they both stand for the same kind of thing, which they don't at the moment, and long may that continue tbh, unless the libdums can fundamentally change themselves. If the libdems were to embrace a bit of social democracy, it might work, but until then, Labour should steer well clear. The lds are still very much the same party as the one that enabled tory cuts in return for a few ministerial cars.


Since this particular election was supposed to be about stopping Johnson by all lawful means and putting a concrete withdrawal agreement to a referendum, agreement on wider policy aims wasn't essential. Stopping the Tories was supposed to be.

In general, there's still much to be said for working for a lesser evil. Stand downs ensure that the government (or opposition) is the least bad possible, and boost Lab's chances. Win-win. As ghastly as the Con-Dems were, the horrorshow since the Tories got a majority has been so much worse.

I don't like the Lib Dems, and believe the party's so tainted by the coalition it should dissolve and reform. But awful as they are, I'll take them over Vote Leave 2.0, any day.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 30, 2019)

Azrael said:


> Since this particular election was supposed to be about stopping Johnson by all lawful means and putting a concrete withdrawal agreement to a referendum...


The voters get to decide what an election is about, not the politicians.  For many people, life is not just about our legal status with respect to a trading bloc.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2019)

kabbes said:


> The voters get to decide what an election is about, not the politicians.  For many people, life is not just about our legal status with respect to a trading bloc.


True, since Vote Leave 2.0 have run an extremely successfully propaganda campaign downplaying the impact of their preferred model of secession on all other policy areas. This just makes the argument for a pact stronger.

I put stopping Johnson first due to the unique awfulness of Vote Leave 2.0, a government that's displayed a contempt for constitutional norms unseeen since the Glorious Revolution. Given that the polls made the overwhelmingly likely outcome a binary choice between a hung parliament and a Tory majority, what possible argument is there for Johnson's opponents to make a Tory majority more likely?


----------



## kabbes (Nov 30, 2019)

Because the Liberals are just as destructive as the Tories.  Voting for them (a) puts them into the house, which I don’t want, and (b) encourages them to think their approach has a mandate, which I don’t want.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Because the Liberals are just as destructive as the Tories.  Voting for them (a) puts them into the house, which I don’t want, and (b) encourages them to think their approach has a mandate, which I don’t want.


On what measure are the Lib Dems "just as destructive" as the Tories? They don't support the unhinged policy of leaving the single market, and aren't riddled with Vote Leave alumni.

The Lib Dems' claim that Lab and Con are indistinguishable on Brexit was rightly criticized, and I don't see why the same shouldn't hold for Lib and Con.


----------



## chilango (Nov 30, 2019)

Neo-liberal capitalism is more destructive than Brexit.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 30, 2019)

Azrael said:


> On what measure are the Lib Dems "just as destructive" as the Tories? They don't support the unhinged policy of leaving the single market, and aren't riddled with Vote Leave alumni.
> 
> The Lib Dems' claim that Lab and Con are indistinguishable on Brexit was rightly criticized, and I don't see why the same shouldn't hold for Lib and Con.


Brexit is a side show. The Liberals support austerity, they support neoliberalism, they support pro-corporation low tax environments.  Those are the ways they are just as destructive as the Tories.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2019)

False choice, considering the fact that the Tories support both, and -- I feel absurd having to acknowledge the possibility even to dismiss it -- there's zero chance of a majority Lib Dem government.

Barring a vanishingly unlikely swing to Lab, your choice is between a hung parliament and referendum on a concrete withdrawal agreement, and giving the Tories licence to pursue a crash-out secession followed by their Singapore on Thames fantasies. Any opponent of neoliberism should prefer the first to the second, no?


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2019)

If you recognise the absurdity of a lib dem majority, why can't you recognise the absurdity of a lib/lab pact? Its similarly politically impossible.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2019)

And given the devastating effect that leaving the single market will have on a deindustrialized economy reliant on services, even if some models of Brexit can be dismissed as a side-show, nothing the Tories are offering can be.

Despite favouring British secession years before it became a live political issue, I forced myself to set aside my preference the moment I saw who was heading up Vote Leave. I find it extraordinary that anyone on the left would hand them such power to reshape Britain's economy.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2019)

killer b said:


> If you recognise the absurdity of a lib dem majority, why can't you recognise the absurdity of a lib/lab pact? Its similarly politically impossible.


No more absurd than Vote Leave taking over the Tories and a Con-Brexit party pact. We live in absurd times. In any case, this moves the goal posts from political desirability to political probability.

Given Lab's size and absurdly rigid policy about never standing down, I've previously said here that the Lib Dems should've stood down unilaterally in Lab-Con marginals. It would've been win-win for them: if Lab do nothing, chances of a stopping Brexit rise; alternatively, there'd have been massive pressure on Lab to return the favour.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 30, 2019)

What was objectively better about the 2010-15 govt than subsequent govts?


----------



## chilango (Nov 30, 2019)

The LibDems are more likely to prop up a Tory government anyway, and enable Brexit.


----------



## chilango (Nov 30, 2019)

...because it needs to be stressed here that there is an ideological commitment in the LibDems and their tradition to neo-liberalism.

Their pro-EU stance is merely opportunism.

The rumps of the Liberal Party and the SDP iirc are both pro-Leave. There's nothing intrinsically anti-Brexit in the Libdem ideology.

I'm sure someone will know, but I think the LibDems have allied with UKIP on local councils to stop Labour administration's.

They'd eagerly do the same on a national level.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> What was objectively better about the 2010-15 govt than subsequent govts?


No Brexit chaos.


chilango said:


> The LibDems are more likely to prop up a Tory government anyway, and enable Brexit.


We're not discussing "a" Tory government, but Vote Leave 2.0. The odious chumminess between self-styled heir-to-Blair Cameron and Orange Booker Clegg is a clean different thing to an alliance between Swinson and Vote Leave's leavings. There's zero chance Lib Dem members would vote to support Brexit.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 30, 2019)

Azrael said:


> No Brexit chaos.
> 
> We're not discussing "a" Tory government, but Vote Leave 2.0. The odious chumminess between self-styled heir-to-Blair Cameron and Orange Booker Clegg is a clean different thing to an alliance between Swinson and Vote Leave's leavings. There's zero chance Lib Dem members would vote to support Brexit.



Oh ok so it's just brexit brexit brexit stuff then


----------



## kabbes (Nov 30, 2019)

Azrael said:


> False choice, considering the fact that the Tories support both, and -- I feel absurd having to acknowledge the possibility even to dismiss it -- there's zero chance of a majority Lib Dem government.
> 
> Barring a vanishingly unlikely swing to Lab, your choice is between a hung parliament and referendum on a concrete withdrawal agreement, and giving the Tories licence to pursue a crash-out secession followed by their Singapore on Thames fantasies. Any opponent of neoliberism should prefer the first to the second, no?





kabbes said:


> Because the Liberals are just as destructive as the Tories.  Voting for them (a) puts them into the house, which I don’t want, and (b) encourages them to think their approach has a mandate, which I don’t want.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2019)

chilango said:


> ...because it needs to be stressed here that there is an ideological commitment in the LibDems and their tradition to neo-liberalism.
> 
> Their pro-EU stance is merely opportunism.
> 
> ...


No, they wouldn't, because there's no chance whatsoever that an overwhelmingly anti-Brexit membership -- many of whom have joined specifically to oppose Brexit -- would give it the nod as they gave the nod to the Con-Dems.

I don't like the Lib Dems, I loathe the Orange Bookers' glee in reviving the age of the robber barons, and I detest neoliberalism. But I'm also a pragmatist, and will always pick the lesser political evil. The neoliberalism-on-steroids the Tories would inflict after Brexit is far worse than anything possible inside the E.U.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Oh ok so it's just brexit brexit brexit stuff then


"Just"? The ruinous model of Brexit being pursued by the Tories will devastate Britain's economy, and rip apart the union in the worst way. It will fundamentally alter the size and nature of the nation. Some "just"!


----------



## brogdale (Nov 30, 2019)

chilango said:


> The LibDems are more likely to prop up a Tory government anyway, and enable Brexit.


Indeed; as Davey let slip during his Neil interview...all they're left with now is the hope of a hung Parliament in which their price for propping up the vermin is a second chance for the electorate to vote Leave.
As craven as it is fantastical...and we're invited to 'vote tactically' for that?


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2019)

And for the avoidance of any doubt, I'm not anti-Brexit in principle: I supported secession while the Tories currently singing its praises were meekly voting through a sorry procession of E.U. treaties; and if by some act of political magic the Norway option reappeared on the agenda, you'd find me amongst its most enthusiastic supporters.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Indeed; as Davey let slip during his Neil interview...all they're left with now is the hope of a hung Parliament in which their price for propping up the vermin is a second chance for the electorate to vote Leave.
> As craven as it is fantastical...and we're invited to 'vote tactically' for that?


When the alternative is a majority Tory government delivering economic ruination and acrimonious national disintegration?
Yes.


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2019)

Azrael said:


> No more absurd than Vote Leave taking over the Tories and a Con-Brexit party pact. We live in absurd times. In any case, this moves the goal posts from political desirability to political probability.
> 
> Given Lab's size and absurdly rigid policy about never standing down, I've previously said here that the Lib Dems should've stood down unilaterally in Lab-Con marginals. It would've been win-win for them: if Lab do nothing, chances of a stopping Brexit rise; alternatively, there'd have been massive pressure on Lab to return the favour.


living in absurd times doesn't mean all absurd things are equally feasible: the BP standing down in tory seats was a moved forced on Farage by internal dissent within the party, which is mostly made up of ex-tories who's commitment is to Brexit, not Farage. There is no such pressure within the Lib Dems, and a large part of their vote comes not from Labour leaning liberals, but from liberal leaning tories.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 30, 2019)

Azrael said:


> I don't like the Lib Dems, I loathe the Orange Bookers' glee in reviving the age of the robber barons, and I detest neoliberalism. But I'm also a pragmatist, and will always pick the lesser political evil. The neoliberalism-on-steroids the Tories would inflict after Brexit is far worse than anything possible inside the E.U.


This is absolute bollocks.  Whether we are in or out of the EU is not that important.  What matters in either case is all about what the principles are of the government in power.  There’s no point being in the EU with a deeply neoliberal set of MPs.  Being in the EU didn’t stop austerity or the reduction of corporation tax.  Concentrating on Brexit is to concentrate on the mechanism of delivery rather than the thing you’re actually trying to deliver.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 30, 2019)

Azrael said:


> When the alternative is a majority Tory government delivering economic ruination and acrimonious national disintegration?
> Yes.


No.
If the LDs were ideologically differentiated from the neoliberal vermin the alternative would be to rule out ever propping up Johnson...but they're not.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2019)

kabbes said:


> This is absolute bollocks.  Whether we are in or out of the EU is not that important.  What matters in either case is all about what the principles are of the government in power.  There’s no point being in the EU with a deeply neoliberal set of MPs.  Being in the EU didn’t stop austerity or the reduction of corporation tax.  Concentrating on Brexit is to concentrate on the mechanism of delivery rather than the thing you’re actually trying to deliver.


Strictly speaking, the crucial thing isn't E.U. membership, but membership of the EEA: but since the Tories not only propose leaving the single market alongside the E.U., but reject level-playing-field proposals on any trade deal, as things stand, it's a distinction workout a difference.

Best case scenario is a bare-bones FTA, which would turbocharge austerity far beyond the Con-Dem's worst dreams. If the left does anything but oppose that with every fiber of its being, what's the point of it?


----------



## kabbes (Nov 30, 2019)

Azrael said:


> Strictly speaking, the crucial thing isn't E.U. membership, but membership of the EEA: but since the Tories not only propose leaving the single market alongside the E.U., but reject level-playing-field proposals on any trade deal, as things stand, it's a distinction workout a difference.
> 
> Best case scenario is a bare-bones FTA, which would turbocharge austerity far beyond the Con-Dem's worst dreams. If the left does anything but oppose that with every fiber of its being, what's the point of it?


And thus you completely fail to engage with the point.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 30, 2019)

There was me thinking this was a thread about 'polling', there's a brexit thread & a general election one too.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 30, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> There was me thinking this was a thread about 'polling', there's a brexit thread & a general election one too.


GPWM


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2019)

brogdale said:


> No.
> If the LDs were ideologically differentiated from the neoliberal vermin the alternative would be to rule out ever propping up Johnson...but they're not.


They have (that interview was over Lib Dem support for a referendum on the Brexit deal), but I'm accepting, arguendo, that they're lying to make the point: in a seat where Lab have zero chance of winning, better a Lib Dem than a Tory.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 30, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> There was me thinking this was a thread about 'polling', there's a brexit thread & a general election one too.


You’re right.  No more from me on it.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2019)

kabbes said:


> And thus you completely fail to engage with the point.


Which point? The E.U.'s failure to stop austerity somehow making Brexit an economic side issue? It was never going to, since contrary to the paranoia of the worst leavers, a pan-European trade bloc doesn't dictate domestic policy, especially when the member state's outwith the Eurozone. What a "hard Brexit" does do is trigger an economic crisis that'll set the conditions to turbocharge austerity, alongside stripping away those E.U. employment rights that successive British governments spent so long fighting.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> There was me thinking this was a thread about 'polling', there's a brexit thread & a general election one too.


It followed directly from the issue of whether polling makes electoral pacts desirable, but if people want to relocate the points to those threads, by all means.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 30, 2019)

brogdale said:


> If the LDs were ideologically differentiated from the neoliberal vermin the alternative would be to rule out ever propping up Johnson...but they're not.


Bizarrely, the odds on Betfair atm for a Con/LD coalition are 40/1. Astonishingly good value I would say, particularly if laid alongside some other hedging bets.


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2019)

I don't think so. Confidence & supply perhaps, but a full coalition would be impossible for them to do right now IMO. For the same reasons as standing down in labour seats would be impossible.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2019)

Brainaddict said:


> Bizarrely, the odds on Betfair atm for a Con/LD coalition are 40/1. Astonishingly good value I would say, particularly if laid alongside some other hedging bets.


Only cowards hedge.

_I'm only playing if we don't lose by more than one._


----------



## agricola (Nov 30, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Only cowards hedge.
> 
> _I'm only playing if we don't lose by more than one._



that reminds me, its the Merseyside derby soon


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2019)

agricola said:


> that reminds me, its the Merseyside derby soon


Nothing better than getting your rival manger sacked. Ball is still in your court - _if you act now._


----------



## agricola (Nov 30, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Nothing better than getting your rival manger sacked. Ball is still in your court - _if you act now._



We'd have sacked him ages ago, but certainly after last Saturday.  He still grimly hangs on though, I just wish he could teach the team to do that.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2019)

agricola said:


> We'd have sacked him ages ago, but certainly after last Saturday.  He still grimly hangs on though, I just wish he could teach the team to do that.


He's not getting out of christmas alive - your next five  games are ridiculous. Anyway, back to polling....


----------



## chilango (Nov 30, 2019)

From the Telegraph (couldn't read any further cos of paywall)



> Predicted Commons majority slashed from 80 to just 12 seats in a week as Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party eats into the Conservatives’ lead, a poll of polls has revealed.
> 
> The survey - based on almost 10,000 voters - shows Jeremy Corbyn closing the gap on the Tories in the same way as Theresa May’s lead collapsed after her manifesto launch and her refusal to appear in TV debates.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 30, 2019)

killer b said:


> I don't think so. Confidence & supply perhaps, but a full coalition would be impossible for them to do right now IMO. For the same reasons as standing down in labour seats would be impossible.


I dunno. If there is a hung parliament but tories plus lds gives a clear majority, we're exactly where we were in 2010, parliamentary maths-wise. What was the lds' biggest 'idea' in that election? Scrapping uni tuition fees. What did they do? Agree to triple them. The rationale, remember, from Clegg, was that they had a democratic 'duty' (I believe he used that word) to form a govt with the tories because the tories were the biggest party.

_Ok, so we'll vote for brexit when we said the opposite and said the opposite in the strongest possible terms, but we'll be in there making sure it's a better brexit._ Tories could use them then as a front behind which they could agree very close alignment with the EU for the foreseeable future, something they'll almost certainly have to do anyway, but which they can blame on the lds as the price of getting any kind of brexit through.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 30, 2019)

chilango said:


> From the Telegraph (couldn't read any further cos of paywall)


Trying to motivate the faithful? Especially as a number of the Numerical Weather models are predicting, albeit at the weakest end of their range, a snowy 12th December.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I dunno. If there is a hung parliament but tories plus lds gives a clear majority, we're exactly where we were in 2010, parliamentary maths-wise. What was the lds' biggest 'idea' in that election? Scrapping uni tuition fees. What did they do? Agree to triple them. The rationale, remember, from Clegg, was that they had a democratic 'duty' (I believe he used that word) to form a govt with the tories because the tories were the biggest party.
> 
> _Ok, so we'll vote for brexit when we said the opposite and said the opposite in the strongest possible terms, but we'll be in there making sure it's a better brexit._ Tories could use them then as a front behind which they could agree very close alignment with the EU for the foreseeable future, something they'll almost certainly have to do anyway, but which they can blame on the lds as the price of getting any kind of brexit through.


Even supposing that Lib Dem MPs for some reason went along with this supreme act of political suicide -- in the full knowledge that it'd destroy their careers and party for good -- their internal structures make it as likely as the SNP inviting America to bring back nuclear missiles to the U.K. Lib Dem members must sign-off on any coalition: they foolishly did so in 2010; they're not going to wave through Brexit in 2019 or '20.

The contexts, and leaderships, are poles apart.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2019)

A  lib-dem membership that has moved rightwards since agreeing a 2010 coalition with the tories will no longer agree to a coalition with the tories. Right.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 30, 2019)

of course they would. madness to suggest that there is any kind of principle here apart from power


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 30, 2019)

Azrael said:


> Even supposing that Lib Dem MPs for some reason went along with this supreme act of political suicide -- in the full knowledge that it'd destroy their careers and party for good -- their internal structures make it as likely as the SNP inviting America to bring back nuclear missiles to the U.K. Lib Dem members must sign-off on any coalition: they foolishly did so in 2010; they're not going to wave through Brexit in 2019 or '20.
> 
> The contexts, and leaderships, are poles apart.


Funny thing, politics. You get to commit suicide again and again.

I don't think it will happen, because I don't think the lds will win enough seats. But I think it's foolish to say that it couldn't happen. Johnson agrees to keep the whole of the UK in the common market, not just NI, for instance - for an initial time-limited period perhaps. Look what we did, say the lds, look how libdemmy brexit is now because of us. I could totally see them doing that _For The National Interest_. And of course it would solve a big problem for the tories - just as the coalition solved a big problem for them in 2010.


----------



## Santino (Nov 30, 2019)

Azrael said:


> Even supposing that Lib Dem MPs for some reason went along with this supreme act of political suicide -- in the full knowledge that it'd destroy their careers and party for good -- their internal structures make it as likely as the SNP inviting America to bring back nuclear missiles to the U.K. Lib Dem members must sign-off on any coalition: they foolishly did so in 2010; they're not going to wave through Brexit in 2019 or '20.
> 
> The contexts, and leaderships, are poles apart.


You're like a lamb.


----------



## Hollis (Nov 30, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> _Ok, so we'll vote for brexit when we said the opposite and said the opposite in the strongest possible terms, but we'll be in there making sure it's a better brexit._ Tories could use them then as a front behind which they could agree very close alignment with the EU for the foreseeable future, something they'll almost certainly have to do anyway, but which they can blame on the lds as the price of getting any kind of brexit through.



I don't believe the LibDems would do this - their voter base in the most pro-Remain.  If Labour offered a People's Vote with SNP, then LibDems would go for that option over the Tories.


----------



## Hollis (Nov 30, 2019)




----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 30, 2019)

If the rest of the weekend polls show predictions like that, it'll be squeaky bum time at Tory HQ.


----------



## Supine (Nov 30, 2019)

^ yeah. This poll shows more bad news for libs:


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 30, 2019)

.....


----------



## Flavour (Nov 30, 2019)

Fantastic. Lib dem Wipeout, Swanson out, noc. Starting to be very cautiously optimistic this election won't result in tory majority.


----------



## Hollis (Nov 30, 2019)

Need the LibDems to win marginals to ensure hung parliament.

As an anorak point in 97 LibDems increased their seats from 22 to 46 on smaller vote share.

Everyone needs to vote tactically..


----------



## Hollis (Nov 30, 2019)

Worry if that LibDem decline leads to more Tory votes in Tory/LibDem marginals..


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2019)

Hollis said:


> Need the LibDems to win marginals to ensure hung parliament.
> 
> As an anorak point in 97 LibDems increased their seats from 22 to 46 on smaller vote share.
> 
> Everyone needs to vote tactically..


Don't vote lib Dems under any guise.


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2019)

Supine said:


> ^ yeah. This poll shows more bad news for libs:
> 
> View attachment 191428


Inject this into my veins.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 30, 2019)

The return of two party politics (episode: every general election ever). Scotland is the exception, it’s one party politics there. 

The Tories seem to have squeezed the BP vote dry. Labour are now squeezing the LDs. All depends now on how this breaks seat by seat.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 30, 2019)

also - how will undecideds and brexit supporting trad labour voters vote? 
how many disgruntled Brexit party voters will stay at home? 
will the cold and dark deter older people from voting? 

there's a few variable that _could _work in labours favour - but also, we could still easily end up with the vermin winning a solid majority.


----------



## chilango (Nov 30, 2019)

Was just about to post the BMG poll posted a couple of times above.

Boris Johnson’s election lead halved, putting UK in ‘hung parliament territory’, latest poll reveals


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2019)

Hollis said:


> Worry if that LibDem decline leads to more Tory votes in Tory/LibDem marginals..


What would that tell you hollis?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 30, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Don't vote lib Dems under any guise.


Up there with #dontbuythesun


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 30, 2019)

bet the tories are shitting themselves right now.


----------



## Smangus (Nov 30, 2019)

Had a feeling that this week things were starting to change , the narrative that Boris avoids scrutiny at every turn, only talks about Brexit done and the message re Corbyn and the economy is starting to tire. Think the NHS and anti austerity messages are starting to resonate more but is this the crunch point? No idea. 

Lets see how feverish the vermin attacks are in the next few days , that will  be a good barometer.


----------



## Supine (Nov 30, 2019)

Let's not get overly excited about one data point. Not yet at least...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 30, 2019)

Here’s another one:


----------



## kabbes (Nov 30, 2019)

About 41/33/13 as things stand then.


----------



## Hollis (Nov 30, 2019)

Esher and Walton being a good example of how tactical voting _might_ just work..


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 30, 2019)

Hollis said:


> Worry if that LibDem decline leads to more Tory votes in Tory/LibDem marginals..



That’s what happened in 2015, tories picked up a lot of Lib Dem seats in places like the south west. A lot of their voter base is tactical rather than ideological.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 30, 2019)

Aaaaand another poll. There seems to be loads of them tonight. Three things to note. All of the national polls indicate a similar story. There are some outliers but broadly speaking labour need to gain around 4% according to them to prevent a Tory majority. The BP can stop the Tories in some labour seats Lib/Lab voting remains essential to stop the Tories elsewhere:


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 30, 2019)

I'm not buying 45%, what the fuck, one in every two voters tory, nah


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 30, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> also -
> will the cold and dark deter older people from voting?
> 
> .


No. It's not dark all day long and most older people are retired so don't have to fit voting in around work.

You want to worry about the youngsters who seem to need to wear 3 hoodies and a jacket to stay warm even in summer. Let alone getting them to get off faceache, twatter or their playbox long enough to go and vote.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 30, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm not buying 45%, what the fuck, one in every two voters tory, nah



You need to go to more large garden centres. There’s places with Edinburgh Woollen Mill concessions, the whole lot. Hundreds of parking spaces, thousands through the door daily. Don’t know anybody on benefits. They’re out there.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 1, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Funny thing, politics. You get to commit suicide again and again.
> 
> I don't think it will happen, because I don't think the lds will win enough seats. But I think it's foolish to say that it couldn't happen. Johnson agrees to keep the whole of the UK in the common market, not just NI, for instance - for an initial time-limited period perhaps. Look what we did, say the lds, look how libdemmy brexit is now because of us. I could totally see them doing that _For The National Interest_. And of course it would solve a big problem for the tories - just as the coalition solved a big problem for them in 2010.


Anything “could” happen. Johnson could win a majority, revoke A50, and retire from politics to timeshare with his families. Corbyn could pack it all in and accept a seat on the board of Vought American. Sturgeon could enrol in the Grand Lodge and Swinson could join the Tufty club. Given the structure and membership of the Lib Dems, their backing any form of Brexit without a referendum is, however, so vanishingly unlikely it can be for all practical purposes safely ignored. To the vocal frustration of many dedicated Remainers, they wouldn’t even back the safety net of Boles’ “Common Market 2.0” in the indicative votes. As for Johnson going for the Norway option, maybe if he’d become PM in 2016, before May’s red lines and three years of Brexiteer frustration, but for him, that ship long sailed.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 1, 2019)

Santino said:


> You're like a lamb.


I tend to think the same of any moves, whether through action or inaction, that boost the odds of Vote Leave 2.0 gaining a working majority.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 1, 2019)

Supine said:


> ^ yeah. This poll shows more bad news for libs:
> 
> View attachment 191428


Fine, if Lab’s vote rises enough to do the job by itself. The SNP looks to have Scotland sewn up, so Johnson’s majority shouldn’t come from north of the border. The danger zone is if the Lib Dems’ vote doesn’t collapse completely: in that case, Lab’s reliant on them doing well in Lib/Tory marginals without any uniform swing that lets the Tories through in Lab/Con seats.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 1, 2019)

Weekend polls are all over the place, BMG with a Tory lead of 6% to 15% with Opinium.

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 39% (-2) LAB: 33% (+5) LDEM: 13% (-5) GRN: 5% (-) BREX: 4% (+1) *Lead 6%*  - BMGResearch

CON: 43% (+2) LAB: 33% (-1) LDEM: 13% (-) BREX: 4% (-1) GRN: 3% (+1) *Lead 10%* - SavantaComRes

CON: 46% (-1) LAB: 31% (+3) LDEM: 13% (+1) BREX: 2% (-1) *Lead 15%* - OpiniumResearch

CON: 45% (+2) LAB: 32% (+2) LDEM: 15% (-1) BREX: 3% (-) *Lead  13%* - DeltapollUK

CON: 43% (-) LAB: 34% (+2) LDEM: 13% (-) GRN: 3% (+1) BREX: 2% (-2) *Lead 9%*  - YouGov

Cameron won his majority of 12 in 2015 on 6.6%, but that sort of lead this time could easily result in a hung parliament.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 1, 2019)

Of five polls there, 3 show improvement for Labour, 1 is level and the other one has the Tories gaining a point.  The trend right now is clear.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 1, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm not buying 45%, what the fuck, one in every two voters tory, nah



That's only up 1.5% on what they got in 2017.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 1, 2019)

Could tactical voting result in a ‘Portillo moment’ for Dominic Raab?



> Dominic Raab’s fierce enthusiasm for Brexit could cost him dear in a constituency that voted Remain in the 2016 referendum.
> 
> His 23,298 majority in Esher and Walton at the last general election was one of the largest in Britain. In normal times, defeat would be unthinkable. Yet he now faces a pincer movement, with Labour supporters switching tactically to Monica Harding, the Liberal Democrat candidate, and almost half of the 12,000 Remain voters who backed Raab two years ago now plan to desert the foreign secretary.
> 
> On the conventional voting intention question, Raab clings to an uncomfortably narrow five-point lead. But when Deltapoll asked voters how they would vote if they thought only the Tories and Lib Dems had a realistic chance of winning the seat, Raab and Harding tied at 48% each.



Hard to believe he could lose a majority of over 23,000, just shows how totally unpredictable this all is.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 1, 2019)

Yougov have just asked me how likely I am to vote - being specific about my constituency - and then about what I think of Johnson and the current Tory election campaign - they even left a comment box....


----------



## Wilf (Dec 1, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> That's only up 1.5% on what they got in 2017.


There's mess and complexity in this election with brexit itself and the line up of parties. But those figures are particularly worrying. It's not just the leads per se - iiirc it's more advantages for a party to have a 10 point lead that's say 42 - 32 over the next party than, say, 34 - 24.


----------



## Poi E (Dec 1, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Could tactical voting result in a ‘Portillo moment’ for Dominic Raab?
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to believe he could lose a majority of over 23,000, just shows how totally unpredictable this all is.



That thick bourgeois lacky fuckhead losing his seat would bring me great pleasure.


----------



## Poot (Dec 1, 2019)

I had a Tory leaflet through my door last week imploring me to vote Tory or risk a hung parliament. I rofled. When the austerity really kicks in I'll use it to wipe my arse on.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 2, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Of five polls there, 3 show improvement for Labour, 1 is level and the other one has the Tories gaining a point.  The trend right now is clear.



Even clearer with the latest Survation poll, released around mid-night, showing the LibDems & Brexit Party are being squeezed by the main two parties, the Tories up 1%, but Labour up 3%, reducing the Tory lead from 11% to 9%, compared with their poll last week.


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 2, 2019)

This is interesting: the currently polling overlaid on the 2017 election.







Labour matching exactly, and still heading up. Tories worse than this stage last time, and flatlining.


----------



## Smangus (Dec 2, 2019)

Watching these polls evolve  is harder than being a Charlton fan


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 2, 2019)




----------



## Wilf (Dec 2, 2019)

Following this slight narrowing of the polls, plus the seeming shift of Lib to Lab and faragists to Con, what's the best scenario? In other words, from the point of view of the tories not getting a majority is it best the Libs get squeezed further or is there a point where that just leaves seats where the liberal loses to the tories and Labour comes a healthier 3rd place? Or, more straightforwardly, has anybody any links on how the polls are playing out at the level of constituencies and marginals?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 2, 2019)

Fez909 said:


> This is interesting: the currently polling overlaid on the 2017 election.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting presentation.
FWIW the _BritainElects _tracker (poll of polls) has Lab just shy of 32%, but this is all very much within MoE territory.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 2, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Following this slight narrowing of the polls, plus the seeming shift of Lib to Lab and faragists to Con, what's the best scenario? In other words, from the point of view of the tories not getting a majority is it best the Libs get squeezed further or is there a point where that just leaves seats where the liberal loses to the tories and Labour comes a healthier 3rd place? Or, more straightforwardly, has anybody any links on how the polls are playing out at the level of constituencies and marginals?


It's that last bit that matters; the headline % can't show that.


----------



## Santino (Dec 2, 2019)

Fez909 said:


>



ICM showed a 12-point lead for the Tories the day before the 2017 election.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 2, 2019)

brogdale said:


> It's that last bit that matters; the headline % can't show that.


Yeah, that's what I'm after really, anything recent on the swing(s) in the different types of marginal.


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2019)

Wilf said:


> has anybody any links on how the polls are playing out at the level of constituencies and marginals?


you can download a CSV of the yougov constituency projections here:


killer b said:


> there's a CSV file here with all the seat estimates: https://t.co/dmV7wfujAR?amp=1


----------



## brogdale (Dec 2, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, that's what I'm after really, anything recent on the swing(s) in the different types of marginal.


Not aware of much...Ashcroft paid for some very expensive constituency based stuff last time..not heard of any this time. Of course the parties may well be doing their own private stuff.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 2, 2019)

Smangus said:


> Watching these polls evolve  is harder than being a Charlton fan


Really? _That bad_?


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, that's what I'm after really, anything recent on the swing(s) in the different types of marginal.


There's lots in the analysis of the yougov MRP - doom about the 'red wall' Labour heartlands, mostly.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 2, 2019)

killer b said:


> There's lots in the analysis of the yougov MRP - doom about the 'red wall' Labour heartlands, mostly.


Cheers.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 2, 2019)

Fez909 said:


> This is interesting: the currently polling overlaid on the 2017 election.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But the majority of polls were deeply flawed against Labour last time with their population modelling for turnout. They aren't making the same mistake this time. Labour look to be doing worse than last time even if they pull off a last minute surge.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 2, 2019)

Knotted said:


> But the majority of polls were deeply flawed against Labour last time with their population modelling for turnout. They aren't making the same mistake this time. Labour look to be doing worse than last time even if they pull off a last minute surge.


That's making quite a few assumptions tbh.


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2019)

You have absolutely no idea if they're making mistakes re: turnout modelling tbf, or indeed if they're making mistakes elsewhere. All we _really_ know is there is an observed tightening of the polls - whatever they actually are - in the past week.


----------



## Smangus (Dec 2, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Really? _That bad_?



Oh yeah , trust me - long have we suffered..


----------



## Azrael (Dec 2, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Following this slight narrowing of the polls, plus the seeming shift of Lib to Lab and faragists to Con, what's the best scenario? In other words, from the point of view of the tories not getting a majority is it best the Libs get squeezed further or is there a point where that just leaves seats where the liberal loses to the tories and Labour comes a healthier 3rd place? Or, more straightforwardly, has anybody any links on how the polls are playing out at the level of constituencies and marginals?


According to (I think) Curtice, Lab must either do well enough to cannibalise the Lib Dem vote completely, or the Libs need to stay strong enough to win Lib/Con marginals. Since the first doesn't depend on tactical voting to anything like the same extent, it would be the less risky option.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 2, 2019)

Azrael said:


> According to (I think) Curtice, Lab must either do well enough to cannibalise the Lib Dem vote completely, or the Libs need to stay strong enough to win Lib/Con marginals. Since the first doesn't depend on tactical voting to anything like the same extent, it would be the less risky option.


It's not really possible to discern the constituency specific trends you refer to from polling attempting to demonstrate national sentiment.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2019)

brogdale said:


> It's not really possible to discern the constituency specific trends you refer to from polling attempting to demonstrate national sentiment.


Yeah, I think this election is going to see some oddities. That's the only thing I'm confident will happen. Rich Londoners who've always voted tory voting libdem in relatively big numbers, for instance, even if the lds are wiped out elsewhere. We're really into guessing land territory trying to judge how that might translate into seats.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 2, 2019)

Azrael said:


> According to (I think) Curtice, Lab must either do well enough to cannibalise the Lib Dem vote completely, or the Libs need to stay strong enough to win Lib/Con marginals. Since the first doesn't depend on tactical voting to anything like the same extent, it would be the less risky option.


That gets exactly to what I was on about in every respect.   As you said, it's a case of 'what are the scenarios to avoid a tory majority' and, just as important, which ones can be pursued as an overt and achievable political strategy by Labour. And then if Labour if Labour do try and drag in some tactical Libdem/remainy votes, the risks they take in terms of the impact of those messages on Labour Leave minded voters elsewhere...

The irony is, if Labour did pull this off - and by pull it off that only means avoid a tory majority - it would actually be a victory for their timid constructive ambiguity policy that I along with many others on here have been highly critical of.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 2, 2019)

brogdale said:


> It's not really possible to discern the constituency specific trends you refer to from polling attempting to demonstrate national sentiment.


Absolutely, which was also Curtice's point: if there's not a uniform swing to Lab, there could still be a hung Parliament, but the polls will struggle to accurately predict it.

Going from some constituency polling and astronomical swings in council seats (usual caveats about those not translating simply to a general), I wouldn't be surprised to see Lib Dems pull off some shock results in Con seats that just aren't being reflected in national polling. Same for some Con seats Lab are targeting (please, electors of Uxbridge, give us this).


----------



## brogdale (Dec 2, 2019)

Azrael said:


> Absolutely, which was also Curtice's point: if there's not a uniform swing to Lab, there could still be a hung Parliament, but the polls will struggle to accurately predict it.
> 
> Going from some constituency polling and astronomical swings in council seats (usual caveats about those not translating simply to a general), I wouldn't be surprised to see Lib Dems pull off some shock results in Con seats that just aren't being reflected in national polling.


Agreed.
Not sure that the 10pm exit reveal will be the end of the matter on the night of the 12th.


----------



## Smangus (Dec 2, 2019)

Denying the torys a majority is the best I am hoping for tbh


----------



## Azrael (Dec 2, 2019)

Wilf said:


> That gets exactly to what I was on about in every respect.   As you said, it's a case of 'what are the scenarios to avoid a tory majority' and, just as important, which ones can be pursued as an overt and achievable political strategy by Labour. And then if Labour if Labour do try and drag in some tactical Libdem/remainy votes, the risks they take in terms of the impact of those messages on Labour Leave minded voters elsewhere...
> 
> The irony is, if Labour did pull this off - and by pull it off that only means avoid a tory majority - it would actually be a victory for their timid constructive ambiguity policy that I along with many others on here have been highly critical of.


I'm still extremely suspicious of the supposed wave of Lab Leave voters flocking to Toryism. There'll be some, but as has been noted, Brexit isn't their only concern, loathing of the Tories is generations deep, ans constructive ambiguity gives them a figleaf to vote for the other old school Lab policies in the manifesto.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 2, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Agreed.
> Not sure that the 10pm exit reveal will be the end of the matter on the night of the 12th.


If Curtice gets _that_ exit poll right, he may just ascend there and then! He did pick up the Scots Tory surge in '17, so he may yet have his apotheosis ...


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 2, 2019)

The Tories won a majority, IIRC of 12, on a 6.6% lead in 2015, but Curtice has said things are very different this time, and a 7% lead is squeaky bum time for the Tories, as they could be well short of a majority on that figure, and with no friends to help them govern.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 2, 2019)

Also worth noting that the '15 shock win was achieved off the back of scores of Tory activists getting bussed into target seats, flouting electoral spending limits, and opening the real possibility of their majority being voided by the courts. There's no indication they're pulling the same trick this time around.

*ETA* Thorough piece on scandal here.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 2, 2019)

brogdale said:


> That's making quite a few assumptions tbh.



Of course it is. I also don't want to demoralise anyone. The mistake the polling companies were making in 2017 was plain to see and the almost inevitable flaws this time are not obvious, may well be in the opposite direction and almost certainly not of the same magnitude. But maybe they are...

Labour strategists are saying they have underestimated the Tories and overestimated the Lib Dems. That sounds right to me. They seemed to be able to win a slice of the UKIP vote in 2017 but this time the BxP vote seems to be going straight to the Tories. They can still turn that around.


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2019)

Knotted said:


> Labour strategists are saying


Which labour strategists?


----------



## Supine (Dec 2, 2019)

Edited as I quoted an old poll by mistake. DOH.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 2, 2019)

Knotted said:


> Of course it is. I also don't want to demoralise anyone. The mistake the polling companies were making in 2017 was plain to see and the almost inevitable flaws this time are not obvious, may well be in the opposite direction and almost certainly not of the same magnitude. But maybe they are...
> 
> Labour strategists are saying they have underestimated the Tories and overestimated the Lib Dems. That sounds right to me. They seemed to be able to win a slice of the UKIP vote in 2017 but this time the BxP vote seems to be going straight to the Tories. They can still turn that around.


I've no evidence, but I'm guessing that the pollsters modelling might pre-date and struggle to accommodate the 3 million + voter registrations since Nov 6th (67% < 34 years)


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 2, 2019)

brogdale said:


> I've no evidence, but I'm guessing that the pollsters modelling might pre-date and struggle to accommodate the 3 million + voter registrations since Nov 6th (67% < 34 years)



Do they actually ask if people are registered to vote?

I thought they only asked people if they intended to vote, in which case the spike in registrations shouldn't make much, if any, difference.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 2, 2019)

brogdale said:


> I've no evidence, but I'm guessing that the pollsters modelling might pre-date and struggle to accommodate the 3 million + voter registrations since Nov 6th (67% < 34 years)


Of course, as the polling companies will readily admit (a caveat that doesn't make it into the popular narrative where polls are gospel). As I noted several pages back, the unweighted polls had Tories and Lab level over a week back. If there's a high youth turnout (oh all right then, youthquake it is), or if student votes get concentrated in particular seats, who knows what could happen.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 2, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Do they actually ask if people are registered to vote?
> 
> I thought they only asked people if they intended to vote, in which case the spike in registrations shouldn't make much, if any, difference.


Will obviously affect the baseline assumptions about the various cohort sizes before they do their 'magic' about predicted turn-out. I really don't know, maybe they're really on it and can make the necessary changes in real time as it were, but with 600k+ registering on the last day there's been some significant additions to the available voter pool.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 2, 2019)

Just checking back, 2.3 million extra registrations to vote occurred on the run up to the 2017 GE, but the actual total number of registered voters  between the 2015 & 2017 GEs was only up by under 500K, as most of the 'new' registrations were because of a change of address, people wanting to change how they vote, such as to proxy or postal ballots, or duplicates, etc.

2015 - Electorate: 46,354,197
2017 - Electorate: 46,843,896


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Just checking back, 2.3 million extra registrations to vote occurred on the run up to the 2017 GE, but the actual total number of registered voters  between the 2015 & 2017 GEs was only up by under 500K, as most of the 'new' registrations were because of a change of address, people wanting to change how they vote, such as to proxy or postal ballots, or duplicates, etc.
> 
> 2015 - Electorate: 46,354,197
> 2017 - Electorate: 46,843,896


You have to account for the people who died between 2015 and 2017 too


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2019)

(About 500 thou per year apparently, so a million)


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 2, 2019)

killer b said:


> You have to account for the people who died between 2015 and 2017 too



Of course, there will always be a churn in voters, as some die & others reach the voting age. My point was simply that the headline figure of new registrations isn't the same as the increase in total voters registered.

This is an interesting stat...



> The difference between the number of applications submitted between 1 December 2016 and 22 May 2017, when registration closed for the previous election, was approximately 4.9 million.
> 
> However the net change in the number of electors on the registers in that period was approximately 1.4 million, suggesting that a significant proportion of applications are likely to have been duplicates.
> 
> More than 1 million of the 3.2m people who registered to vote aren't new voters



That was only a 6 month period, so only around 250k would have passed away, yet there was a 3.5m difference between registrations & the increase in the total number of registered voters.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 2, 2019)

killer b said:


> Which labour strategists?



I don't know. I'm getting the info third hand from newspaper reports. Senior unnamed source says etc. Surely a lot more discussion and nuance behind the scenes of course. I'm just giving you a possible way Labour might succeed in turning the situation around.


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2019)

Knotted said:


> I don't know. I'm getting the info third hand from newspaper reports. Senior unnamed source says etc. Surely a lot more discussion and nuance behind the scenes of course. I'm just giving you a possible way Labour might succeed in turning the situation around.


Which papers have you been reading this in? What the opinions of nameless labour strategists might mean really does vary depending on what the source is.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 2, 2019)

killer b said:


> Which papers have you been reading this in? What the opinions of nameless labour strategists might mean really does vary depending on what the source is.



Yeah fair enough. I read about it somewhere, and I can't remember where, but I found an article in the Standard saying the same thing. Just a hopeful possibility.


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2019)

Knotted said:


> Yeah fair enough. I read about it somewhere, and I can't remember where, but I found an article in the Standard saying the same thing. Just a hopeful possibility.


It's a hopeful possibility that the tories are underestimated and the lib dems overestimated? The tories are polling 40+. Anything more than that and it's a tory majority whatever Labour manage to put on in the next week and a bit..


----------



## Knotted (Dec 2, 2019)

killer b said:


> It's a hopeful possibility that the tories are underestimated and the lib dems overestimated? The tories are polling 40+. Anything more than that and it's a tory majority whatever Labour manage to put on in the next week and a bit..



If the Tories are making up that vote by making inroads into socially conservative but economically left wing voters, then that's an area that Labour have failed but could still win back with a change of strategy thus bring down the Tory vote as well as increase the Labour vote. Possibly. Labour may have a last trick up their sleeve, but otherwise it's not looking good.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 2, 2019)

Worth remembering just how low a percentage of a constituency's electorate is necessary to hold a seat under FPTP. Those Labour heartland seats can soak up a lotta defections before they flip, and there's local eccentricities to factor in: Don Valley, for example, saw over 1,500 votes go to the grandly named Yorkshire Party! They're standing again this time, alongside Kippers Redux.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 2, 2019)

Many of the three million ‘new’ registrations may have been registered last time round, it’s just new registration is needed if people have moved home (which young people do a lot). I wouldn’t count on it being that significant.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 2, 2019)

Particularly interested in how many are students (double-registered), and where those votes are cast.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 2, 2019)

Not seen the source data...but, if correct, really quite interesting. (The change is compared to the previous fieldwork on 18-19/11).


----------



## Azrael (Dec 3, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Not seen the source data...but, if correct, really quite interesting. (The change is compared to the previous fieldwork on 18-19/11).
> 
> View attachment 191716


If I remember it right, some of the turnout weighting for the youngest voters (don't think it was was ComRes) was as low as 10-20%. If this is close to being borne out on the 12th, well, remember those unweighted polls from the other week ...


----------



## kabbes (Dec 3, 2019)

Peoples’ intentions can be poor predictors of their behaviour.  Think of all those good intentions to exercise more, keep the house cleaner or stop smoking.  So I’m not inclined to overweigh a poll on intention to vote — the statistical relationship between age and voting is still our primary predictor.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 3, 2019)

And, those figures are not much different to the percentages that actually voted last time.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 3, 2019)

Indeed, which just goes to give credence to people's stated intentions, and calls the aforementioned weighting even further into question.

In the aftermath of '17, I remember plenty of snarky comments in op-eds about lazy youths not bothering to vote, with no apparent basis other than their own assumptions. Yet just two years later, the same narrative's again arisen among the media commentariat.


----------



## treelover (Dec 3, 2019)

> @BMGResearch
> Follow Follow @BMGResearch
> More
> Our latest poll for Independent reveals Conservative party lead down as Labour gains ground. Boris Johnson’s election lead halved, putting UK in ‘hung parliament territory’, latest poll reveals
> ...



Dirty tricks likeley to get worse now, LD's getting hammered


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 3, 2019)

A couple of new polls:





That last one took me by surprise, until I realised it was London only.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 3, 2019)

Surprised the tories are as high as 30% in London tbh.


----------



## Santino (Dec 3, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> A couple of new polls:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think Kantar were the company projecting 90% of over 65s to definitely vote.


----------



## belboid (Dec 3, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Surprised the tories are as high as 30% in London tbh.


small swing away from them since 2017 (lab 52, tories 33 and libs 9 back then i think)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 3, 2019)

belboid said:


> small swing away from them since 2017 (lab 52, tories 33 and libs 9 back then i think)


Shows how miserably the libdems' tactics have been working really. If they can't make inroads in london, they've little hope elsewhere.


----------



## belboid (Dec 3, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Shows how miserably the libdems' tactics have been working really. If they can't make inroads in london, they've little hope elsewhere.


15 isnt _terrible _for them, could well mean they are doing very well in a small number of seats, but falling back in the places they've no chance.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 3, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Surprised the tories are as high as 30% in London tbh.


Those outer boroughs to bump it up. They already voted Johnson twice, after all ...


----------



## Azrael (Dec 3, 2019)

belboid said:


> 15 isnt _terrible _for them, could well mean they are doing very well in a small number of seats, but falling back in the places they've no chance.


Yup. When Curtice was wheeled out on the _Electioncast _gossipfest, he noted that national polls are terrible at predicting local results. Expect the Lib Dem vote to be squeezed in the Lab / Con marginals, but their performance in Tory seats is highly unpredictable, and going by some of the constituency polls, may yet surprise.


----------



## killer b (Dec 3, 2019)

Santino said:


> I think Kantar were the company projecting 90% of over 65s to definitely vote.


While Kantar's weighting might be out somehow, the stuff everyone was getting aerated about the other week is apparently based on a misreading of the data by people who don't understand how weighting works (Aaron Bastani for the most part). This blog goes into some detail about it: Weight, Weight, Weight


----------



## kabbes (Dec 3, 2019)

killer b said:


> While Kantar's weighting might be out somehow, the stuff everyone was getting aerated about the other week is apparently based on a misreading of the data by people who don't understand how weighting works (Aaron Bastani for the most part). This blog goes into some detail about it: Weight, Weight, Weight


That makes so much more sense than the original claim that Kantar somehow were completely shite at their job.


----------



## Santino (Dec 3, 2019)

kabbes said:


> That makes so much more sense than the original claim that Kantar somehow were completely shite at their job.


It's also not incompatible with Kantar still being shite at their job.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 3, 2019)

kabbes said:


> That makes so much more sense than the original claim that Kantar somehow were completely shite at their job.


It does. It still leaves room for some pretty big errors, though. Given the enormous gap between voting intentions of the over-65s and everyone else, weighting so that this group will see an increased turnout while all the others are reduced (even from 2017 figures that I understand are themselves disputed) is a huge call and will only skew figures one way if they get it wrong.


----------



## killer b (Dec 3, 2019)

I think the implication was that Kantar were artificially keeping their Tory poll numbers high and depressing Labour poll numbers for... reasons.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 3, 2019)

Santino said:


> It's also not incompatible with Kantar still being shite at their job.


Not so shite that they would assume turnout way out of line with all history though


----------



## brogdale (Dec 4, 2019)

lol
-1


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 4, 2019)

brogdale said:


> lol
> -1
> 
> View attachment 191931


How does that work? I thought they just polled people who intended to vote so where are they going?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 4, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> How does that work? I thought they just polled people who intended to vote so where are they going?


Rounding, indeps, DKs, minor parties etc. I suppose.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 4, 2019)

Every time I think the LD vote has been fully squeezed I think back to Swinson’s interview tonight and hope it can tick down a few more points yet


----------



## killer b (Dec 4, 2019)

Apparently comres have changed their methodology since they last polled, and the -1 for everyone is a result of this - they prompted on which parties were actually standing in the respondents seat this time round.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> Apparently comres have changed their methodology since they last polled, and the -1 for everyone is a result of this - they prompted on which parties were actually standing in the respondents seat this time round.



They changed that a few weeks ago, this poll (2-3 Dec.) compared with their last one (25-26 Nov.), has the 5 parties listed above down by 1% each, the missing 5% went elsewhere - SNP +1 & Others +4. 

Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 5, 2019)




----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 5, 2019)

Fez909 said:


>


Does this tell us much though? Seems a bit pointless. It's not asking people who they will vote for, it's what they think will happen - so a big chunk saying tory majority will be pessimistic anti-tory voters


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 5, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Does this tell us much though? Seems a bit pointless. It's not asking people who they will vote for, it's what they think will happen - so a big chunk saying tory majority will be pessimistic anti-tory voters


It's more the "who do you think are having a good campaign" question that bothers me. I can understand voting Tory, but I can't understand thinking they're running a good campaign...unless it is judged purely off polling figures, which is a bit self-referential.


----------



## killer b (Dec 5, 2019)

My impression is that any momentum Labour had has taken a knock in the last week, and the tories have done a great job at distracting and avoidance (assisted by a supine media) - not surprised to see this kind of movement tbh


----------



## killer b (Dec 5, 2019)

'having a good campaign' and 'running a good campaign' are two different things though.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 5, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Does this tell us much though? Seems a bit pointless. It's not asking people who they will vote for, it's what they think will happen - so a big chunk saying tory majority will be pessimistic anti-tory voters


The worry would be that this sort of poll results in a bandwagon effect whereby voters want to be seen picking a winner I guess.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 5, 2019)

ignatious said:


> The worry would be that this sort of poll results in a bandwagon effect whereby voters want to be seen picking a winner I guess.



Is that even a thing anymore? The political process is so degraded, the political class so bad and the populism so crass that I find that hard to believe.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 5, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Is that even a thing anymore? The political process is so degraded, the political class so bad and the populism so crass that I find that hard to believe.


I fear you credit the electorate with more nous than is currently being displayed.


----------



## treelover (Dec 5, 2019)

I felt that Labour did have serious issues o n A/S and were'nt quick enough to take robust action, but the media's relentless focus on it(but not the Tories transgressions) is really probelematic and unfortunatly will feed into voters concerns about labour.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 5, 2019)

treelover said:


> I felt that Labour did have serious issues o n A/S and were'nt quick enough to take robust action, but the media's relentless focus on it(but not the Tories transgressions) is really probelematic and unfortunatly will feed into voters concerns about labour.



Doubt it will make fuck all difference to the election outcome tbf.


----------



## treelover (Dec 5, 2019)

I think it will in the margins,  

not marginals


----------



## Spandex (Dec 5, 2019)

treelover said:


> I felt that Labour did have serious issues o n A/S and were'nt quick enough to take robust action, but the media's relentless focus on it(but not the Tories transgressions) is really probelematic and unfortunatly will feed into voters concerns about labour.


I don't think the anti-Semitism issue itself is going to change many minds at this late stage, but the relentless focus on it in the media is squeezing out the opportunity for Labour to talk about other things.

Today for example: Labour were due to focus on education. That should be a vote winner for them. Then out of nowhere the JLM submission to the EHRC investigation is released. The deadline for submissions to the EHRC investigation into Labour and anti-Semitism was 31st July, so what's been released today is presumably over 4 months old. The EHRC isn't due to report until next year. I can't see any reason for it being released today other than to damage Corbyn/Labour a week before the election. And it has kept discussion on AS (bad for Labour) rather than education (good for Labour).

Every time things seem to start going Labour's way during the election campaign anti-Semtism comes back and they have to address that rather than all the stuff (probably too much) in their manifesto. Same thing happened last week with the chief rabbi's intervention.


----------



## Flavour (Dec 5, 2019)

Are the mainstream media as influential over election results as they used to be though? The days of "it woz the sun what won it" are surely over, no? The splintering of media audiences according to Facebook targetting surely hardens binary divisions. But I'm not sure that many voters in small towns in the north (that labour need to hold, win and in some cases win back) give that much of a fuck about antisemitism. I think that stuff is probably confined largely to the London bubble


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 5, 2019)

I don't think focus on antisemitism affects those voters who are committed to or attracted & enthused by labour policy. Where it has an impact is on soft vote, both traditional labour voters disengaged from modern labour party, and anti tory or tory sceptical voters; basically those voters who aren't won over to labour anyway and vote based on least worst option. The relentless focus and emphasis is at least in part because they know it is cutting through.

That emphasis is unfair as it is not relative to the scale of the problem within labour or relative to the problem outside of labour and within other parties, particularly tories - take the taki/johnson stuff, very clear historic examples of racism from johnson, large volume of racism from tory supporters on social media etc - which would be a major focus if coming from labour. 

But there is also a clear antisemitism problem within labour, which flows from a political thread which distinguishes it (not better or worse but of different roots) from the racism and antisemitism evident in tories and, while emphasis may be disproportionate, it needed and needs challenging, with labour (specifically labour left) accountable for allowing it to develop and take root. Can't throw shit if you don't shit everywhere and all that. Which is what makes it difficult to disentangle the actual from the opportunistic, because there is plenty of the actual.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 6, 2019)

This is very interesting. The Tory Party are solidifying the unionist vote in Scotland. One of the key assumptions in this GE was that the SNP would eat Labour and Tory seats. This looks less certain now and a bifurcation along older lines is re-emerging.

This does undermine somewhat the soggy liberal argument that Ruth Davidson’s ‘compassionate conservatism’ was responsible for tied showing in 2017.


----------



## Sue (Dec 6, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This is very interesting. The Tory Party are solidifying the unionist vote in Scotland. One of the key assumptions in this GE was that the SNP would eat Labour and Tory seats. This looks less certain now and a bifurcation along older lines is re-emerging.
> 
> This does undermine somewhat the soggy liberal argument that Ruth Davidson’s ‘compassionate conservatism’ was responsible for tied showing in 2017.



Not a surprise -- they did the same thing in 2017 when all Ruth Davidson banged on about was Indyref/the Union. (I also think Ruth Davidson was a lot less popular in Scotland than the English press would have you believe.)


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 6, 2019)

Sue said:


> Not a surprise -- they did the same thing in 2017 when all Ruth Davidson banged on about was Indyref/the Union. (I also think Ruth Davidson was a lot less popular in Scotland than the English press would have you believe.)



Yes. But the received wisdom was that the Tories would collapse in Scotland without her. In addition to this the SNP surge predicted by 'experts' does not seem to be materialising.


----------



## Sue (Dec 6, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Yes. But the received wisdom was that the Tories would collapse in Scotland without her. In addition to this the SNP surge predicted by 'experts' does not seem to be materialising.


Received wisdom outside Scotland perhaps -- as I said, I think how Davidson is viewed in Scotland is quite different to how she's portrayed in the English press. And there's always been a Tory/unionist vote -- it's just more obvious now due to increased tactical voting/post Indyref. 

Labour will lose seats, the Lib Dems may lose one but should hang onto the others and the Tories will retain most of theirs. The SNP will be the winners but they've already got 35/59 seats so given the unionist vote thing (and historical Liberalness in the Highlands/Islands) I reckon there's not much space for a surge.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 6, 2019)

Another poll showing the gap closing, but still putting the Tories 12% ahead.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 6, 2019)

Panelbase is showing a 1% increase in the Tory lead.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 6, 2019)

As does this one:


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 6, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> As does this one:




You're 8 hours late, see 2 posts above yours.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 6, 2019)

. (Wrong thread)


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 6, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> You're 8 hours late, see 2 posts above yours.



yeah, I am


----------



## Supine (Dec 7, 2019)

New poll shows Tory lead cut to 6% & Tory majority can be stopped with tactical voting


----------



## Hollis (Dec 7, 2019)

The stats per above..


----------



## magneze (Dec 7, 2019)

It's the hope that kills.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 7, 2019)

There'll be at least half a dozen polls for the Sunday rags, so it'll interesting to see the spread across them, in the morning.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 7, 2019)

Hollis said:


> The stats per above..



For Lab it's now all about getting the LD % towards their 2017 7.4%.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 7, 2019)

Looks like the polls are going to be all over the fucking place again, just like in 2017, OpiniumResearch still has the Tory lead on 15%, compared to 6% with SavantaComRes.


----------



## MickiQ (Dec 7, 2019)

I reckon we can pretty much forget any chance of a Labour majority at this point and whilst the odds favour a Tory one it is far from a done deal, even BoZo and his campaign team are warning against complacency.
Ironically the best thing Death of Squirrels can do for the Remain vote and indeed the country is to lose to the SNP in her own constituency and leave the LibDems with a leader not burdened with nonsense statements like "We will never work with Corbyn"


----------



## Supine (Dec 7, 2019)

Only 40k tactical votes...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 7, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> I reckon we can pretty much forget any chance of a Labour majority at this point and whilst the odds favour a Tory one it is far from a done deal, even BoZo and his campaign team are warning against complacency.
> Ironically the best thing Death of Squirrels can do for the Remain vote and indeed the country is to lose to the SNP in her own constituency and leave the LibDems with a leader not burdened with nonsense statements like "We will never work with Corbyn"


There was never going to be a labour majority. Their collapse in Scotland put paid to that. A hung parliament with a lab+snp majority is the best that could ever realistically be hoped for. Libdems would be irrelevant then. I'd take any kind of hung parliament right now, though. Any kind of tory majority and we are really fucked.


----------



## Hollis (Dec 7, 2019)

Flavour said:


> But I'm not sure that many voters in small towns in the north (that labour need to hold, win and in some cases win back) give that much of a fuck about antisemitism. I think that stuff is probably confined largely to the London bubble



Genuine question - not sure, what exactly do you mean by 'the London bubble'?  The media?  Or what?


----------



## mauvais (Dec 8, 2019)

Flavour said:


> Are the mainstream media as influential over election results as they used to be though? The days of "it woz the sun what won it" are surely over, no? The splintering of media audiences according to Facebook targetting surely hardens binary divisions. But I'm not sure that many voters in small towns in the north (that labour need to hold, win and in some cases win back) give that much of a fuck about antisemitism. I think that stuff is probably confined largely to the London bubble


Jews don't just live in London, you know. Our constituency, in the north, is probably going to go Tory because of the antisemitism topic.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 8, 2019)

I’ve got (Jewish) family in the north but they all live in (or next to) big(ish) cities. Happy to be corrected but which small northern towns have a sizeable Jewish constituency?


----------



## Calamity1971 (Dec 8, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I’ve got (Jewish) family in the north but they all live in (or next to) big(ish) cities. Happy to be corrected but which small northern towns have a sizeable Jewish constituency?


Gateshead here in the north east has a large Jewish community. Not really a small town though as you say.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 8, 2019)

Yeah gateshead is pretty frum isn’t it? 

I guess one thing this whole mess has clarified for me is how much I loathe ‘the communal leadership’.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 8, 2019)

Hollis said:


> The stats per above..




There's something odd about that one, it's not listed on the wikipedia page, so I checked the SavantaComRes twitter page and it's not on there either. It also says the poll was carried out over 4 days, whereas all their other recent polls were carried out over just 2 days. 

Anyway, here's a snap shot of polls carried out in the last week...


Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia

At this stage in 2017, the polls had the lead on between 1% - 12%, so the spread of this weekend's polls is a lot tighter.

It was Survation that had them on 1%, and they got 2.5% in the GE, so Survation was within the so-called margin of error of +/-2%. The only other one within that margin was SurveyMonkey (4%), and those 2 were the only ones near in 2015, both on 6% against the result of 6.6.%.

It'll be interesting to see if SurveyMonkey gets around to doing a poll this coming week, and if the two of them score a hat-trick this time, the next Survation poll is released at mid-night today, for tomorrow's Good Morning Britain.


----------



## magneze (Dec 8, 2019)

About that poll:


----------



## philosophical (Dec 8, 2019)

I am far from an expert on polling, but somebody linked to me this tweet thing:



It seems to suggest that pollsters might be underestimating the impact of voter registrations.
The person has a user name of Dr Moderate so I anticipate they might well get excoriated on this site.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 8, 2019)

philosophical said:


> I am far from an expert on polling, but somebody linked to me this tweet thing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great thread.

As noted earlier in the thread, unweighted polls have been showing Lab and Con neck-and-neck for weeks. If the weighting's off, it can skew the result massively, whether that's towards a Tory landslide (shudder) or hung parliament.


----------



## chilango (Dec 8, 2019)

I read that the other day. Mildly interesting but pretty speculative.


----------



## killer b (Dec 8, 2019)

Randos on twitter re-weighting polls to their own criteria for clicks is one of the more annoying trends of this election


----------



## kabbes (Dec 8, 2019)

I confidently predict that the turnout by age in this election will be largely in line with the turnout by age in 2017, 2015 and 2010, and that any reason for polling error will not be as a result of reweighting for age.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 8, 2019)

kabbes said:


> I confidently predict that the turnout by age in this election will be largely in line with the turnout by age in 2017, 2015 and 2010, and that any reason for polling error will not be as a result of reweighting for age.


I thought turnout was higher for younger voters in '17 than '15/'10, or what this proven wrong?

Subscribe to read | Financial Times


----------



## kabbes (Dec 8, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I thought turnout was higher for younger voters in '17 than '15/'10, or what this proven wrong?
> 
> Subscribe to read | Financial Times


It wasn’t really true, in the end.  All within the margin of error.

The myth of the 2017 'youthquake' election


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 8, 2019)

kabbes said:


> I confidently predict that the turnout by age in this election will be largely in line with the turnout by age in 2017, 2015 and 2010, and that any reason for polling error will not be as a result of reweighting for age.


Why?

The collapse in young people voting in the UK was a peculiarly UK phenomenon. My guess is that the reason for it was largely Blair, Blairism and the Iraq War leading to a sense of disenfranchisement. If I'm right, that can and should change.


----------



## Hollis (Dec 8, 2019)

magneze said:


> About that poll:




Cool - what exactly is 'prompting' candidates?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 8, 2019)

kabbes said:


> It wasn’t really true, in the end.  All within the margin of error.
> 
> The myth of the 2017 'youthquake' election


And in turn, that's been challenged. 

Why 2017 may have witnessed a Youthquake after all | British Politics and Policy at LSE


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 8, 2019)

Hollis said:


> Cool - what exactly is 'prompting' candidates?



Basically, only giving the option of candidates standing in their area, no point allowing the option of, for example, the Brexit Party, if that's not an option in their area.


----------



## Supine (Dec 8, 2019)

I do wonder if recent political movements with the yoof - like Environment/XR - might lead to a higher vote turnout.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 8, 2019)

I do notice, anecdotal obviously, but young 'uns seem far more (too much) into party politics now than they were when I was a teenager/early 20s


----------



## kabbes (Dec 8, 2019)

We’ll see.  My prior expectation is that it won’t change very much, though, and in not seeing much to challenge that.

Beware the base rate fallacy.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 8, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And in turn, that's been challenged.
> 
> Why 2017 may have witnessed a Youthquake after all | British Politics and Policy at LSE


That’s interesting.

If it was genuinely a greater turnout for under 30s in 2017, I guess we’ll see this time if that was a blip or a more lasting trend.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 8, 2019)




----------



## magneze (Dec 8, 2019)

Libdem +1? Clearly fake


----------



## treelover (Dec 8, 2019)

Azrael said:


> Great thread.
> 
> As noted earlier in the thread, unweighted polls have been showing Lab and Con neck-and-neck for weeks. If the weighting's off, it can skew the result massively, whether that's towards a Tory landslide (shudder) or hung parliament.



Now i know why I avoided stats at college.


----------



## treelover (Dec 8, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why?
> 
> The collapse in young people voting in the UK was a peculiarly UK phenomenon. My guess is that the reason for it was largely Blair, Blairism and the Iraq War leading to a sense of disenfranchisement. If I'm right, that can and should change.



in France many of the young are marching against pension reform, can't imagine that here.


----------



## killer b (Dec 8, 2019)

Richard Seymour's latest mailout covers a lot of the ground discussed over the last page on this thread, and is worth a read - I've pasted it below for you.

_Labour, they say, is now a party of young people, not workers. This sort of commentary is painfully silly. But we shouldn't dismiss it entirely out of hand. The generational cleavage in voting patterns just is enormous, and quite novel. There has long been a tendency for younger voters to moderately prefer Labour. But while Labour enjoyed a 15 point lead among 18-24 year olds in 2010, by 2017 it was 54 per cent. That's a huge shift.

More generally, the character of the campaign betrays a generational rift. I've been canvassing with people of all ages, but the mere fact that so many young people are among them is itself extraordinary. When I was a student, hardly any self-respecting leftist would be a proud Labour activist. Still less would they put their lives on hold to get Labour elected. Now they wear Labour sweaters, Labour scarves, Labour rosettes, Labour hates, Labour stickers - with pride, passion and heart. Young people with tech skills are lining up to make video content for Labour, to help it win the digital battle, to register new voters, overwhelmingly on a volunteer basis. Youth culture, from grime to memes, has overwhelmingly cleaved to Labour.

Much as we should avoid generational cliches, in this moment, it has an element of truth. The problem with most of the commentary about generations is that treats age as an explanatory variable in itself. Age explains nothing. In other parts of Europe, young people are more likely to cleave to the far right. If you want to talk about age, you have to index it to lived experiences. As Keir Milburn points out, in Generation Left, age is now one of the modalities of class experience.  "By 2016," he writes, "the average Millennial working through their twenties had already earned £8,000 less than the average of the preceding generation." At the same time, young people spend an average of £44,000 more on rent through their twenties than baby boomers did. In the decade from 2007 to 2016, all new wealth went to over-45s (though unevenly), while incomes fell by around 10 per cent among those aged 16-34.

In itself, Milburn suggests, even this doesn't explain very much. Declining wages, eroding welfare rights, growing insecurity, can have the opposite effect of radicalising people. It can, as the acid Corbynites put it, be a form of consciousness deflation. It can so reduce expectations that people retreat to the lowest possible horizons of individual survival, and reject politics as a source of oppression. Indeed, the traditionally lower average electoral turnouts among younger voters suggests this holds. Moreover, the mere fact that the populous layer of baby boomers are more likely to own a house, a car and maybe even some savings, is itself something to be explained. 
_


----------



## killer b (Dec 8, 2019)

pt. 2

_It's easy to say, the boomers got their jobs and houses just on time, and then selfishly abandoned the younger generation. But it's wrong. And it misses the point. As Milburn correctly points out, the boomers are a defeated generation. They had welfare, unions and a reasonable living standard, albeit with many people excluded from the class compromise. Millions of them had dreams of achieving much more than this. Under the Thatcherite onslaught, they lost so much of what they had that they had little choice and little incentive but to adopt characteristically neoliberal means of reproducing themselves. Buy a council house, rely on rising prices to borrow more, rely on self-improvement, training and education, to get a ahead. Use debt to supplement wages. That strategy showed diminishing returns well before 2008, but after that it broke down dramatically. But, the system not being able to reform itself, and no alternative having yet been imposed, most young people have been forced to keep relying on the olds methods of reproducing themselves, at great personal and political cost.

This is what Milburn calls, using the categories of operaismo, the 'technical composition of class'. The 'political composition of class' is a result of moments of politicisation, galvanising events. The period from late 2010 to late 2011, from the student rebellion to Occupy and the 'Arab Spring', is one such moment. A period of incipient consciousness-raising, experimentation with popular assemblies, and ultimately resounding defeat. An experience which gave rise to a series of experiments with electoral politics. This has been a harsh learning curve, with its own pedagogical defeats: Syriza, most painfully. But the effect over the long-term has been that the political indeterminacy of Occupy, has given rise to much clearer and more definitely leftist programmes for reform. It has also given rise, unevenly, to broadly leftist answers to the problem of how to translate political radicalism into the pragmatics of electoral struggle. Moreover, these programmes, whether supported by Sanders or Corbyn, have been strongly influenced by grassroots activists and movements. Sanders moved to the left on immigration, because he listened to campaigners. Labour moved left on climate, because Labour activists got organised.

The breakthrough of 2017, and the successes of the Sanders campaign in 2016, suggested that this new Left had already hegemonised the working-class youth. They could have gone anywhere, but they went Left. And they seem to have re-engaged young workers politically, well beyond the activist core. Although the British Election Study contested the idea of a 'youthquake', a major survey with a sample of 40,000 people suggests that the idea was actually correct: that there was a dramatic surge in youth turnout in 2017. Whatever view we take on that controversy, it is clear that voters under forty preferred Labour much more strongly than in previous elections. Despite the nonsense about these voters being metropolitan elites - come to Haringey, come to Tottenham, and see those metropolitan elites begging for change - they are largely people who rely on wages, not rents. If they can get wages. They don't own their homes, they are less likely to have cars, and their living standards are lower. 

What is at stake in this election, is partly whether or not these voters will defy polling expectations, defy the long slow grind of consciousness deflation, defy the Tory strategy of demoralisation through relentless confusion and lies, and vote Labour. The issue here isn't apathy or laziness. It is not the minimal effort it takes to get to the polling booth and put a cross on a bit of paper. The issue is whether we have persuaded people to take the emotional risk: to get their hopes up, even if they might be dashed. To try, knowing that hopes are nowhere near enough, but hopelessness is self-fulfilling.

Ell Smith, the leftist statistician, argues, there is some evidence of the 'youthquake' making another appearance below the surface of the polls. Obviously, this depends on how seriously you take those polls. But there are trends here. As the election goes on, young people indicate a far stronger likelihood to vote. Moreover, as we saw, registrations of new voters reached a record level, at 3.85 million. Probably about a third of those are, as in the past, duplicates, which still leaves us with 2.4 million new voters. Of those, over two thirds are under 35. That suggests a high degree of interest in the election and, if the 'generation left' thesis holds, and I think it does, it suggests that there will be a comparatively high turnout among younger voters.

However, a huge caveat is necessary here. The polls say Labour has lost ground, since 2017, among all demographics over the age of 35. In 2017, YouGov's polling suggested Labour had a lead among all voters under the age of 50. And even among older voters, it picked up significant numbers of votes: a fifth of all voters over 75 is not nothing. Losing ground with those voters is costly, because the Boomers are far more populous than the Millennials. We rightly say, trust no polls, because they are simply not fit for purpose in such a volatile political environment. But it's uncontroversial that Labour is having to fight for many of those voters, particularly in the North and West Midlands. And a big issue for many of them is Brexit. Labour has succeeded in making this election less of a Brexit contest than it would have been, but it's still important to key groups of voters. There is also the issue of how motivated Tory pensioners are to vote in this election. Again, take it with a pinch of salt, but polling suggests they're even more likely to turnout than in 2017. Perhaps some voters who were complacent about Labour back then, will be more determined to keep us out now.

We need the 'youthquake' to materialise. We need those numbers. And we need it to be bigger than in 2017. But clearly, it's not enough. It might be enough for a social movement, but it is not enough for an electoral coalition. We need cross-generational coalitions based on the shared experience of class. That's what we achieved in 2017, and what we're fighting for now._


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 8, 2019)

It's a very long way to say that generational politics is still class politics because it's a consequence of rising costs and wage stagnation


----------



## treelover (Dec 8, 2019)

[QUOTE_In itself, Milburn suggests, even this doesn't explain very much. Declining wages, eroding welfare rights, growing insecurity, can have the opposite effect of radicalising people. It can, as the acid Corbynites put it, be a form of consciousness deflation. It can so reduce expectations that people retreat to the lowest possible horizons of individual survival, and reject politics as a source of oppression. Indeed, the traditionally lower average electoral turnouts among younger voters suggests this holds. Moreover, the mere fact that the populous layer of baby boomers are more likely to own a house, a car and maybe even some savings, is itself something to be explained. _][/QUOTE]

isn't this what has happened in the U.S for a long time?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 9, 2019)

Blimey, Survation has the Tory lead up from 9% last week to 14%.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 9, 2019)

Here's another one released last night, lead up by 3%.


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Blimey, Survation has the Tory lead up from 9% last week to 14%.




Probably an odd one, but reinforces the 9 or 10 percent lead.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 9, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Probably an odd one, but reinforces the 9 or 10 percent lead.



Possibly, but they were the most accurate in the last 2 GE's, I was expecting them to show another drop, their last three polls had the lead going down - 14% > 11% > 9%.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 9, 2019)

BTW - YouGov is to release their final MRP poll at 10 pm tomorrow.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 9, 2019)




----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> BTW - YouGov is to release their final MRP poll at 10 pm tomorrow.


I was polled this morning for this (I think - the question was a little different to the standard VI question)


----------



## Flavour (Dec 9, 2019)

i know it's naive to think perhaps the polling is biased because their net tends to catch older voters and so on but survation's past record would suggest there is very serious possibility of significant tory majority.


----------



## gosub (Dec 9, 2019)

Revealed: Newly registered voters piling up outside Labour's 'red wall'


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 9, 2019)

gosub said:


> Revealed: Newly registered voters piling up outside Labour's 'red wall'


Anyone else hate the term red wall? Those places are mainly municipal labour and any one who has had to endure a Labour Council would struggle to call those councils or their politics as red.


----------



## treelover (Dec 9, 2019)

I think that is one reason it may be crumbling, anyone who has to deal with a long term labour council in the North will know how disheartening it can be, how arrogant and disinterested it can be.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 9, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Anyone else hate the term red wall? Those places are mainly municipal labour and any one who has had to endure a Labour Council would struggle to call those councils or their politics as red.



It's not a phrase I've ever heard before this election. 

It's also misleading. The cleavage between Labour and the working class has been a long run one.


----------



## gosub (Dec 9, 2019)

14m UK voters live in areas held by same party since second world war


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 9, 2019)

Yeah this red wall stuff is new to me, never heard it called that before, am probably wrong and it's a long used term but it does seem designed to be a new stick to beat labour with if it loses trad seats - the red wall has crumbled etc. Never heard of a blue wall or whatever


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2019)

killer b said:


> I was polled this morning for this (I think - the question was a little different to the standard VI question)


I think I was too.


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah this red wall stuff is new to me, never heard it called that before, am probably wrong and it's a long used term but it does seem designed to be a new stick to beat labour with if it loses trad seats - the red wall has crumbled etc. Never heard of a blue wall or whatever


It's an import from America where Clinton's 'Blue Wall' of reliably democrat-won states collapsed in places in 2016 - presumably the expectation is for a similar collapse here.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 9, 2019)

Presume it’s also a Game of Thrones reference.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 9, 2019)

ICM has the lead down 1% to just 6%, which according to Curtice is hung parliament territory, but ICM has constantly been coming up with a lower lead than the rest.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2019)

Well it was just one company that got anywhere near last time. So if there's just one company out on a limb this time, it must be right.

Science, that is.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> ICM has the lead down 1% to just 6%, which according to Curtice is hung parliament territory, but ICM has constantly been coming up with a lower lead than the rest.



That still has the LDs 4.6% above their national share of popular vote in 2017. More work needed destroying the yellow vermin.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 9, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well it was just one company that got anywhere near last time.



Two, and both of those also got it bang on in 2015 too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Two, and both of those also got it bang on in 2015 too.


Survation was one. Who was the other?


----------



## MrSki (Dec 9, 2019)

Just heard on the news that there are 30%ish undecided up from 15% last week. If this is true then there is still all to play for.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 9, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Survation was one. Who was the other?



SurveyMonkey, IIRC they are US based, so don't tend to get commissioned by  to do polls by the UK media, in both 2015 & 2017 they published just one poll, the day before the GE.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 9, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Survation was one. Who was the other?





e2a: source


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> SurveyMonkey, IIRC they are US based, so don't tend to get commissioned by the to do polls by the UK media, in both 2015 & 2017 they published just one poll, the day by the GE.


Ah ok. So the pattern is safe then. 

I'm clutching at straws a bit here, I know, and we're not quite seeing the changes we were beginning to see at this stage in 2017, but then Labour came back from even further behind in 2017.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 9, 2019)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 192418
> 
> e2a: source



That doesn't include SurveyMonkey, who do use a very large sample compared to the UK based companies.

2017 - both were in the so-called margin of error +/-2%



And, about bang on in 2015


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2019)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 192418
> 
> e2a: source


Interesting that Survation were also the only ones to get the UKIP vote anywhere near right. I'm still suspicious of the weighting process they all use and the way they downgrade the responses from certain demographics. I'm confident the result will also be closer this time than the poll average, just depends how much.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2019)

I'd clean forgotten that the polls got it wrong the other way in 2015. The hope that kills you can take many different forms.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> That doesn't include SurveyMonkey, who do use a very large sample compared to the UK based companies.
> 
> 2017 - both were in the so-called margin of error +/-2%
> 
> ...


May have got this all arse about face, but isn't SurveyMonkey some sort of self-selecting internet only type of affair? Not sure of their 'methodology'.


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2019)

brogdale said:


> May have got this all arse about face, but isn't SurveyMonkey some sort of self-selecting internet only type of affair? Not sure of their 'methodology'.


They're a site people (including market research companies) use to create online surveys - iirc they just added a political question to a load of surveys created by their users - probably a really good way of getting a decent sample tbh.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 9, 2019)

brogdale said:


> May have got this all arse about face, but isn't SurveyMonkey some sort of self-selecting internet only type of affair? Not sure of their 'methodology'.



No idea, TBH, but they can't be ignored considering their record.

Ironically both them & Survation are the new boys on the block, both having only started doing GE polling in 2015, and ended-up making a complete mockery of the others.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 9, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Interesting that Survation were also the only ones to get the UKIP vote anywhere near right. I'm still suspicious of the weighting process they all use and the way they downgrade the responses from certain demographics. I'm confident the result will also be closer this time than the poll average, just depends how much.



I think I'm right in saying that only Kantar still downgrade responses from certain demographics, and they do it in such a way that barely makes any difference. The big factor that downgraded Labour's polling in 2017 has been removed this time and the factor that exaggerated Labour's polling in 2015 (ie. sampling bias) is probably still present to one degree or another.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2019)

One thing about the '+/- error'. If these statements of possible error really were true, then nearly all the polls would fall within twice the error margins of all the others. Since they don't, the statements of possible error margin by the pollsters are demonstrably false.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2019)

Knotted said:


> I think I'm right in saying that only Kantar still downgrade responses from certain demographics, and they do it in such a way that barely makes any difference. The big factor that downgraded Labour's polling in 2017 has been removed this time and the factor that exaggerated Labour's polling in 2015 (ie. sampling bias) is probably still present to one degree or another.


Upthread there's  one poll that weights for age in a way that could lead to a very large error. Can't remember which it is, but whichever it is, its weighting could make a massive difference.


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 9, 2019)




----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 9, 2019)

^ better than I would have thought. Any previous polling to compare with?


----------



## Smangus (Dec 9, 2019)

icm 



Britain Elects@britainelects
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1204053905602166785

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 42% (-)
LAB: 36% (+1)
LDEM: 12% (-1)
BREX: 3% (-)

via @ICMResearch, 06 - 09 Dec
Chgs. w/ 02 Dec

See more polls:https://britainelects.newstatesman.com/who-leads-in-our-poll-tracker/ …


*Who leads in our poll tracker? - Britain Elects*
The Britain Elects poll tracker is a linear moving average tracker with additional weightings so as to reduce volatility and provide the most accurate representation of public opinion on key politi...

britainelects.newstatesman.co


----------



## kabbes (Dec 9, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One thing about the '+/- error'. If these statements of possible error really were true, then nearly all the polls would fall within twice the error margins of all the others. Since they don't, the statements of possible error margin by the pollsters are demonstrably false.


I think it’s probably to do with the standard error for the population drawn from not actually being the same thing as the standard error for the population as a whole, due to the conditions that would link them being violated.  In particular,  I don’t think they’re likely to be allowing for model error at all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2019)

kabbes said:


> I think it’s probably to do with the standard error for the population drawn from not actually being the same thing as the standard error for the population as a whole, due to the conditions that would link them being violated.  In particular,  I don’t think they’re likely to be allowing for model error at all.


Indeed. ie if all our assumptions are correct, the standard error is... 

And as we know, that's a whopping big If.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 9, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Upthread there's  one poll that weights for age in a way that could lead to a very large error. Can't remember which it is, but whichever it is, its weighting could make a massive difference.



It depends on what you mean by weighting for age. Using weights to correct for sample bias can make a big difference, but it is absolutely legitimate and necessary. Weighting to correct what you think is a turnout bias is much more dubious.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2019)

Knotted said:


> It depends on what you mean by weighting for age. Using weights to correct for sample bias can make a big difference, but it is absolutely legitimate and necessary. Weighting to correct what you think is a turnout bias is much more dubious.


It was both.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 9, 2019)

Blimey.


----------



## Supine (Dec 9, 2019)




----------



## Supine (Dec 9, 2019)

Oh - it's for Wales only!


----------



## brogdale (Dec 9, 2019)

Supine said:


> Oh - it's for Wales only!


Yes...37% Tory in Wales was the cause for my Blimey!


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 9, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Blimey.
> 
> View attachment 192434



I assume you mean, as in the Tories scoring so well in Wales? 

ETA: Answered whilst I was replying.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> I assume you mean, as in the Tories scoring so well in Wales?
> 
> ETA: Answered whilst I was replying.


Well...that's just fucking atrocious and doesn't bode at all well for the other "labour leave areas'.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 9, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Well...that's just fucking atrocious and doesn't bode at all well for the other "labour leave areas'.



Indeed.

I now think a hung parliament is out of the question, and I am starting to think it could end up being a lot more than a tiny majority.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I now think a hung parliament is out of the question, and I am starting to think it could end up being a lot more than a tiny majority.


Fucked.


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 9, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> ^ better than I would have thought. Any previous polling to compare with?


Yep, lots. And this one is the best one for Corbyn by far...but possibly an outlier.

Who will be the next Prime Minister? - Britain Elects


----------



## Flavour (Dec 9, 2019)

Yeah if that's accurate it's gonna be a fucking nightmare on Friday morning


----------



## Knotted (Dec 9, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It was both.



And more. Anthony Wells did a good blog post on it, which I will link to tomorrow. (On phone atm)


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 9, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Blimey.
> 
> View attachment 192434



It's a terrible poll. The only hope for it is I've been out in Cardiff North (one of the marginals Labour are set to lose according to that poll) and there's no sense on the doors that the Tories are going to retake it. Of course, if that poll is right (and in 2017 it underestimated Labour and Plaid and marginally overestimated Conservatives) and it's a non-uniform swing it's going to be a torrid night for Labour in North Wales.


----------



## Part-timah (Dec 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I now think a hung parliament is out of the question, and I am starting to think it could end up being a lot more than a tiny majority.



I would remember polls are there to manipulate opinion, not to objectively represent it.

They want to demoralise the large number of Labour activists. It’s working on those that I know. If you’re a Labour activist stick to your plan.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 9, 2019)

Part-timah said:


> I would remember polls are there to manipulate opinion, not to objectively represent it.
> 
> They want to demoralise the large number of Labour activists. It’s working on those that I know. If you’re a Labour activist stick to your plan.



What are you gibbering about, fool?


----------



## kebabking (Dec 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> What are you gibbering about, fool?



Polling companies are run by the Joooos mate, that's what our new friend is getting at.


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Polling companies are run by the Joooos mate, that's what our new friend is getting at.


This is pretty out of order.


----------



## Part-timah (Dec 9, 2019)

Could provide some basis for the accusation of anti-semitism?


----------



## kebabking (Dec 9, 2019)

killer b said:


> This is pretty out of order.



Really?

It's all conspiraloon stuff about the polling companies existing to move opinion, rather than reporting it: who do you think our friend thinks is behind that - _International finance _or whatever is today's code word for the Rothschild's?


----------



## Part-timah (Dec 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Really?
> 
> It's all conspiraloon stuff about the polling companies existing to move opinion, rather than reporting it: who do you think our friend thinks is behind that - _International finance _or whatever is today's code word for the Rothschild's?



Maybe ask rather than weirdly assume my post was based on bigotry.


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Really?
> 
> It's all conspiraloon stuff about the polling companies existing to move opinion, rather than reporting it: who do you think our friend thinks is behind that - _International finance _or whatever is today's code word for the Rothschild's?


I dunno, why don't you ask him? It's out of order to jump straight to the antisemitism though - it's mostly connections to the tory party people tend to highlight IME.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 9, 2019)

Part-timah said:


> Maybe ask rather than weirdly assume my post was based on bigotry.



Go on then, do you have any actual evidence (not four hour videos on YouTube) that polling companies seek to change opinion rather than just report it, and that they do so on behalf of shadowy groups or interests?


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2019)

FWIW I don't agree that polls exist to influence opinion, although they are certainly regularly commissioned and reported in ways that do just that, so it's an easy conclusion to jump to without being a racist.


----------



## Hollis (Dec 9, 2019)

I mean I suppose if it was the Jews behind this, why would they be trying to demoralise the LibDems as well?


----------



## kebabking (Dec 9, 2019)

Hollis said:


> I mean I suppose if it was the Jews behind this, why would they be trying to demoralise the LibDems as well?



Maybe there's a hitherto unknown Jewish-Squirrel alliance?


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2019)

Maybe you should just apologise for calling someone a racist for no reason at all.


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Blimey, Survation has the Tory lead up from 9% last week to 14%.




Aren’t Survation generally regarded as the most accurate and credible pollsters?


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2019)

Anyway, this just out from the Political Studies Association, who're currently calling a narrow Tory victory from an average of their panel's predictions:







PSA’s 2019 General Election expert survey shows half of respondents predict the Conservatives will fall short of majority | The Political Studies Association (PSA)


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2019)

...how come they're predicting 2 seats for the BxP and 2 for the Greens in one of those columns? That's not at all likely, no?


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2019)

I guess half the politics professors in the UK are finger-in-the-air wankers?


----------



## Hollis (Dec 9, 2019)

magneze said:


> It's the hope that kills.



Well on the bright side, if Labour get hammered at least we won't have to agonise over fuck-up seats where the Lab/LibDems have successfully neutralised each other - e.g. Finchley and Golders Green/Kensingon


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 9, 2019)

More flipping like it. No overall majority territory this one. Get in.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2019)

chilango said:


> ...how come they're predicting 2 seats for the BxP and 2 for the Greens in one of those columns? That's not at all likely, no?


Don't see how BP get any. Greens Brighton Pavilion plus maybe the ultra-remain bit of Bristol?


----------



## strung out (Dec 9, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't see how BP get any. Greens Brighton Pavilion plus maybe the ultra-remain bit of Bristol?


Greens aren't getting close in Bristol. My Lib Dem member aunt is voting labour in Bristol West rather than green, which proves it IMO


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 10, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> More flipping like it. No overall majority territory this one. Get in.




Despite the Tories getting a small majority on 6.6% in 2015, John Curtice says that level of lead could well result in a hung parliament this time.



Looking good for Chuka.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 10, 2019)

Here comes another from ComRes...



It shows a 1% lead increase compared to their poll conducted 2-5 Dec., but they also published another one conducted 4-5 Dec., and this one is 1% down on that one.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't see how BP get any. Greens Brighton Pavilion plus maybe the ultra-remain bit of Bristol?



loads of green posters about here (though I am in the bit with three green city councillors) but labour MP is a remainer and known for it, so think they’ll be fine (had a big majority last time round).


----------



## ska invita (Dec 10, 2019)

If you want some hope read thread:


----------



## agricola (Dec 10, 2019)

ska invita said:


> If you want some hope read thread:




a twig to cling to!


----------



## maomao (Dec 10, 2019)

ska invita said:


> If you want some hope read thread:



It really feels like they're just pulling numbers out of their arse there.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2019)

maomao said:


> It really feels like they're just pulling numbers out of their arse there.


I dunno what you're taking about, why wouldn't I trust a twitter account with 3k followers pretending to be a phone over polling companies


----------



## brogdale (Dec 10, 2019)

e2a deleted as not sure valid...will check.


----------



## killer b (Dec 10, 2019)

I bet 90% of those 3000 followers are from the past 24 hours too.


----------



## killer b (Dec 10, 2019)

brogdale said:


> YG usefully pulling out the 'scare the horses' trigger


Give over


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2019)

Yerwot?  3% lead?  And others show 13?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 10, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Yerwot?  3% lead?  And others show 13?


Apols...it was bollux.


----------



## The Boy (Dec 10, 2019)

brogdale said:


> e2a deleted as not sure valid...will check.



Edit: nm, you edited already


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2019)

I'm confused, is that yougov screenshot bollocks or not


----------



## ska invita (Dec 10, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I dunno what you're taking about, why wouldn't I trust a twitter account with 3k followers pretending to be a phone over polling companies


I didn't say it was reliable


----------



## The Boy (Dec 10, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm confused, is that yougov screenshot bollocks or not



Is was posted by a spoof Twitter account.  The legit Britain elects account has no sign of it.


----------



## killer b (Dec 10, 2019)

Britain_erects is not a reliable source of polling data


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2019)

The Boy said:


> Is was posted by a spoof Twitter account.  The legit Britain elects account has no sign of it.


Just clocked the Britain_Erects


----------



## brogdale (Dec 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> Britain_erects is not a reliable source of polling data


Sorry...tired..and Bishops.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Sorry...tired..and Bishops.


Not even tea time yet


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 10, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Just clocked the Britain_Erects



It’s providing ‘Britain Elects’ with stiff competition.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> Britain_erects is not a reliable source of polling data


Hard numbers though.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 10, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Not even tea time yet


----------



## brogdale (Dec 10, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Hard numbers though.


Oh God, now you've just reminded me of the HanCOCK semi clip that going around!


----------



## Wilf (Dec 10, 2019)

It's the smutty spoof site related hope that kills yer!


----------



## ska invita (Dec 10, 2019)

Do you want some more Twitter hope?
You know you do!  

It passes the day.....


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 10, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Do you want some more Twitter hope?
> You know you do!
> 
> It passes the day.....



Friendship ended with polling firms - now random bloke on twitter is my friend.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 10, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> Friendship ended with polling firms - now random bloke on twitter is my friend.


Theres nothing quite  like a spike on a random economics graph to make a point


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2019)

There was a financial story yesterday which might correlate.

Even as Pound Rallies, Traders Wary of Post-Election Downside, Options Show


----------



## ignatious (Dec 10, 2019)

Is there any convincing evidence that the financial markets are any more credible than the bookies as predictors of events?


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2019)

ignatious said:


> Is there any convincing evidence that the financial markets are any more credible than the bookies as predictors of events?



In this instance it sounds like they are just responding to their own uncertainty, or in this case collection of uncertainties. I wouldnt try to fish any Labour government-specific concerns out of the financial data.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 10, 2019)

Is the 2nd YG MRP out tonight?


----------



## magneze (Dec 10, 2019)

Yes


----------



## brogdale (Dec 10, 2019)

magneze said:


> Yes


10?


----------



## magneze (Dec 10, 2019)

brogdale said:


> 10?


Yes


----------



## killer b (Dec 10, 2019)

Focaldata (not sure either) have just released an MRP though if you wanted some numbers to sift through while you wait:



Focaldata MRP GE Predictions - 10.12.2019


----------



## agricola (Dec 10, 2019)

MRP from Yougov


----------



## brogdale (Dec 10, 2019)

Headline numbers:



not from Britain erects!


----------



## magneze (Dec 10, 2019)

Apparently this puts a hung parliament within the margin of error.


----------



## killer b (Dec 10, 2019)

also this:


----------



## Flavour (Dec 10, 2019)

not looking too good then. but weren't yougov quite far out in 2017?


----------



## ignatious (Dec 10, 2019)

Flavour said:


> not looking too good then. but weren't yougov quite far out in 2017?


I think their MRP was seen as the new gold standard. It’s all very depressing looking at that.


----------



## killer b (Dec 10, 2019)

Flavour said:


> not looking too good then. but weren't yougov quite far out in 2017?


Their MRP model was close then, so it's now seen as the oracle. Although other MRPs (Ashcrofts for example) were predicting handsome tory majorities. So... they may have nailed it again. Or not. We'll find out around this time Thursday.


----------



## ffsear (Dec 10, 2019)

Big reaction in GBP.   Pollsters and their mates rigging the game!


----------



## ignatious (Dec 10, 2019)

magneze said:


> Apparently this puts a hung parliament within the margin of error.


Is the margin of error 10% then?


----------



## magneze (Dec 10, 2019)

ignatious said:


> Is the margin of error 10% then?


They don't need an equal percentage for a hung parliament.

A lead of < 6% or something is enough.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 10, 2019)

magneze said:


> They don't need an equal percentage for a hung parliament.


I was going by seats, not %.


----------



## Part-timah (Dec 10, 2019)

Flavour said:


> not looking too good then. but weren't yougov quite far out in 2017?



Would this be the same YouGov set up and run by senior Conservative activists and politicians?


----------



## killer b (Dec 10, 2019)

These are the expected gains/losses


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2019)

Still all to play for really then


----------



## ffsear (Dec 10, 2019)

Conservatives set for majority but race has tightened significantly 
https://t.co/sFt3JJhlgu?amp=1


----------



## ignatious (Dec 10, 2019)

ffsear said:


> Pollsters and their mates rigging the game!


Of course they are.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 10, 2019)

Seat changes:


----------



## killer b (Dec 10, 2019)

Part-timah said:


> Would this be the same YouGov set up and run by senior Conservative activists and politicians?


Their MRP model was close last time, regardless who set them up.


----------



## magneze (Dec 10, 2019)

ignatious said:


> I was going by seats, not %.


By my very rough (and maybe wrong) calculations a drop of 3.8 % in terms of seats from 339 is hung parliament. Not 10%.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 10, 2019)

By my maths that reads 339 v 292 - majority of 47 


brogdale said:


> not from Britain erects!


Well, Britain is about to erect a massive fucking penis as PM so might as well be


----------



## killer b (Dec 10, 2019)

ska invita said:


> By my maths that reads 339 v 292 - majority of 47


Northern Ireland isn't included


----------



## ignatious (Dec 10, 2019)

magneze said:


> By my very rough (and maybe wrong) calculations a drop of 3.8 % in terms of seats from 339 is hung parliament. Not 10%.


I refer you to my previous answer.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> Northern Ireland isn't included


right ho - so take about 10 off that - 37. I reckon it'll end up nearer 30


----------



## brogdale (Dec 10, 2019)

ska invita said:


> By my maths that reads 339 v 292 - majority of 47
> 
> Well, Britain is about to erect a massive fucking penis as PM so might as well be


Simplistically = maj of 28

339 vs 311 (although there's always the Speakers & SF)


----------



## magneze (Dec 10, 2019)

ignatious said:


> I refer you to my previous answer.


*shrugs*


----------



## killer b (Dec 10, 2019)

the csv file is here if you want to look at individual constituencies

https://t.co/BueBV4DFxi?amp=1


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2019)

I've dug in and had a look at a handful of seats of personal interest.

There seem to be a lot well within the margin of error that could go different ways.

I think all outcomes from hung to clear Tory majority are still on the table depending on the day itself pans out.


----------



## strung out (Dec 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> the csv file is here if you want to look at individual constituencies
> 
> https://t.co/BueBV4DFxi?amp=1


Raab within a couple of points of losing his seat.


----------



## Hollis (Dec 10, 2019)

Blimey 2% in it at Chingford.  All the London LibDem seats aren’t looking remotely good other than Richmond Park.

Cheltenham, Guildford and Winchester the only other potentials..


----------



## ffsear (Dec 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> the csv file is here if you want to look at individual constituencies
> 
> https://t.co/BueBV4DFxi?amp=1



nice one


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Seat changes:


Absolutely fuck that


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2019)

I'm in now, the polls are lies, propaganda mate, not fucking having it


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2019)




----------



## Smangus (Dec 10, 2019)

Fuck , no idea of this shit , do I hope or despair?


----------



## Part-timah (Dec 10, 2019)

Remember the Bannon strategy was to not only to vote for Trump but to eat away at the support for the opposition. The polls were off last time and the media played dumb in the most part. It is no coincident that top tories run some of these companies.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 10, 2019)

Smangus said:


> Fuck , no idea of this shit , do I hope or despair?


hope Boris Johnson drives a JCB off a cliff tomorrow


----------



## killer b (Dec 10, 2019)

NI poll here:


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Dec 10, 2019)

Part-timah said:


> It is no coincident that top tories run some of these companies.



Conspiranoid tosh.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> NI poll here:


I've read the small print there and can't say I'm hot on NI electoral politics but haven't people pretty much universally been saying DUP would lose seats, wtf


----------



## Part-timah (Dec 10, 2019)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Conspiranoid tosh.



Would you say the same about the press?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2019)

Electoral politics, load of shit


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Dec 10, 2019)

Part-timah said:


> Would you say the same about the press?



No, but there's a vast and cavernous difference between framing stories a certain way and printing outright lies and actively rigging polling data that could be easily detected by an army of statisticians.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 10, 2019)

Most of the fieldwork took place before he stole a reporter's phone.


----------



## Hollis (Dec 10, 2019)

What’s also depressing is looking back even small majorities have ended up staying in power for 5 years.  Wilson in Oct 74 with 3, Major in 92 had 21.


----------



## killer b (Dec 10, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I've read the small print there and can't say I'm hot on NI electoral politics but haven't people pretty much universally been saying DUP would lose seats, wtf


it has them losing one seat, but gaining the seat vacated by Sylvia Hermon, then another close.


----------



## Part-timah (Dec 10, 2019)

Doctor Carrot said:


> No, but there's a vast and cavernous difference between framing stories a certain way and printing outright lies and actively rigging polling data that could be easily detected by an army of statisticians.



They are both propaganda weapons. There is no great fiendish conspiracy of fleets of pollsters fiddling data. All it takes is choosing a methodology that is helpful to your message.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 10, 2019)

A gross oversimplification: Graphs show Brexit party Leave voters increasingly going to the tories, libdems increasingly tactically voting labour for second referendum? If so, Brexit voters nearly down to zero now so not many more to go. With the election Thursday it looks like there's just not enough time to go, unless there's a tactical surge on the day from Lib Dem. 

I live in hope which is what kills you


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Dec 10, 2019)

Part-timah said:


> They are both propaganda weapons. There is no great fiendish conspiracy of fleets of pollsters fiddling data. All it takes is choosing a methodology that is helpful to your message.



Not really in their interest to do that, as a polling outfit anyway. Papers are one thing because they know the base they're selling to and their readership know what they're going to get. Predicting an election among other polls about general social issues and the like is a different kettle of fish. You're after hard data and your balance sheet depends on that data being accurate. If it's consistently unreliable you're toast as a business. Many polling companies have been called into question since their failures to predict accurately the last three major votes. 

I get what you're saying but I think it's a bit of a red herring and not really interesting to pursue. Even if it is as big an issue you think it is you can just pick and choose your polling companies like you do with your media sources and make your own judgment.


----------



## brixtonblade (Dec 10, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Seat changes:



Theresa Villiers.  I'd laugh my arse off.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 10, 2019)

polling companies don't make money on election forecasting - its more about exposure. they absolutely want to be as accurate as possible so as to enhance their reputation and get the lucrative market research work. They are businesses - they want to make money - the idea that they would deliberately put out inaccurate polls so as to somehow influence the result (and how does that work anyway?) is  bollocks.


----------



## treelover (Dec 10, 2019)

Is that showing Don Valley, the former home of Coal and Steel, going to the Tories, 

tho Flint is a Tory in many ways.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 10, 2019)

How many of these current  Con gain seats  voted fairly strongly (higher 50s % or more) to Leave? The ones ive checked all seem to have. And ultimately thats most likely the decisive factor in the election. Getting Brexit Done. No children sleeping on hospital floors is going to change that.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 10, 2019)

ska invita said:


> How many of these current  Con gain seats  voted fairly strongly (higher 50s % or more) to Leave? The ones ive checked all seem to have. And ultimately thats most likely the decisive factor in the election. Getting Brexit Done. No children sleeping on hospital floors is going to change that.



War of Jennifer's Ear


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Dec 10, 2019)

I've resigned myself to this shit now, but as I've put a holiday in for Friday, I shall stay up watching anyway and take whatever pleasure I can get from it. After last time, I'd've liked to have seen Amber Rudd removed in a more traditional manner (I'm actually dreamily remembering Littlefinger pleading to the Lord Royce after Sansa's ascendance) but I'll settle for Raab, Villiers and other known cunts checking their career options on the public stage


----------



## Raheem (Dec 11, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> They are businesses - they want to make money - the idea that they would deliberately put out inaccurate polls so as to somehow influence the result (and how does that work anyway?) is  bollocks.



Totally. But there's an alternative ray of hope. Election forecasting has become more complicated, and it's not really possible to be perfectly objective about it. For example, predicting demographic turnout in a context  where it may be volatile has to come down to what feels right and seems to make sense, to some extent. So there is plenty of room for bias and groupthink, and pollsters' biases could turn out to be predictably pro-Tory.

I personally have a hunch that this is going on, although I have no idea how much it might actually be skewing the polls.

In any event, given the last ten years, I don't see why everyone is looking at the polls and thinking 'well, that's that then'.


----------



## Part-timah (Dec 11, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> polling companies don't make money on election forecasting - its more about exposure. they absolutely want to be as accurate as possible so as to enhance their reputation and get the lucrative market research work. They are businesses - they want to make money - the idea that they would deliberately put out inaccurate polls so as to somehow influence the result (and how does that work anyway?) is  bollocks.



You could say the same about the press.

You’d be naive not to question the scientific objectivity of these tory polls. Let’s see the results and compare it with this poll.


----------



## Ground Elder (Dec 11, 2019)

Part-timah said:


> You could say the same about the press.


No you couldn't.


----------



## N_igma (Dec 11, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I've read the small print there and can't say I'm hot on NI electoral politics but haven't people pretty much universally been saying DUP would lose seats, wtf



In Britain you have Johnson and ‘Let’s get Brexit done’

Here we have Arlene and ‘we must secure the Union’ 

This has been one of the most ugliest elections ever here, paramilitaries and all have been involved in acts of intimidation. The DUP know that they can rely on getting the vote out when they use scare tactics. 

The silver lining though is that their base vote are people of an increasingly older, more loyalist in persuasion generation. In 10-15 years time (that’s if a United Ireland hasn’t already happened), you can bet their return of MPs will be down to 4-6.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 11, 2019)

N_igma said:


> 10-15 years time (that’s if a United Ireland hasn’t already happened), you can bet their return of MPs will be down to 4-6.


Good luck with that logic, seriously, but it didn't work on the mainland with thatcherism.


----------



## N_igma (Dec 11, 2019)

Raheem said:


> Good luck with that logic, seriously, but it didn't work on the mainland with thatcherism.



N.Ireland is completely different kettle of fish to Great Britain. It’s demographics mate. The Protestant population is going down here and is projected to keep going that way. Very few non-Protestants vote for the DUP so I’m pretty sure you’ll see their vote go down over the next few elections.

Unless, of course, they manage to gerrymander constituency boundaries but they’d never do that here would they?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 11, 2019)

Part-timah said:


> They are both propaganda weapons. There is no great fiendish conspiracy of fleets of pollsters fiddling data. All it takes is choosing a methodology that is helpful to your message.



In what way are you suggesting they are being helpful to the Tories? Do you mean they over estimate or under estimate the lead, because surely it can't be both?

Yet, in 2015 most polling companies under estimated the lead, and in 2017 over estimated it, perhaps you can enlighten us to what was going on in these two GEs?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 11, 2019)

Labour gains: Putney and Barnet.

I can’t wait for tomorrow to be over so I can get back to hating Labour


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Labour gains: Putney and Barnet.
> 
> I can’t wait for tomorrow to be over so I can get back to hating Labour


It's always very easy to hate Labour, I just look at what they've done to Hackney, Haringey, Camden and Islington, I see it every day


----------



## chilango (Dec 11, 2019)

There's no conspiracy to falsify or manipulate opinion polls at the behest of the Conservatives.

...but data doesn't exist in a vacuum.

In the case of opinion polling, it's not (necessarily) the data itself that reflects the interests of the status quo, but its framing and interpretation.

So we can, and must, contest the role of opinion polls of leading pre-election agendas.

We can, and do, challenge how the data presented is interpreted. Both in terms of what this means for results but - crucially - resist the push to insert an "anti-Left" narrative and the crude stereotyping of the w/c that we are seeing so often in the commentary drawing from the polls.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 11, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> It's always very easy to hate Labour, I just look at what they've done to Hackney, Haringey, Camden and Islington, I see it every day



i fucking despise them. I live under the rule of Birmingham City Council. I’m trying to suck it up until 10 tomorrow (and failing)


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> i fucking despise them. I live under the rule of Birmingham City Council. I’m trying to suck it up until 10 tomorrow (and failing)


On a local level they're probably worse than tories, certainly Labour councils put more effort into pursuing people for non-payment of poll tax than tory ones and Labour councils seem to put more effort into gentrification than councils of other political hues


----------



## killer b (Dec 11, 2019)

chilango said:


> There's no conspiracy to falsify or manipulate opinion polls at the behest of the Conservatives.
> 
> ...but data doesn't exist in a vacuum.
> 
> ...


The polls being out last time fucked the Tories more than it did Labour: they spent millions on ads in areas they turned out not being competitive in, all their resources were focused on seats they had no chance of winning. 

On the other side, Labour's campaign was mostly a defensive one, pouring resources into former marginals which turned into fairly safe seats. This time round Labour have been on the offensive despite the polling: I've already seen some complaints about a lack of campaigners in heartland seats which the various MRPs have suggested are now at risk - depending what happens on Thursday this offensive campaign will be in the history books as either the worst directed campaign ever or a work of tactical genius...


----------



## flypanam (Dec 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> NI poll here:




Interesting that Maguire thinks it possible that the DUP could lose 3 seats (down to seven) SF could win 8 (which would mean retaining Foyle and gaining N. Belfast which is significant and ties in to what N_igma says up thread), while the SDLP could win one (S. Belfast) and Alliance could gain two.

Everything is all over the shop, like in the UK.

eta the Belfast telegraph thinks it possible that the DUP could lose South Antrim to the UUP.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> The polls being out last time fucked the Tories more than it did Labour: they spent millions on ads in areas they turned out not being competitive in, all their resources were focused on seats they had no chance of winning.
> 
> On the other side, Labour's campaign was mostly a defensive one, pouring resources into former marginals which turned into fairly safe seats. This time round Labour have been on the offensive despite the polling: I've already seen some complaints about a lack of campaigners in heartland seats which the various MRPs have suggested are now at risk - depending what happens on Thursday this offensive campaign will be in the history books as either the worst directed campaign ever or a work of tactical genius...


or perhaps both: it being on a strategic level it would have foundered.


----------



## killer b (Dec 11, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> or perhaps both: it being on a strategic level it would have foundered.


fair - I think the ground campaign relied on the air war moving the polls more than they (appear to) have done.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> fair - I think the ground campaign relied on the air war moving the polls more than they (appear to) have done.


i look forward to examining the corpse.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 11, 2019)

I've just checked the Yougov MRP predication for Jo Swinson's East Dunbartonshire seat, LDs & SNP are both on 37%. 

She lost it in 2015, only to regain it in 2017, how exciting.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 11, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> I've just checked the Yougov MRP predication for Jo Swinson's East Dunbartonshire seat, LDs & SNP are both on 37%.
> 
> She lost it in 2015, only to regain it in 2017, how exciting.



She probably only needs one final TV appearance today to lose it.


----------



## killer b (Dec 11, 2019)

Umuna is 13 points out on the MRP, and Berger even further - 21. tragic.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 11, 2019)

First poll to report today...



...should be around 5 to 6 to come.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 11, 2019)

This bloke does some intersting stuff .
*Filipe Henriques*


----------



## Flavour (Dec 11, 2019)

the LDs will 100% definitely do a coalition with the tories rather than labour though, there is no remain alliance.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 11, 2019)

Flavour said:


> the LDs will 100% definitely do a coalition with the tories rather than labour though, there is no remain alliance.


The Lib Dems are a bunch of stupid liars who think they're heroes - but would they be stupid enough to deal with the Tories after all this?


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 11, 2019)

I suppose the Lib Dems might go to Boris and say "our support for a new BJ govt. in return for a new referendum", but they wouldn't think to attach strings like "no foreign money to either side in the new campaign". Actually, that's what will happen isn't it? Because we live in hell.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 11, 2019)

Flavour said:


> the LDs will 100% definitely do a coalition with the tories rather than labour though, there is no remain alliance.


100 % will they ?  Tories and Lib Dems on opposite sides re Brexit, Johnson has purged the 'one nation' Tories etc , I'm not sure about 100% tbh


----------



## Flavour (Dec 11, 2019)

would the lib dems fuck themselves massively by promising a shit load of stuff and then going back on it all and getting into bed with the tories, while promising their voters that they will temper the tories and somehow realign the governments vision in a more yellow direction?

yes


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> The Lib Dems are a bunch of stupid liars who think they're heroes - but would they be stupid enough to deal with the Tories after all this?


I've no idea, but history teaches us that no level of duplicity and cuntishness is beneath them. 

Also, if Johnson fails to get a majority, that will be seen by the tories as a failure. Their Golden Boy with the supposed electoral gold dust sprinkled over him will have fallen. No better than May, ffs. The recriminations will start straight away. In such a circumstance, I'm not sure how secure Johnson would be in his position. Libdums then do a deal with whoever replaces Johnson as some kind of 'emergency' leader, acting in 'the national interest'. 

With a hung parliament in which Labour can't form a majority (or working minority) with the help of the SNP etc, I think all bets are off really. Anything could happen.


----------



## killer b (Dec 11, 2019)

I think memory of the 2015 wipeout would prevent the Lib Dems doing a full lash up with the tories. They aren't that turned on by ministerial cars.


----------



## flypanam (Dec 11, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> The Lib Dems are a bunch of stupid liars who think they're heroes - but would they be stupid enough to deal with the Tories after all this?



The history of Irish Labour since '92 is a good indication for an answer.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 11, 2019)

flypanam said:


> The history of Irish Labour since '92 is a good indication for an answer.


You bastard, I'd been trying to forget that one.

Actually, as this is a thread about polling - in the run up to the 2011 election at home I did some market research work on voting intentions in that one. I met a lot of people who were unemployed for the first time in their lives and who were beside themselves with rage, and all adamant they would vote Irish Labour. I wonder how they felt a little later on?


----------



## chilango (Dec 11, 2019)

_Of course_ the LibDems would jump at the chance of propping up a Tory government.

Getting that chance alone would be proof enough for them that 2010 has been gotten over.

The Tories might need to chuck 'em another referendum. But they'd do so certain the knowledge that the LibDems would lose it.

A more difficult question is whether they could be tempted into some sort of "Rainbow Alliance" with Labour and the Mats.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 11, 2019)

The Lib Dems would never go into alliance with the Tories for the sake of getting a referendum that they will definitely go on to lose.  Never.


----------



## strung out (Dec 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> I think memory of the 2015 wipeout would prevent the Lib Dems doing a full lash up with the tories. They aren't that turned on by ministerial cars.


There aren't that many Lib Dems left to lose their seats though. They already dropped from 57 to 8 in 2015, and excluding defectors are only back to 13. Could they get wiped out into irrelevancy much more than they are already?


----------



## kabbes (Dec 11, 2019)

strung out said:


> There aren't that many Lib Dems left to lose their seats though. They already dropped from 57 to 8 in 2015, and excluding defectors are only back to 13. Could they get wiped out into irrelevancy much more than they are already?


Oh, yes.  Definitely yes.


----------



## Flavour (Dec 11, 2019)

100% yes the lib dems would take tory coalition in return for 2nd ref, but tbh i think johnson would welcome the opportunity to blame someone else for brexit not happening - he's gonna be a bit fucked if he has a majority and gets his deal passed and then can't any trade deal by december 2020 and we move the goalposts to extending the transition period


----------



## kabbes (Dec 11, 2019)

All the resources the Lib Dems have thrown at my constituency and the YouGov MRP is still saying their 1-in-20 best outcome is to lose 45-41 to the Tories


----------



## not-bono-ever (Dec 11, 2019)

Re trade deal : Given that the WTO looks to be in a moribund stasis with its adjudication court suspended, possibly for good, there is little to fall back on for the hard brexit chummies. The U.K. is over a barrel if anyone wants to chuck their trading weight around .


----------



## Wilf (Dec 11, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> First poll to report today...
> 
> 
> 
> ...should be around 5 to 6 to come.



I thought there was some kind of poll purdah around the last 24 hours of the campaign, whether by legislation or 'gentleman's agreement'? Suppose I could go and check, but has that changed now? Or was it just no polls on polling day itself?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 11, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I thought there was some kind of poll purdah around the last 24 hours of the campaign, whether by legislation or 'gentleman's agreement'? Suppose I could go and check, but has that changed now? Or was it just no polls on polling day itself?



No, there's always polls released the day before polling, for tomorrow's papers, although broadcasters are unable to report or comment on them beyond mid-night tonight.

There was about 9 polls, completed on the 7th June 2017, released before the GE on the 8th.

Opinion polling for the 2017 United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia

ETA - the only poll on the day, is the exit poll, which is released to the broadcasters after the polling stations are closed.


----------



## killer b (Dec 11, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I thought there was some kind of poll purdah around the last 24 hours of the campaign, whether by legislation or 'gentleman's agreement'? Suppose I could go and check, but has that changed now? Or was it just no polls on polling day itself?


just no polls on polling day


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> just no polls on polling day



There's nothing to stop polling on the day, hence the exit poll, but it would be pointless for any other polls, as they couldn't be reported by broadcasters until the exit poll is released anyway.


----------



## Hollis (Dec 11, 2019)

Likelihood of LibDem deal with the Tories is remote...  first option would be a Peoples Vote alliance, and I wonder if electoral reform would be an issue again.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Dec 11, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> I suppose the Lib Dems might go to Boris and say "our support for a new BJ govt. in return for a new referendum", but they wouldn't think to attach strings like "no foreign money to either side in the new campaign". Actually, that's what will happen isn't it? Because we live in hell.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 11, 2019)

The yellow vermin told us exactly what deals they want to strike 3 weeks ago:


----------



## Part-timah (Dec 11, 2019)

Looks like Momentum recognise the propaganda potential of polling


----------



## killer b (Dec 11, 2019)

that's totally made up though.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 11, 2019)

2nd poll released today...



...many more to come.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 11, 2019)

More good Twitter poll news
London aquarium’s gender-neutral penguin just predicted Jeremy Corbyn will win the election


----------



## ska invita (Dec 11, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> 2nd poll released today...
> 
> 
> 
> ...many more to come.



I think the polls are where they are...it's all about turnout and tactical voting now


----------



## chilango (Dec 11, 2019)

ska invita said:


> I think the polls are where they are...it's all about turnout and tactical voting now



Yeah.

I don't think they're too far out as far as the National share goes. But then only a little bit out might make a big difference.

Plus, locally, small margins on so many seats means that the National share isn't the greatest predictor of seat share.


----------



## Part-timah (Dec 11, 2019)




----------



## Gerry1time (Dec 11, 2019)

Part-timah said:


> Looks like Momentum recognise the propaganda potential of polling



That's how the Lib Dems used to fund their by election campaigns. Spot a by election where they didn't look like they had a chance. Drop a ton of cash on them winning it at the bookies. Watch themselves become the "bookies' favourite". Put that 'fact' repeatedly on election leaflets throughout the campaign. Win the campaign as a result. Bank a load of cash to help pay off the campaign. I understand others have applied the same approach since too, with some degrees of success.


----------



## killer b (Dec 11, 2019)

Gerry1time said:


> That's how the Lib Dems used to fund their by election campaigns. Spot a by election where they didn't look like they had a chance. Drop a ton of cash on them winning it at the bookies. Watch themselves become the "bookies' favourite". Put that 'fact' repeatedly on election leaflets throughout the campaign. Win the campaign as a result. Bank a load of cash to help pay off the campaign. I understand others have applied the same approach since too, with some degrees of success.


Name one campaign this happened in.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 11, 2019)

I heard the Lib Dems used to get their money by advertising dildos, massive ones, latest and greatest, six different functions, right, cheques payable to something discreet like Paddy's Parts or whatever, but then when sent any money they would return it saying 'out of stock' and _that_ cheque would be written in the name, '_The Liberal Democrats'_


----------



## killer b (Dec 11, 2019)

Comres is my new best friend.


----------



## prunus (Dec 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> Comres is my new best friend.




For the Telegraph. This to ensure that the Tory vote gets out.


----------



## killer b (Dec 11, 2019)

oh god shut up.


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 11, 2019)

I find it hard to believe that there are any Telegraph readers who haven't already postal voted, because I find it hard to believe that there are any readers under 70.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 11, 2019)

Part-timah said:


>



Everyone knows that the PV agents don't just watch the envelope opening...and there's a role for those with photographic memories & counting systems...but everyone ought to know that blabbing about the data they've gathered in the week before polling day is totally wrong & breaches electoral law.


----------



## Hollis (Dec 11, 2019)

Email from Labour suggesting I go out tomorrow in Finchley and Golders Green:

"Heading out to a key seat will make the biggest difference tomorrow."

That MRP poll shows them in 3rd on 23:

Finchley and Golders Green 49 23 28


----------



## ska invita (Dec 11, 2019)

Hollis said:


> Email from Labour suggesting I go out tomorrow in Finchley and Golders Green:
> 
> "Heading out to a key seat will make the biggest difference tomorrow."
> 
> ...


a friend has been canvassing out there - she's got burned hard.


----------



## killer b (Dec 11, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Everyone knows that the PV agents don't just watch the envelope opening...and there's a role for those with photographic memories & counting systems...but everyone ought to know that blabbing about the data they've gathered in the week before polling day is totally wrong & breaches electoral law.


this article from the other day is good (I've only just read it and it contradicts some of my earlier definitive posts on the topic  ): Go postal | Lewis Baston | The Critic Magazine


----------



## ignatious (Dec 11, 2019)

Hollis said:


> Email from Labour suggesting I go out tomorrow in Finchley and Golders Green:
> 
> "Heading out to a key seat will make the biggest difference tomorrow."
> 
> ...


I very much doubt they see Finchley and Golders Green as a ‘key seat’. I think they probably mean ‘don’t waste your time canvassing locally because it’s a lost cause, go and get involved somewhere else’.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> this article from the other day is good (I've only just read it and it contradicts some of my earlier definitive posts on the topic  ): Go postal | Lewis Baston | The Critic Magazine


It happens...if local parties have people smart enough to develop their own counting/recording systems.


----------



## killer b (Dec 11, 2019)

You dont actually need to see that many voting slips to get an decent sample tbh. I did some counting over the shoulders of the tellers at a count for a council election last year and predicted a win in two seats we weren't expecting to win, correctly.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> You dont actually need to see that many voting slips to get an decent sample tbh. I did some counting over the shoulders of the tellers at a count for a council election last year and predicted a win in two seats we weren't expecting to win, correctly.


PV verification?


----------



## killer b (Dec 11, 2019)

No just the normal count. They were in the process of changing the boundaries and it was useful to know where the vote was within each ward. I added them all up at the end and predicted the two wins within a few % an hour before they announced


----------



## brogdale (Dec 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> No just the normal count. They were in the process of changing the boundaries and it was useful to know where the vote was within each ward. I added them all up at the end and predicted the two wins within a few % an hour before they announced


Yeah; done plenty of count sampling in my time. As with any sampling, the bigger the better tbh.
The PV verification ‘sampling’ is a whole different level though..they have to do it covertly with no means of immediately recording what they’re counting. To be done effectively enough to allow agents to extrapolate predicted outcomes requires a great deal of concentration and ability to memorise. Not many activists can do it well tbh.

E2a: also depends on EROs; some are more realistic about what’s going on than others.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 12, 2019)

Round-up of all of the polls that were published yesterday...


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 12, 2019)

That 6% Tory lead one from Comres looks like a complete outlier, sadly


----------



## Supine (Dec 12, 2019)

And so it begins. The BIG poll opens at 7am


----------



## kabbes (Dec 12, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Round-up of all of the polls that were published yesterday...
> 
> View attachment 192693


Strong consensus around 10%.  Now let’s see what reality is...


----------



## bimble (Dec 12, 2019)

How does a percentage lead translate into seats or does it just not work that way ? Found this but no idea if it's a nonsense. Hope it is.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 12, 2019)

bimble said:


> How does a percentage lead translate into seats or does it just not work that way ? Found this but no idea if it's a nonsense. Hope it is.



Not a great track record TBH. 

2017 -


> The headline prediction for the June 2017 election was not accurate. The final prediction was for a Conservative majority government with a majority of 66. The actual result was that the Conservatives were short eight seats of a majority.
> Track Record: 2017 Errors



2015 -


> The headline prediction for the May 2015 election was not accurate. The final prediction was for a hung parliament with Labour/SNP as the largest bloc. The actual result was a small Conservative majority.
> Track Record: 2015 Errors


----------



## bimble (Dec 12, 2019)

good! Massive errors in seats not so much in percentages so presumably it's hard to predict seats from uk wide polls.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 12, 2019)

bimble said:


> good! Massive errors in seats not so much in percentages so presumably it's hard to predict seats from uk wide polls.



The YouGov MRP poll/survey was fairly accurate in 2017, IIRC the first time MRP was used, calling a hung Parliament, despite their last 'normal' poll having the Tories on a 7% lead, compared to the 2.5% achieved.

Their MRP released on Tuesday gave the Tories a 28 seat majority and a 9% lead, the model is based on a massive sample, over 100k compared to the usual 1-2k, and mapped to each seat.


----------



## Supine (Dec 12, 2019)

Interesting read now the polls have stopped

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/12/the-largest-vote-swings-in-british-general-election-history-censored-out-by-the-bbc-and-mainstream-media


----------



## rekil (Dec 12, 2019)

How many times must it be pointed out that Craig Murray is a loon, part of the crankosphere that needs to be persecuted and destroyed with extreme predge.


----------



## Poi E (Dec 12, 2019)

copliker said:


> How many times must it be pointed out that Craig Murray is a loon, part of the crankosphere that needs to be persecuted and destroyed with extreme predge.



How does that distinguish him from the bulk of media in the UK?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 12, 2019)

Poi E said:


> How does that distinguish him from the bulk of media in the UK?


The bulk of the media in the UK is a product of its environment and the class and culture from which they come. Whereas Craig Murray is a crank conspiracist assadist dickhead


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 12, 2019)

Fuck Craig Murray.  Seriously fuck him and David Icke and Vanessa Beeley.


----------



## chilango (Dec 12, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Fuck Craig Murray.  Seriously fuck him and David Icke and Vanessa Beeley.



*This*. ^


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 12, 2019)

Another poll just published, for today's Evening standard.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 12, 2019)

Consistently about 10%.  That’s the final answer for polling.  I’m fascinated to see how accurate they’re going to be this time.


----------



## Santino (Dec 12, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Consistently about 10%.  That’s the final answer for polling.  I’m fascinated to see how accurate they’re going to be this time.


Fascinated in the same way that a man who has just jumped out of a plane would be fascinated to find out whether his parachute will work?


----------



## kabbes (Dec 12, 2019)

Santino said:


> Fascinated in the same way that a man who has just jumped out of a plane would be fascinated to find out whether his parachute will work?


It’s a good analogy.  It always helps to avoid panic to view things as a detached observer...


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2019)

I was planning on switching it all off for a bit if it all goes wrong tbh


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 12, 2019)

killer b said:


> I was planning on switching it all off for a bit if it all goes wrong tbh



Yep. Bedtime tonight may be around 3am or 10.30pm.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 12, 2019)

Think I’m just going to go to bed around 9:30 with the expectation of waking up disappointed. Tory lead of 80-odd. Core labour vote outside of youthful cities stays in because of rain and Corbyn. Leave voice wants to be heard again.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 12, 2019)

I will base my watching decision on the historically reliable exit poll.  I’m not staying up to watch a heavy Tory victory.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Dec 12, 2019)

I am taking some heavy meds later and will awake refreshed at dawn in a socialist workers state.


----------



## JimW (Dec 12, 2019)

I'm off to dig up the cache and take to the heather.


----------



## chilango (Dec 12, 2019)

I'll probably be in the pub when the exit poll comes out. That'll determine whether I go straight to bed when I get home or not...


----------



## wtfftw (Dec 12, 2019)

I'll be drinking and making decisions based on that.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 12, 2019)

I have band practice this evening until after polls close. I’ll see how tired I am, but I’ll probably be all caffeinated and buzzy from _rawk_, so I imagine I’ll watch quite late.


----------



## 8115 (Dec 12, 2019)

I'll watch the exit polls and then probably stay up until about 12, I do this every year, think I'm going to stay up for ages but get tired and fall asleep. Even in 97, I had the radio on when I fell asleep, woke up to a massive cheer (Portillo).


----------



## JimW (Dec 12, 2019)

It'll be daytime here so I can check my phone on the way to take stuff to my babber in the hospital.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 12, 2019)

JimW said:


> It'll be daytime here so I can check my phone on the way to take stuff to my babber in the hospital.


What news is this?


----------



## JimW (Dec 12, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> What news is this?


Massive baby boy, born day before yesterday!


----------



## JimW (Dec 12, 2019)

Terrible timing as usual


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 12, 2019)

JimW said:


> Massive baby boy, born day before yesterday!


Congratulations! Ouch at the massive bit though!

That’s happy news. All the best to you and your family.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 12, 2019)

if I'm not amused at the sight of random tories unable to speak due to being scared shitless by midnight, I'll be off to bed.


----------



## JimW (Dec 12, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Congratulations! Ouch at the massive bit though!
> ...


4.79 kilos! I've bored everyone on the Sofa thread so will say no more.


----------



## maomao (Dec 12, 2019)

JimW said:


> Massive baby boy, born day before yesterday!


恭喜！恭喜！希望妈妈和宝宝都好


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 12, 2019)

JimW said:


> 4.79 kilos! I've bored everyone on the Sofa thread so will say no more.



Christ on a bike that’s a whopper. Congrats.


----------



## polly (Dec 12, 2019)

JimW said:


> 4.79 kilos! I've bored everyone on the Sofa thread so will say no more.



No you haven't! I was just wondering how you were all doing earlier today.


----------



## chilango (Dec 12, 2019)

JimW said:


> Massive baby boy, born day before yesterday!



Congratulations!


----------



## kabbes (Dec 12, 2019)

4.79kg?  That’s nothing, I was seven and a half pounds — almost three whole numbers bigger.


----------



## JimW (Dec 12, 2019)

One historical/political thing that was really interesting about was being sat waiting outside the delivery room in the wee smalls chatting/listening to the security guard and a gran discussing how the family planning policy was enforced when they were young.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 12, 2019)

Jim, I will be very disappointed if your boy’s name doesn’t form some kind of pun.


----------



## JimW (Dec 12, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Jim, I will be very disappointed if your boy’s name doesn’t form some kind of pun.


Both his grandads in English, a bit more word play in Chinese but in a smarty pants lit way.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 12, 2019)

Congrats Jim! Great news


----------



## teuchter (Dec 12, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Another poll just published, for today's Evening standard.



I thought no-one was allowed to publish polls today.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 12, 2019)

JimW said:


> 4.79 kilos! I've bored everyone on the Sofa thread so will say no more.


What's that in old money?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 12, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I thought no-one was allowed to publish polls today.



The broadcasters can not even mention any of yesterday's polls today.

Newspapers can publish polls completed yesterday.

No media is allowed to publish any polls done today, until after 10pm, hence there's only the exit poll.


----------



## JimW (Dec 12, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> What's that in old money?


More that nine Chinese _jin _or ten of your imperialist pounds


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 12, 2019)

JimW said:


> Massive baby boy, born day before yesterday!


Congrats Jim!


----------



## Part-timah (Dec 12, 2019)

Lets hope i’m right about the fucking polls.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 12, 2019)

Part-timah said:


> Lets hope i’m right about the fucking polls.





Not heard the exit poll result?


----------



## Part-timah (Dec 12, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Not heard the exit poll result?



Yes and I’m optimistically including that in the brassneck predictions.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 12, 2019)

Part-timah said:


> Yes and I’m optimistically including that in the brassneck predictions.



Well you're an idiot.


----------



## Part-timah (Dec 12, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Well you're an idiot.



Solidarity comrade!


----------



## ska invita (Dec 13, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> What's that in old money?





ska invita said:


> How many of these current  Con gain seats  voted fairly strongly (higher 50s % or more) to Leave? The ones ive checked all seem to have. And ultimately thats most likely the decisive factor in the election. Getting Brexit Done. No children sleeping on hospital floors is going to change that.


Just showed a map...all the seats they've lost are Leave seats. Simple as that


----------



## kabbes (Dec 13, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Round-up of all of the polls that were published yesterday...
> 
> View attachment 192693


Take out the 5% outlier and these final polls (plus another later one with a lead of 11) showed leads of 9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12 for an average of 10.5%.  The actual lead was 11.2%, IIRC.  So in this occasion, you’d have to say the pollsters got it right.

And hopefully we can now put to bed all this nonsense about what unweighted polls show.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 14, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Think I’m just going to go to bed around 9:30 with the expectation of waking up disappointed. Tory lead of 80-odd. Core labour vote outside of youthful cities stays in because of rain and Corbyn. Leave voice wants to be heard again.



People who smuggly repost their correct predictions to prove they’re some sort of fucking Nostradamus are mostly attention-seeking twats, aren’t they?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

It's ok people like me who got got burnt from 2015 onward say we expected stuff. Didn't mention it.

I did have a 70 maj, gen


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 14, 2019)

(Tbh My original post was a bit of expectations management, I was supposed to be relieved at waking up and not finding it quite that bad)


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 11, 2020)

And to think, some people on here a few months ago were predicting that clever remain games would be the end of the Tory Party who would split and be locked out of power forever..


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 11, 2020)

I know polling outside of election periods is meaningless but seeing the tories on 50% is more depressing than the corona. What a shit year.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 11, 2020)

Still, only way is down I suppose


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Still, only way is down I suppose


Yes, psephologically....thinnnngggggs...can only get worser!


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 12, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Yes, psephologically....thinnnngggggs...can only get worser!



I know you take the piss there  but I genuinely doubt that 

The Tories will almost certainly go up even a bit more (and probably for a while as well  ) after a good-_*looking *_Budget, but the only way for those in charge to go longer-term, is surely *down* ......

Eventually


----------



## teuchter (Mar 12, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> And to think, some people on here a few months ago were predicting that clever remain games would be the end of the Tory Party who would split and be locked out of power forever..


I thought it was the lexiteers who were predicting this.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 11, 2020)




----------



## brogdale (Apr 11, 2020)

Punters not going for the "_Do you think that's terribly wise, Sir?" _approach, then?


----------



## ska invita (Apr 11, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Punters not going for the "_Do you think that's terribly wise, Sir?" _approach, then?


Or that's the Starmer bounce kicked in


----------



## Labourite (Apr 13, 2020)

Beats me what people are seeing in the Tories that I don't!

Depressing reading indeed that poll.


----------



## chilango (Apr 13, 2020)

Labourite said:


> Beats me what people are seeing in the Tories that I don't!
> 
> Depressing reading indeed that poll.



Or that people aren't seeing anything in Labour to change the numbers?


----------



## killer b (Apr 13, 2020)

just ignore the polls atm, they don't really mean anything while there's an ongoing existential omni-crisis.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 13, 2020)

chilango said:


> Or that people aren't seeing anything in Labour to change the numbers?


Or indeed taking Starmer's lead in supporting the government?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2020)

chilango said:


> Or that people aren't seeing anything in Labour to change the numbers?


I’m exactly as likely to vote Labour as before.


----------



## Labourite (Apr 13, 2020)

chilango said:


> Or that people aren't seeing anything in Labour to change the numbers?


Yeah true, would like to see Labour come out and challenge the government more on their handling of the coronavirus.


----------



## two sheds (Apr 13, 2020)

They've got to defend the NHS and nurses and protest lack of PPE if nothing else   Fucking insane.


----------



## brogdale (May 1, 2020)

More evidence of the Starmer 'bounce'/centrist 'honeymoon':


----------



## platinumsage (May 1, 2020)

Not sure polling is relevant atm. The question "how would you vote in a general election held tomorrow?" is currently absurd.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 1, 2020)

Labourite said:


> Yeah true, would like to see Labour come out and challenge the government more on their handling of the coronavirus.



Its nice to have hopes and dreams I suppose


----------



## redsquirrel (May 1, 2020)

LDs below 10% again - excellent.


----------



## brogdale (May 1, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Not sure polling is relevant atm. The question "how would you vote in a general election held tomorrow?" is currently absurd.


And yet the parties will be commissioning plenty.

Here's the 'leadership' findings from that poll; looks like Starmer has made little impact on a fair chunk of the electorate:


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 1, 2020)

brogdale said:


> And yet the parties will be commissioning plenty.
> 
> Here's the 'leadership' findings from that poll; looks like Starmer has made little impact on a fair chunk of the electorate:
> 
> View attachment 209972



43%, next stop 50% #goals


----------



## belboid (May 1, 2020)

brogdale said:


> And yet the parties will be commissioning plenty.
> 
> Here's the 'leadership' findings from that poll; looks like Starmer has made little impact on a fair chunk of the electorate:
> 
> View attachment 209972


I'd still expect Johnson to be doing better now, just due to the circumstances and the fact that its almost impossible for anyone else to get on telly, but that still shows an almost 10% drop in those thinking he is doing well!


----------



## brogdale (May 1, 2020)

belboid said:


> I'd still expect Johnson to be doing better now, just due to the circumstances and the fact that its almost impossible for anyone else to get on telly, but that still shows an almost 10% drop in those thinking he is doing well!


As platinumsage said above, these are obviously strange times in which to be analysing polling...so I'm not sure I'd be expecting any particular response atm.
That said, a shrug of the shoulders from a full 43% of those responding does not suggest that Starmer has yet made much impact.


----------



## ska invita (May 1, 2020)

Majority of people will either have never heard of him, or at least not heard him say anything. I wouldnt have were it not for the Starmer thread tbh


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 1, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Majority of people will either have never heard of him, or at least not heard him say anything. I wouldnt have were it not for the Starmer thread tbh



I mean, I'm sure this is true for a large number who would struggle to name anybody beyond johnson and corbyn, maybe sturgeon. But he's been on frontbench of opposition for a few years, labour's lead on brexit.


----------



## brogdale (May 1, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I mean, I'm sure this is true for a large number who would struggle to name anybody beyond johnson and corbyn, maybe sturgeon. But he's been on frontbench of opposition for a few years, labour's lead on brexit.


More likely, if they recognised him at all, that they'd see that nice man on the telly who keeps on saying don't be too hard on the government...after all, at this time, we all have to.....


----------



## ska invita (May 1, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I mean, I'm sure this is true for a large number who would struggle to name anybody beyond johnson and corbyn, maybe sturgeon. But he's been on frontbench of opposition for a few years, labour's lead on brexit.



His polling above isn't bad, lots of neutral, lots of people who basically don't know who he is or at least not what he's about. Neutral is basically an extension of Don't Know I reckon. I know there is a Don't Know option but still. 



I feel dirty for even talking about this subject .


----------



## platinumsage (May 2, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I mean, I'm sure this is true for a large number who would struggle to name anybody beyond johnson and corbyn, maybe sturgeon. But he's been on frontbench of opposition for a few years, labour's lead on brexit.



Labour led on Brexit?


----------



## weepiper (May 2, 2020)

New Scottish voting intention YouGov out yesterday









						Three quarters approve of the Scottish Government’s handling of COVID 19 | YouGov
					

First Minister also seen positively with 7 in 10 Scots confident in her decisions surrounding the crisis




					yougov.co.uk
				





> .  With elections scheduled for next year, current vote shares for next year’s Scottish Parliament election are perhaps more interesting. In the constituency vote, the SNP are on 54%, almost double the Conservatives on 23%, and way above Labour with just 12% of the vote share. For the regional vote the SNP are again well above their main competition with Conservatives on 23%, and Labour 12%. If such a result were to happen next May this would likely return a majority to the Scottish National Party in Holyrood.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2020)

weepiper said:


> New Scottish voting intention YouGov out yesterday
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not hard to look good when you're being constantly compared to the muppets at Westminster. Has been impressive enough for me to start another round of 'let's move to Scotland' on mrs maomao anyway.


----------



## platinumsage (May 2, 2020)

maomao said:


> It's not hard to look good when you're being constantly compared to the muppets at Westminster. Has been impressive enough for me to start another round of 'let's move to Scotland' on mrs maomao anyway.



Yeah it's not hard when you attend the same COBRA meetings as Westminster but make sure you are the first to announce things. Oooh aren't we on the ball. Perhaps survey respondents should check how well the situation in Scottish care homes is being handled, or perhaps they don't care about that.


----------



## weepiper (May 2, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah it's not hard when you attend the same COBRA meetings as Westminster but make sure you are the first to announce things. Oooh aren't we on the ball. Perhaps survey respondents should check how well the situation in Scottish care homes is being handled, or perhaps they don't care about that.


What do you think is wrong with how the Scottish Government is handling the situation in Scottish care homes?


----------



## brogdale (May 16, 2020)

Crossover took 62k dead.


----------



## ska invita (May 30, 2020)




----------



## brogdale (May 31, 2020)

ska invita said:


>



Cross-over took 75 days since the WHO declared the pandemic.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 4, 2020)

Significant polling movement in Wales:


----------



## ska invita (Jun 4, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Significant polling movement in Wales:
> 
> View attachment 216036


Whats ABOLISH (4%)?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 4, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Whats ABOLISH (4%)?


Pressure-group style, single issue 'party' to do just that to the WA.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 4, 2020)

WA?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 4, 2020)

ska invita said:


> WA?


Welsh Assembly.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 5, 2020)

Johnson taking to the gutter where he belongs:


----------



## brogdale (Jun 6, 2020)

Another indication of Tory slippage:


----------



## ska invita (Jun 6, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Another indication of Tory slippage:
> 
> View attachment 216447


I saw this tweet from Owen Jones last week and meant to bring it up here



Brexit and Lib Dems aside, an interesting question is, what is the rump Tory vote as a percentage? As with Trump its hard to imagine what Johnson would have to do to start decreasing his rump vote. Is it 40%?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 6, 2020)

And...


----------



## ska invita (Jun 6, 2020)

ska invita said:


> I saw this tweet from Owen Jones last week and meant to bring it up here
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit and Lib Dems aside, an interesting question is, what is the rump Tory vote as a percentage? As with Trump its hard to imagine what Johnson would have to do to start decreasing his rump vote. Is it 40%?



this was the Blair landslide 1997


LabourTony *Blair*43.2ConservativeJohn Major30.7Liberal DemocratsPaddy Ashdown16.8

Owen Jones might have a point there - Lib Dems are never going to get up to 17% - double figures seems unlikely - can the Tories fall below 40%?


----------



## oryx (Jun 6, 2020)

ska invita said:


> can the Tories fall below 40%?



The way they've dealt with Covid might make that a possibility? Dunno, I live in hope.


----------



## agricola (Jun 7, 2020)

ska invita said:


> this was the Blair landslide 1997
> 
> 
> LabourTony *Blair*43.2ConservativeJohn Major30.7Liberal DemocratsPaddy Ashdown16.8
> ...



It will be difficult for them to drop that far below that, unless they stick with Johnson far longer than would be appropriate or something comes along to split their vote again.  

The first is more of a possibility than it would normally be, given that they've already got rid of a lot of the reflex that has kicked out failing leaders in the past.  However given what we already see they are doing (enriching themselves via awarding contracts to them and their mates) in the pandemic we will probably not see the likes of UKIP / the BP again - theyll be too focused on circling the wagons next election time, out of the fear what will happen to them if they lost power and it all came out.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 7, 2020)

ska invita said:


> this was the Blair landslide 1997
> 
> 
> LabourTony *Blair*43.2ConservativeJohn Major30.7Liberal DemocratsPaddy Ashdown16.8
> ...


So much would seem to hinge on the outcome on and after 31/12/2020; I suspect that despite the on-going shitshow of the covid carnage (& possible 2nd wave) Johnson's party polling will remain disturbingly solid until the 52% get the glittering prize.

After that there's got to be the chance of a real decline in electoral fortunes as the realisation that nothing has changed/improved begins to sink in and the post (?) covid recession (that's deeper than neighbouring countries that actually addressed the virus) bites harder and the lettuces start to disappear from Lidl...


----------



## brogdale (Jun 10, 2020)

Crossover in the leader approval ratings FWIW...


----------



## brogdale (Jun 11, 2020)

Could be nothing, but a stabilisation could reflect a belief that we're moving on from Covid...and I've deffo heard the 'B' word used more over the last week...


----------



## brogdale (Jun 11, 2020)

Maybe I'm being a bit slow here, but 10% for Brex in Wales...still? WTF


----------



## Raheem (Jun 11, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Maybe I'm being a bit slow here, but 10% for Brex in Wales...still? WTF
> 
> View attachment 217210


BP has AMs (if they're still called that), so it still exists in Wales.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 11, 2020)

Raheem said:


> BP has AMs (if they're still called that), so it still exists in Wales.


Yeah, the 2016 election --> 7 UKIP seats (4 now BP), but now...10% for a  barely existing pressure group style party campaigning for something that's already happened?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 11, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, the 2016 election --> 7 UKIP seats (4 now BP), but now...10% for a  barely existing pressure group style party campaigning for *something that's already happened?*



Not that it has, for those who voted to 'Get Brexit Done' but had enough 'can't ever vote Tory'** left in them in December ....... you have to ask how much Brexit is still a thing for this type of voter now??

**still quite a thing for plenty of people in Wales -- older ones especially.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 12, 2020)

The tory low 40's & Lab high 30's look quite stable for now:


----------



## strung out (Jun 12, 2020)

Labour would be 20 points ahead by now under any other leader.


----------



## strung out (Jun 12, 2020)

In fact...


----------



## Wilf (Jun 12, 2020)

To say the least, Starmer is presented by plenty on open goals at the moment. Same time, Labour as so far out of it as any kind of political force or presence. Feels a bit like party politics has been suspended and not just because of the pandemic. Labour's shitness on brexit is still a major part of the problem.  But yeah, things are so far out of joint that 20,000 surplus deaths are not even giving Labour a lead. Not a sentence I'd ever have expected to write.


----------



## Supine (Jun 12, 2020)

Posted for the animation which is rather nifty


----------



## brogdale (Jun 19, 2020)

That 40% stubbornly holding on for Brexit...whatever the shitshow that unfolds...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 19, 2020)

Where *the fuck* does that +2% for the Yellow Shite come from? 
Better have been from the Tories!!  ... LDs haven't even got a sodding leader at the moment!
(OK, possibly just normal-ish sampling variations, maybe?)


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 19, 2020)

Unless it holds up over months +2% is just noise.


----------



## Chz (Jun 19, 2020)

At this point in their existence, most upswings in the LD vote will be "The Tories are pissing me off again, but there's no way I'd ever vote Labour".
I think they've shed the vast majority of their followers who've ever voted Labour in their lives.


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Jun 19, 2020)

It is all an unreal situation at the moment though isn’t it? While the furlough and lockdown continue and the Brexit endgame is still six months away (and still enjoying Unicorn status for a third of the population?) “normal” politics very unlikely to resume. What is alarming though, is that the lockdown _appears_ to have given a subset of the population the time and lack of contact with people outside their internet bubble to go even further down the RW conspiracist rabbit hole, and fine tune their hatred and prejudices ahead of the imminent economic shitstorm......


----------



## brogdale (Jun 19, 2020)

And another...this showing the vermin gaining slightly (wtmoe) possibly as the Cummings thing fades?


----------



## Shechemite (Jun 19, 2020)

WTMOE?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 19, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> WTMOE?


Will tomorrow morning (be) over early.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 19, 2020)

Wasting Toblerones makes oldies enraged


----------



## brogdale (Jun 19, 2020)

With tory malevolence openly exposed.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 19, 2020)

Sorry; within the margin of error.

dull, I know.


----------



## oryx (Jun 19, 2020)

Wish That Motherfucker Out Earlier.


----------



## Shechemite (Jun 19, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Sorry; within the margin of error..



Smug cultural marxist bastards eh


----------



## JimW (Jun 19, 2020)

We Trust Men Of Eton.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 19, 2020)

Will the McDonalds Open Ever?


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 19, 2020)

Wanking to Maggie, openly Eurosceptic.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 27, 2020)

More of same low 40's vrs high 30's stability:


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2020)

Interesting Scots Indy polling graphic:


----------



## brogdale (Jun 29, 2020)

Another interesting graphic showing (with the usual caveats about the limitations of such axes) the Ipsos Mori 'political compass' style positioning of Lab & Tory members, voters & representatives.



Source.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 29, 2020)

Hence why they want a ‘culture war‘ I guess, they’ve lost the economic argument.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 29, 2020)

Dogsauce said:


> Hence why they want a ‘culture war‘ I guess, they’ve lost the economic argument.



exactly whats been happening since the 2008 crash - brexit tories, trump and populist right wing demagogues in eastern europe and brazil - all using the same playbook.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 29, 2020)

Dogsauce said:


> Hence why they want a ‘culture war‘ I guess, they’ve lost the economic argument.


Yes, though I wouldn't say they've lost the economic argument as much as buried or nullified it, using 'culture war' narratives & drivers to accentuate their kleptocratic control.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2020)

To me, it just illustrates their bias in calibrating the compass.  They have placed the supposed centre too far to the right, such that even Tories show up as apparently left-wing.


----------



## maomao (Jun 30, 2020)

kabbes said:


> To me, it just illustrates their bias in calibrating the compass.  They have placed the supposed centre too far to the right, such that even Tories show up as apparently left-wing.



Anything more than about 5mm from the bottom left hand corner is basically fascism.

Not sure what they've based the economic values of Labour MPs on. Corbyn's last manifesto presumably as Starmer hasn't issued a manifesto or clear economic policies yet. That dot needs to be the other side of the centre line at least.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 30, 2020)

maomao said:


> Not sure what they've based the economic values of Labour MPs on. Corbyn's last manifesto presumably as Starmer hasn't issued a manifesto or clear economic policies yet. That dot needs to be the other side of the centre line at least.



Similar by their metric the social policies of Cameron would probably have put his government in the bottom right in the same quadrant as Starmer.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 30, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Similar by their metric the social policies of Cameron would probably have put his government in the bottom right in the same quadrant as Starmer.


May well have been so, though Ipsos Mori don't offer a position for the collective Government or Opposition, merely the MPs that have (presumably) responded to their survey fieldwork.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 30, 2020)

lib dems not on there presumably because they don’t have enough MPs for a statistically valid sample.


----------



## chilango (Jun 30, 2020)

Dogsauce said:


> lib dems not on there presumably because they don’t have enough MPs for a statistically valid sample.



Still worth experimenting on them before moving on to human trials though...


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 30, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Similar by their metric the social policies of Cameron would probably have put his government in the bottom right in the same quadrant as Starmer.



Turning the Tories into a socially liberal party as well as an economically liberal one was always part of the Cameron project.  It was designed to appeal to the kind of middle-class voter who doesn't care about gay marriage and isn't a raving racist but does think there are too many people on benefits, public-sector workers get paid too much and local authorities spend their time thinking up ways to waste as much money as possible. It was working, too, until he bet the farm on his referendum and lost.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2020)

ive scraped these from google images / uk polling report - cant find more but they probably exist


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2020)

ska invita said:


> ive scraped these from google images / uk polling report - cant find more but they probably exist


Useful; thanks.

Looking at that last one shows where New Labour where 10 years into power...sort of where the Tories are now.

Albeit with current lower LD numbers it does seem to indicate the potency of the Brexit loyalty factor the Tories continue to benefit from. With the exception of the 'Brown Bounce',10 years in, the then incumbent administration was around mid/low 30s and the opposition high 30's/low 40's, the mirror of where we are now.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2020)

The Starmer stasis...


----------



## ska invita (Jul 16, 2020)

brogdale said:


> The Starmer stasis...
> 
> View attachment 222497


starmer playing the long game obvs, ready to pounce when the moment is right with a powerpoint presentation he's got his best people working on 
fact is most voters think the tories are doing as best as could be hoped for over covid
will be interesting to see polling this time next year, once impact of covid and brexit on the economy becomes inescapable. i wouldnt really expect much of a change in polling, until at least a second wave hits at the soonest, but i think 2021 will be carnage


----------



## treelover (Jul 16, 2020)

‘Red wall’ voters would make Keir Starmer PM if an election were held now
					

Boris Johnson would lose an election held today. Despite holding a steady four-point lead in recent polls, the Conservatives would lose around 70 seats. They would remain the largest party in parli…




					kellnerpolitics.com


----------



## brogdale (Jul 19, 2020)

Meanwhile...the vermin widen the gap...


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2020)

Pretty much as you were...


----------



## Supine (Jul 25, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Pretty much as you were...
> 
> View attachment 223682



Your last two posts show some data analysis bias


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2020)

Supine said:


> Your last two posts show some data analysis bias


Fair play.
Perhaps I really should read what I post!


----------



## two sheds (Jul 25, 2020)

If that trend keeps up the Tories will be wiped out in 20 weeks  

I've let myself down by reading this thread though I vowed after all the last shitshows that I'd never pay attention to them again


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2020)

two sheds said:


> If that trend keeps up the Tories will be wiped out in 20 weeks
> 
> I've let myself down by reading this thread though I vowed after all the last shitshows that I'd never pay attention to them again


They did pretty well at the last election tbf


----------



## two sheds (Jul 26, 2020)

Fair point - I just found tracking even small variations depressing.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 3, 2020)




----------



## Shechemite (Aug 3, 2020)

Keir starmers time is up


----------



## brogdale (Aug 4, 2020)

vermin lead continuing to re-grow...


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2020)

brogdale said:


> vermin lead continuing to re-grow...


why do you keep doing this over margin of error noise?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 4, 2020)

killer b said:


> why do you keep doing this over margin of error noise?


Because since June 14 (when the tracker Tory lead narrowed to 4.6%) the vermin's lead has increased. Not just MoE, but trends.

The latest polls – Britain Elects


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2020)

mate, labour have been hovering on 36/37 and the tories have been hovering on 42/43 for the last month. there's no change there.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 4, 2020)

killer b said:


> mate, labour have been hovering on 36/37 and the tories have been hovering on 42/43 for the last month. there's no change there.


Accept it's slight and I know this graph isn't up to date, but the tracker trend suggests that the vermin are pulling out of the post 1st-wave dip in their fortunes heading for double digit leading.


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Accept it's slight and I know this graph isn't up to date, but the tracker trend suggests that the vermin are pulling out of the post 1st-wave dip in their fortunes heading for double digit leading.


I dunno man, I'm just going on the website you posted - it's shown both parties with basically the same numbers for a month - if you ignore the brief blip where Labour closed the gap for a week, it's been flat since the beginning of June. run your cursor along the graph line - it's all averages of 36/37s for labour, and all averages of 42/43 for the tories. there isn't any sign of them pulling ahead.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 4, 2020)

killer b said:


> I dunno man, I'm just going on the website you posted - it's shown both parties with basically the same numbers for a month - if you ignore the brief blip where Labour closed the gap for a week, it's been flat since the beginning of June. run your cursor along the graph line - it's all averages of 36/37s for labour, and all averages of 42/43 for the tories. there isn't any sign of them pulling ahead.


The tories are ahead and it looks like their lead is re-growing.
FWIW, I've said a number of times upthread that if the opposition haven't been able to shift the poll numbers as the govt. has overseen 60-70k dead, they won't do so until Brexit is finally completed and the consequences start to become impossible to ignore.


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2020)

brogdale said:


> it looks like their lead is re-growing.


it doesn't though.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Aug 5, 2020)

Heard some Yorkshire twat on Jeremy Vine (last Monday, I think - I usually listen to him on a Monday) commenting that Boris has solved Brexit, saved the NHS and dealt with Covid-19, and that all he needs now is a good war to cement him as a great PM. Well, I'm sold - if I had kids/grandkids I'd be signing them up.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 20, 2020)

go go Brexit Party!


----------



## brogdale (Aug 29, 2020)

One for fans of Sir Creosote:


----------



## brogdale (Aug 29, 2020)

First poll since June 2019 not to show a Tory lead.


----------



## Supine (Aug 29, 2020)

brogdale said:


> One for fans of Sir Creosote:
> 
> View attachment 228351



Can you imagine how well Labour would do if the left supported him!


----------



## brogdale (Aug 29, 2020)

Supine said:


> Can you imagine how well Labour would do if the left supported him!


20 points ahead; obviously.


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 30, 2020)

Johnson’s just not there though, I think that’s their problem. Don’t think he can be arsed anymore. Left the kids in charge.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 31, 2020)

Dogsauce said:


> Johnson’s just not there though, I think that’s their problem. Don’t think he can be arsed anymore. Left the kids in charge.


Hence_ Peter Pandemic; _he lives in _NeverThere._


----------



## mauvais (Aug 31, 2020)

Supine said:


> Can you imagine how well Labour would do if the left supported him!


Since the current Labour strategy is 'do absolute fuck all and maybe eventually win by way of the other side spinning out and crashing into some photogenic orphans the last remaining Pret-a-Manger', might I suggest it would be exactly the fucking same, only with everyone feeling much worse about it.


----------



## Supine (Sep 26, 2020)




----------



## brogdale (Sep 26, 2020)

39% responding want more of this


----------



## ska invita (Sep 26, 2020)

brogdale said:


> 39% responding want more of this


As i think Owen Jones has been saying, the question is where is the Tory floor - how strong is the core vote. Next spring/summer will be an interesting moment to test that


----------



## NoXion (Sep 27, 2020)

ska invita said:


> As i think Owen Jones has been saying, the question is where is the Tory floor - how strong is the core vote. Next spring/summer will be an interesting moment to test that



Why then?


----------



## ska invita (Sep 27, 2020)

NoXion said:


> Why then?


The eye of the economic storm, post Brexit carnage and Covid damage. That wind should show who the faithful are


----------



## Knotted (Sep 27, 2020)

I've no idea whether the supposed Brexit carnage will materialise (I suspect it will not be all it's cracked up to be). But I recon the Tories have already lost all the support they are going to lose over Covid, with the opposition refusing to put an alternative strategy forward, the consequences of their mishandling appears as an inevitable result of a natural disaster as will the economic fallout.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 27, 2020)

Knotted said:


> I've no idea whether the supposed Brexit carnage will materialise (I suspect it will not be all it's cracked up to be). But I recon the Tories have already lost all the support they are going to lose over Covid, with the opposition refusing to put an alternative strategy forward, the consequences of their mishandling appears as an inevitable result of a natural disaster as will the economic fallout.


I think the reverse, tbh. I suspect that the inertia or 'stickyness' of Leave supporter loyalty to Johnson's regime has actually shielded them from the adverse polling that might have been expected upon such a consistently woeful 'response' to the pandemic. 

I think ska invita is right about the shit hitting the fan at some point, and when the Brexit debacle has had time to mature into genuinely sustained hard times, then the polling fall might be quite dramatic.


----------



## agricola (Sep 27, 2020)

brogdale said:


> I think the reverse, tbh. I suspect that the inertia or 'stickyness' of Leave supporter loyalty to Johnson's regime has actually shielded them from the adverse polling that might have been expected upon such a consistently woeful 'response' to the pandemic.
> 
> I think ska invita is right about the shit hitting the fan at some point, and when the Brexit debacle has had time to mature into genuinely sustained hard times, then the polling fall might be quite dramatic.



Indeed.  Once the question of Brexit is done with, there will probably be quite a sizeable drop in their support (the same will probably be true of the SNP vote if they ever get independence).


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2020)

brogdale said:


> I think the reverse, tbh. I suspect that the inertia or 'stickyness' of Leave supporter loyalty to Johnson's regime has actually shielded them from the adverse polling that might have been expected upon such a consistently woeful 'response' to the pandemic.
> 
> I think ska invita is right about the shit hitting the fan at some point, and when the Brexit debacle has had time to mature into genuinely sustained hard times, then the polling fall might be quite dramatic.


The shit will hit the fan but it depends how succesfully the Tories can portray this as part of the battle with the eu. I'm starting to think that they are deliberately trying to encourage the eu to take some sort of sanctions against us because then it will be part of the struggle rather than just incompetence and lack of planning.


----------



## Smangus (Sep 27, 2020)

There's always another scapegoat waiting in the wings.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 27, 2020)

The way I see it, the shit has been hitting the fan all summer. We've had unnecessary deaths equivalent to maybe five or six 9-11 terror attacks. The shit couldn't hit the fan more. If the worst possible case scenario happens with Brexit it's not going to be remotely comparable to what is happening right now or for that matter the economic fall out of what is happening right now.

You are not going to be able to find a way to even partially to pin economic woes on Brexit (whether you are justified in doing so or not) in a way that will make Tory voting leavers want to vote Labour to rejoin. It's going to be (rightly or wrongly) "our problems are down to Covid". And in any case a lot of leavers are prepared to experience some bad times before alternative trade deals are struck.

I think it is unlikely that the Tory core vote will be tested any further in the near future. I think at present we're seeing a small conference boost for Labour as it's pretty much the first time Starmer has said anything anybody has even noticed.


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2020)

The next three years of polls are all going to be pretty pointless tbh. Boris getting the boot isn't impossible but I can't see the vermin throwing away their current soul crushing majority.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 27, 2020)

Knotted said:


> The way I see it, the shit has been hitting the fan all summer. We've had unnecessary deaths equivalent to maybe five or six 9-11 terror attacks. The shit couldn't hit the fan more. If the worst possible case scenario happens with Brexit it's not going to be remotely comparable to what is happening right now or for that matter the economic fall out of what is happening right now.


You're wrong about this IMO.

A lot of people basically don't believe in Covid, at least in terms of lived experience. They don't know anyone who's got sick from it. They may or may not go along with wearing masks and complying with the laws but it's abstract. In many ways, with the exception of the initial lockdown, you can go back to normal if you so desire.

The same will not be true of worst case Brexit with food shortages etcetera. It will be impossible to avoid practical consequences of that one.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 27, 2020)

I doubt there will be food shortages as a result of Brexit, but even if there are we've already had fear of food shortages with the panic buying back in March to no great harm to the Tories. And real food shortages will not affect everyone the same. There isn't a level playing field with anything. The matter is a matter of whether or not people blame the government for hardships. So far there has been a great reluctance to do so even when the government are very much to blame.

When asked by polling companies, leavers generally say that Brexit would be worth it even if it causes economic harm. Most won't retreat to a rejoin position and even if they do they won't necessarily blame the Tory government for carrying out their previous wishes.

Nothing is automatic, everything has to be politicised.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 27, 2020)

From that same Opinium poll. Lols.


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 27, 2020)

weepiper said:


> From that same Opinium poll. Lols.



Mrs Q loudly expressed her displeasure at the last election over the SNP's abject failure to run a candidate in Derbyshire South, they would have got one vote at least. Mrs Q who isn't even Scottish is a big fan of Sturgeon who seems to be one of the few politicians who is coming out of this with any credibility.


----------



## NoXion (Sep 28, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> Mrs Q loudly expressed her displeasure at the last election over the SNP's abject failure to run a candidate in Derbyshire South, they would have got one vote at least. Mrs Q who isn't even Scottish is a big fan of Sturgeon who seems to be one of the few politicians who is coming out of this with any credibility.



It's easy to do that when you're at least vaguely competent, while being compared to the absolute shower of shit currently infesting Westminster


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Sep 28, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> Mrs Q loudly expressed her displeasure at the last election over the SNP's abject failure to run a candidate in Derbyshire South, they would have got one vote at least. Mrs Q who isn't even Scottish is a big fan of Sturgeon who seems to be one of the few politicians who is coming out of this with any credibility.


At least in the European elections voters in the South West (outside of Cornwall) sometimes got the chance to vote for Mebyon Kernow, the Cornish nationalists. Alas, no more.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 28, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> Mrs Q loudly expressed her displeasure at the last election over the SNP's abject failure to run a candidate in Derbyshire South, they would have got one vote at least. Mrs Q who isn't even Scottish is a big fan of Sturgeon who seems to be one of the few politicians who is coming out of this with any credibility.



TBH, the SNP or Plaid would have probably gotten my vote too if they ran a candidate in Richmond Park at the last election.


----------



## Chz (Sep 28, 2020)

I used to say the SNP could poll better than the LDs nationally if they just dropped that independence nonsense. And now it's been proven that they can have their cake and eat it! I look forward to voting for them in South London.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 28, 2020)

Chz said:


> I used to say the SNP could poll better than the LDs nationally if they just dropped that independence nonsense. And now it's been proven that they can have their cake and eat it! I look forward to voting for them in South London.


I've often wondered why they don't stand in English constituencies as a potentially useful disruptor to the tory vote; surely Scots independence = English independence as well? Plenty of the more knuckle dragging tory fellow travellers would go for that, no?


----------



## Sue (Sep 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> I've often wondered why they don't stand in English constituencies as a potentially useful disruptor to the tory vote; surely Scots independence = English independence as well? Plenty of the more knuckle dragging tory fellow travellers would go for that, no?


Why would they though? They're about Scotland and Scottish independence -- what England and English voters do is really not their concern. And why would they be bothered about disrupting the Tory vote anyway? The current Tory vote and Westminster government are working out pretty well for them at the moment. 

tl:dr It's not always about England.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 28, 2020)

Sue said:


> Why would they though? They're about Scotland and Scottish independence -- what England and English voters do is really not their concern. And why would they be bothered about disrupting the Tory vote anyway? The current Tory vote and Westminster government are working out pretty well for them at the moment.
> 
> tl:dr It's not always about England.


Wasn't one of my most serious posts


----------



## Sue (Sep 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Wasn't one of my most serious posts


Just something that kind of does my head in in general. I can't tell you the number of times (as a Scottish person living in England) I've been told (completely seriously) there's a Tory government in Westminster or Labour will never form a Westminster government again _because people in Scotland voted the wrong way _(i.e. not Labour). Obviously no thought or analysis about how or why voting patterns have shifted so dramatically and why so many traditional Labour voters jumped ship. 

And then there was Indyref where people were apparently voting yes _because they hate English people _and had some kind of responsibility _to think of the poor non-Tory people in England who'd end up with a Tory government forever if Scotland left_. My response to which was always it's about Scotland and how people see its future, it's not always about England or English people.

Sorry, bit of a rant. It is very, very annoying though!


----------



## brogdale (Sep 28, 2020)

Sue said:


> Just something that kind of does my head in in general. I can't tell you the number of times (as a Scottish person living in England) I've been told (completely seriously) there's a Tory government in Westminster or Labour will never form a Westminster government again _because people in Scotland voted the wrong way _(i.e. not Labour). Obviously no thought or analysis about how or why voting patterns have shifted so dramatically and why so many traditional Labour voters jumped ship.
> 
> And then there was Indyref where people were apparently voting yes _because they hate English people _and had some kind of responsibility _to think of the poor non-Tory people in England who'd end up with a Tory government forever if Scotland left_. My response to which was always it's about Scotland and how people see its future, it's not always about England or English people.
> 
> Sorry, bit of a rant. It is very, very annoying though!


That's OK; I can appreciate how annoying that sort of thing must be.

I'll be honest, my main interest in the SNP polling at 6% was that it beat the yellow tories into 4th place.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 29, 2020)

Some Brexit right/wrong data from the latest YG fieldwork:


Wrong to Leave sentiment rising, with "North" showing an 11 point 'wrong' lead over 'right'.
Hmmm


----------



## killer b (Sep 29, 2020)

why hmmm?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 29, 2020)

killer b said:


> why hmmm?


National difference, wrong/right = 5% points, whereas the 'North' often cited as pro-Leave/former red wall land = 11% point wrong/right lead.
Interesting, no?


----------



## killer b (Sep 29, 2020)

'the north' includes the most of the significant metropolitan areas outside London, which will be skewing the results. The former red wall places will still be solid brexit.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 29, 2020)

killer b said:


> 'the north' includes the most of the significant metropolitan areas outside London, which will be skewing the results. The former red wall places will still be solid brexit.


Quite possibly, but the figures offer an interesting take on the lazy media narrative of Leave North & Remain South.


----------



## MrSki (Sep 29, 2020)

killer b said:


> 'the north' includes the most of the significant metropolitan areas outside London, which will be skewing the results. The former red wall places will still be solid brexit.


Is that a fact or just your opinion? I am not trolling you but a statement like that needs some justification. If it is a well informed opinion then fair enough but if it is a statement of fact then please provide your evidence.


----------



## killer b (Sep 29, 2020)

It's an opinion, but it's supported by the results of the actual referendum (which saw places like Manchester and Liverpool deliver almost 60% for remain), and the results of the general election in December 2019 which saw large swathes of the leave supporting areas of the north deliver Conservative MPs. 

What do you think's happened here? That since December last year there's been a massive change of opinion across the brexit supporting areas of the north?


----------



## MrSki (Sep 29, 2020)

killer b said:


> It's an opinion, but it's supported by the results of the actual referendum (which saw places like Manchester and Liverpool deliver almost 60% for remain), and the results of the general election in December 2019 which saw large swathes of the leave supporting areas of the north deliver Conservative MPs.
> 
> What do you think's happened here? That since December last year there's been a massive change of opinion across the brexit supporting areas of the north?


It is possible now the realisation of how it is going to fuck up the north along with rest of the UK. I am still to hear an argument as to how anyone will benefit. The recent polls I have seen have been in favour of remaining especially as it is all fucked up with Covid-19 without making it worse.


----------



## killer b (Sep 29, 2020)

The polls have been in favour of remaining solidly for two years. I had a dig through the Yougov site (it's stopped working for me now, but you could do the same) and 'the north' has shown consistent leads for _Brexit Wrong_ all year - in January, straight after the election, there was leads of 6% and 3% in the two polls I looked at.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 29, 2020)

“Remain’ has pretty much always polled ahead, all that happened in the referendum was Leave got the vote out, because leavers were more passionate about it, aided with a bit of culture war leverage.

Election results are an indication only, because you don’t need more than 50% to take a seat. The election was more about people not liking Corbyn than euro stuff if you’ve seen polling on it.


----------



## killer b (Sep 29, 2020)

Everything we're able to use to look at this only gives us an indication - but none of the indications I've seen have shown any significant amount of people changing their minds (in either direction) on Brexit, in the North or anywhere else. There is a gradual lead opening for remain nationally, which probably reflects the die-off of the older leave-leaning cohort and the coming of age of the younger remain-leaning cohort, plus some non-voters. But there's very few people changed their minds.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 29, 2020)

killer b said:


> It's an opinion, but it's supported by the results of the actual referendum (which saw places like Manchester and Liverpool deliver almost 60% for remain), and the results of the general election in December 2019 which saw large swathes of the leave supporting areas of the north deliver Conservative MPs.
> 
> What do you think's happened here? That since December last year there's been a massive change of opinion across the brexit supporting areas of the north?


I think it's a reasonable opinion tbh; it looks to me as though YG lump together the UK government's  3 standard Northern economic planning regions (NE, NW & Y+H)   into one unit called "North":

   (colour not significant)

So, yes that is all got the Metro urban areas outside of Scotland, E & W Midlands, Wales and the Souths.

I suppose it would be good to see the regional cross-breaks, week-on-week; with the national Wrong/Right lead more than doubling in a week (+5 to +11), be interesting to see whether or not that was reflected in the regions.


----------



## killer b (Sep 29, 2020)

brogdale said:


> I suppose it would be good to see the regional cross-breaks, week-on-week; with the national Wrong/Right lead more than doubling in a week (+5 to +11), be interesting to see whether or not that was reflected in the regions.


You can do that if you're bothered, but it's a bit of a faff finding them... the regional crossbreaks are pretty small mind, it's probably not a great idea to read too much into fluctuations in them (unless they're sustained and in the same direction...)


----------



## brogdale (Sep 29, 2020)

killer b said:


> You can do that if you're bothered, but it's a bit of a faff finding them... the regional crossbreaks are pretty small mind, it's probably not a great idea to read too much into fluctuations in them (unless they're sustained and in the same direction...)


No, not really worth it; with a 1600 sample divided by 5 regions the sample would not be big enough to be significant.

I've always thought it would take a sustained period of economic hardship following 31/12/20 to shift sentiment, so that national change week-on-week looked surprising.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 8, 2020)

Latest Ipsos-MORI polling on general sentiments (by EU referendum vote) indicates the depth of problems facing the Johnson regime.
Whatever we may feel about the credibility of such affective polling, a net decline of 52% in six months amongst 'Leave' respondents looks like a pretty spectacular collapse of faith.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 8, 2020)

Over a quarter of self-identifying Tory voters responding to YG want Trump re-elected; double that of the national % (13%).

Useful metric for the extent of populist, far right-wing support in the UK?


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Oct 8, 2020)

Assuming 3% represents at least one whole (politically confused) person, that means they found at least 33 Lib-Dem supporters.  Wake up and smell the coffee people, they're getting ready for government.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 22, 2020)

Last night's Opinium Westminster polling suggests that the LP civil war may well be depressing their support again?


----------



## killer b (Nov 22, 2020)

It doesn't suggest anything until its sustained over multiple polls, as you know


----------



## ska invita (Nov 22, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Over a quarter of self-identifying Tory voters responding to YG want Trump re-elected; double that of the national % (13%).
> 
> Useful metric for the extent of populist, far right-wing support in the UK?


Id suggest is potentially a lot higher than that, as Trump is a particularly obscene incarnation of that, especially for a UK audience... US MAGA's have a different set of buttons to UK bigots.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 23, 2020)

Another 3% poll drop for Starmer's LP taking HMLO back below the incumbents:


----------



## mauvais (Nov 23, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Last night's Opinium Westminster polling suggests that the LP civil war may well be depressing their support again?


I'm not sure anyone but us nerds give a shit about this, much as they don't for the Tories' own internal calamities either. Labour are stuck here for a much simpler reason: because they offer nothing.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 23, 2020)

mauvais said:


> I'm not sure anyone but us nerds give a shit about this, much as they don't for the Tories' own internal calamities either. Labour are stuck here for a much simpler reason: because they offer nothing.


Maybe, but you do raise an interesting point.
I know you probably mean "offer nothing" in the broader sense, but on the issue of their 'policy offer', I'd be hard pressed to identify any LP policy on anything with any certainty...and I'm one of the 'nerds'.
Anyone know any?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 23, 2020)

Surely Brexit Party will be null and void by next election... Expect most of those votes to go Tory.


----------



## maomao (Nov 23, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Surely Brexit Party will be null and void by next election... Expect most of those votes to go Tory.


They are now Reform UK, an anti-lockdown party, and can probably expect to mop up a few of the most swivel-eyed.


----------



## killer b (Nov 23, 2020)

I expect there to be a populist right-wing party to the right of the tories by the next election, probably Reform / BP, if Farage is still about.


----------



## strung out (Nov 23, 2020)

Especially if Dishy Rishi, the most socialist politician in England is in charge by then.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 23, 2020)

maomao said:


> They are now Reform UK, an anti-lockdown party, and can probably expect to mop up a few of the most swivel-eyed.


Another dead issue in four years time
Though the chance of something new to come along is there i guess


----------



## belboid (Nov 23, 2020)

killer b said:


> I expect there to be a populist right-wing party to the right of the tories by the next election, probably Reform / BP, if Farage is still about.


all depends on wtf happens with brexit, really. Obviously farage and co will cry 'betrayal' whatever happens.  But whether they'll risk running many candidates when they have a hard right government in place anyway is well up for debate.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 23, 2020)

maomao said:


> They are now Reform UK, an anti-lockdown party, and can probably expect to mop up a few of the most swivel-eyed.


There'll always be 'culture wars' positions to take.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 23, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Maybe, but you do raise an interesting point.
> I know you probably mean "offer nothing" in the broader sense, but on the issue of their 'policy offer', I'd be hard pressed to identify any LP policy on anything with any certainty...and I'm one of the 'nerds'.
> Anyone know any?


Well, I mean it in the broad sense of its uselessness but also exactly what you're talking about. What would a Starmer Labour government bring about, or what would a reasonable person think it to be vaguely about?

I know that we shouldn't expect policy pledges in the middle of a term, but you would expect to have some idea what a party is about or for. Most people had _some_ idea what Corbynism was about, whether it was mild social democracy or purging all the Jews or bringing about Full Communism.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 23, 2020)

Starmer stands for supporting the Tories as hard as possible


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 23, 2020)

belboid said:


> all depends on wtf happens with brexit, really. Obviously farage and co will cry 'betrayal' whatever happens.  But whether they'll risk running many candidates when they have a hard right government in place anyway is well up for debate.



Oh I reckon they will.  As brogdale says, there always culture-war positions to take, and taking them is Fartage's _modus operandi_. It's how he makes his living. He won't stop until either he runs out of grifting opportunities or he turns up his toes.


----------



## belboid (Nov 23, 2020)

Will they need a culture war is Uberfuhrer Patel is still in office?


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 23, 2020)

belboid said:


> Will they need a culture war is Uberfuhrer Patel is still in office?



Farage will, if only to make himself feel relevant and keep the cheques rolling in from the swivel-eyed and terminally gullible.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 23, 2020)

LAB are deliberately avoiding policy announcements, i expect because 
1. an election is four years away - not even midway through the term
2. Starmers stated number one priority is Directing Prosecutions against the left
3. they're concentrating on holding the government to account (by frowning a lot) 
4. the longer Starmer can hold out from showing himself to be a lightweight sellout on policy the longer he survives


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2020)

YG's poll respondents seem to like strict & firm Keith:


----------



## Supine (Dec 5, 2020)

Posted without comment. Apart from   



Go Liz!!!


----------



## brogdale (Dec 5, 2020)

Supine said:


> Posted without comment. Apart from
> 
> View attachment 241897
> 
> Go Liz!!!


Party members like Truss because she's always plastering her social media self-promotion with flags of 'white' nations with which she's struck trade deals (for cheese).


----------



## mauvais (Jan 2, 2021)

Boris Johnson would lose majority and seat in election tomorrow – poll
					

Results suggest public are deeply unhappy with the government’s handling of Covid and Brexit




					www.theguardian.com
				




Some bright news at last:



> The poll also predicts the Liberal Democrats would be reduced to just two seats – in Bath and in Kingston and Surbiton – down from the current 11.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 2, 2021)

mauvais said:


> Boris Johnson would lose majority and seat in election tomorrow – poll
> 
> 
> Results suggest public are deeply unhappy with the government’s handling of Covid and Brexit
> ...






			
				“grauniad” said:
			
		

> The findings clearly suggest new Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is making headway in rebuilding support for his party. In the last six months Labour has steadily hauled in the *26-point lead* the Conservatives held.



Whut? Where did they make that one up from?


----------



## killer b (Jan 2, 2021)

Dogsauce said:


> Whut? Where did they make that one up from?


An Opinum poll in April. There was lots of 20% leads around then.


----------



## magneze (Jan 2, 2021)

Dogsauce said:


> Whut? Where did they make that one up from?


It's why he's resigned. Go out at the top.


----------



## moochedit (Jan 3, 2021)

magneze said:


> It's why he's resigned. Go out at the top.



Who's resigned?


----------



## Raheem (Jan 3, 2021)

moochedit said:


> Who's resigned?


Can't believe you've forgotten who he is so quickly.


----------



## moochedit (Jan 3, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Can't believe you've forgotten who he is so quickly.



Nope i'm still confused! Maybe it's too late!


----------



## Raheem (Jan 3, 2021)

moochedit said:


> Nope i'm still confused! Maybe it's too late!


It's Keir Starmer who hasn't resigned, but there was a Twitter rumour today that he is about to.


----------



## moochedit (Jan 3, 2021)

Raheem said:


> It's Keir Starmer who hasn't resigned, but there was a Twitter rumour today that he is about to.


Ah ok. Cheers. Didn't know that.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 11, 2021)

There's probably scope for quite nuanced discussion about these numbers, but have to admit that I'm struggling to get beyond _tory voting cunts _tbh.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 11, 2021)

It's what the whole thing has been set up to produce, so no surprise.

I do think the premise is flawed; neither responsibility and blame need be zero sum. The public have been irresponsible, the government has been shit, the two don't need to be compared.

It occurs to me that the same thing is happening with Brexit, whereby it's encouraged that we see things as the retailers' fault - why didn't they prepare better? etc.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 11, 2021)

mauvais said:


> It's what the whole thing has been set up to produce, so no surprise.
> 
> I do think the premise is flawed; neither responsibility and blame need be zero sum. The public have been irresponsible, the government has been shit, the two don't need to be compared.
> 
> It occurs to me that the same thing is happening with Brexit, whereby it's encouraged that we see things as the retailers' fault - why didn't they prepare better? etc.


More importantly there's no option for mutant strain etc.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jan 11, 2021)

brogdale said:


> More importantly there's no option for mutant strain etc.



That's our PM you're referring to I presume?


----------



## 2hats (Jan 11, 2021)

#mutanttoryvirus


----------



## mauvais (Jan 11, 2021)

brogdale said:


> More importantly there's no option for mutant strain etc.


I'm not sure how much I want to blame that. Living in the north, I confess I'm somewhat sceptical of how much this strain's emergence has been a game changer and caused all sorts of 'new' problems that it feels like we've been living with here for all of 2020 anyway, which is probably inaccurate. Nonetheless I feel like if we (public and/or gov't) had everything or indeed anything else right, we wouldn't be so hostage to the external in the first place.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2021)

Based on current polling; pretty emphatic.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 15, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Based on current polling; pretty emphatic.



_Exact_ correlation of rugby-supporting and Tory-voting areas.  That’s a Pope shiting in the woods, Sherlock.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 19, 2021)

shockingly bad poll for Labour considering the circumstances and advantageous position they find themselves in


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

1 in 4 people in Wales wanting more of this; FFS


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> 1 in 4 people in Wales wanting more of this; FFS


Surely 1 in 3 wanting 'more of this'. Labour are in power in Wales after all.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2021)

redsquirrel said:


> Surely 1 in 3 wanting 'more of this'. Labour are in power in Wales after all.


My bad...yep.
Bit beer blurred.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 19, 2021)

Likewise why is this a shocking bad poll for Labour ska invita ? They are polling almost the same that they achieved in 2016. Considering they've been in power since 1999 and been fucking abysmal during the pandemic I think those polling figures are pretty much what one would expect.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 24, 2021)

Wot no northern independence poll?


----------



## NoXion (Jan 27, 2021)

Need to improve those numbers if we're to have that British Federal Republic.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 28, 2021)

This could be just a puff piece playing down expectations but the current polling would seem to back it up to a certain level


> One source said internal party projections in March 2020, in the wake of Boris Johnson’s landslide general election victory, suggested the party would lose 400 council seats and lose control of some local authorities, including Plymouth, Amber Valley, and Harlow. Elections in May 2020 were subsequently cancelled because of the coronavirus pandemic.
> 
> The party hopes it can avoid such big losses this May but it does not expect to make gains. “There are no sign in any of the polling we have seen that we are going to make any advances whatsoever,” a senior Labour source said.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 28, 2021)

Maybe people just haven't realised Corbyn isn't in charge any more. As soon as word gets out that Labour are electable now they'll be miles ahead.


----------



## killer b (Jan 28, 2021)

the seats being contested were last up in 2016 & 2017 - in 2016 Labour took 31% of the vote and the Tories took 30% - national polling had the tories with a slightly bigger lead than now, so I wouldn't expect to see a huge change there. The 2017 locals were a bloodbath for Labour though, I'd expect to see them take a load of them back.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 28, 2021)

NoXion said:


> Need to improve those numbers if we're to have that British Federal Republic.



The good ship HMS Federalism sank with the loss of virtually all hands in 2016. Auld Gordy Broon was one of the few rescued, and the nurses humour him by listening to his visionary plan for a federal Union, in whatever care home for failed politicians he washed up in.


----------



## NoXion (Jan 28, 2021)

steeplejack said:


> The good ship HMS Federalism sank with the loss of virtually all hands in 2016. Auld Gordy Broon was one of the few rescued, and the nurses humour him by listening to his visionary plan for a federal Union, in whatever care home for failed politicians he washed up in.



I don't get it, what happened in 2016?


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 28, 2021)

NoXion said:


> I don't get it, what happened in 2016?



A referedum to leave the European Union that resulted in Scotland's desire to remain in the EU being ignored. Thereby closing the door on any half baked notion of federalism as a means of maintaining the union.


----------



## NoXion (Jan 28, 2021)

steeplejack said:


> A referedum to leave the European Union that resulted in Scotland's desire to remain in the EU being ignored. Thereby closing the door on any half baked notion of federalism as a means of maintaining the union.



The UK does not have a federal structure, so a move to a federal republic would in fact mean the end of the UK. Neither United nor a Kingdom.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 28, 2021)

Well dur. The fact remains that people saw federalism as a solution to the problems of a fracturing union in 2014/16. I didn't think that stating federalism (which Brown still punts) being off the table would be such a controversial point.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 28, 2021)

steeplejack said:


> A referedum to leave the European Union that resulted in Scotland's desire to remain in the EU being ignored. Thereby closing the door on any half baked notion of federalism as a means of maintaining the union.



Leaving aside the interests, political objectives and the addiction to elite third way neo-liberalism of the Scottish political class I wonder how true this claim is.

To put it another way, is it correct to characterise the citizens of Scotland as pro-EU? Or that the vote in Scotland in 2016 was anything much more than delivering a kick to the establishment as the vote to leave was in England and Wales?

To put it a final way, isn’t it more accurate to characterise the impulse for independence in Scotland as more about how Scotland sees, understands and interprets its past and its future rather than any assumed lost sunlit uplands in the EU?

There is a general ‘feeling’ among certain elements of the UK that the EU is somehow about Europe, modernity, progressive liberal values etc. Whilst some of us think that’s based on zero evidence and a fundamental misunderstanding of what the EU actually is to deny that such a mood exists would be wrong. I accept that some of these feelings will intertwine at some level with the popular support for independence. But are we suggesting that there is more substance to support for the EU in Scotland than that?


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 28, 2021)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Leaving aside the interests, political objectives and the addiction to elite third way neo-liberalism of the Scottish political class I wonder how true this claim is.
> 
> To put it another way, is it correct to characterise the citizens of Scotland as pro-EU? Or that the vote in Scotland in 2016 was anything much more than delivering a kick to the establishment as the vote to leave was in England and Wales?



A vote 62-38 in favour of remaining in the EU would seem to indicate that. After all, it was the whole elctorate voting, not just the _"elite third way neoliberals of the Scottish political class"_. A vote to "kick the establishment" by, er, voting in line with how the establishment saw EU membership at the time? How would that work?



Smokeandsteam said:


> To put it a final way, isn’t it more accurate to characterise the impulse for independence in Scotland as more about how Scotland sees, understands and interprets its past and its future rather than any assumed lost sunlit uplands in the EU?
> 
> There is a general ‘feeling’ among certain elements of the UK that the EU is somehow about Europe, modernity, progressive liberal values etc. Whilst some of us think that’s based on zero evidence and a fundamental misunderstanding of what the EU actually is to deny that such a mood exists would be wrong. I accept that some of these feelings will intertwine at some level with the popular support for independence. But are we suggesting that there is more substance to support for the EU in Scotland than that?



I'm not sure what evidence was convince you of any 'substance', really, if a huge pro-European vote by a whole country's electorate isn't sufficient. A bizarre post to be honest.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 28, 2021)

steeplejack said:


> A vote 62-38 in favour of remaining in the EU would seem to indicate that. After all, it was the whole elctorate voting, not just the _"elite third way neoliberals of the Scottish political class"_. A vote to "kick the establishment" by, er, voting in line with how the establishment saw EU membership at the time? How would that work?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what evidence was convince you of any 'substance', really, if a huge pro-European vote by a whole country's electorate isn't sufficient. A bizarre post to be honest.



In terms of your first question. In England and Wales was widely perceived to be a vote against the interests of the establishment... ‘if they are for it, we should be against it’. In Scotland the situation was different, the SNP consistently raised the spectre of Scotland votingto remain and the overall vote being out. They made plain their view that this would trigger a fresh crisis with the establishment and form the conditions for a second independence vote. A vote to remain in Scotland therefore had dual meanings.

On your second point, I’m sorry if you find it ‘bizarre’ to query a statement (yours actually) that the vote in 2016 to remain in Scotland has torpedoed any possibility of a federalist solution. I really don’t think it does....


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 28, 2021)

Smokeandsteam said:


> *I’m sorry if you find it ‘bizarre’ to query a statement* (yours actually) that the vote in 2016 to remain in Scotland has torpedoed any possibility of a federalist solution.








How is federalism possible after Scotland voted to remain within the EU by _a substantial margin_ and England / Wales voted the other way (with Brexit therefore happening against the settled desire of the Scottish electorate, which was simply set aside and ignored?) How is it possible to accommodate two diametrically opposed outcomes within a federal compromise? The only way to do that would be to have a federal Scotland as part of the EU which is not on the table in Brussels and certainly very much off the table and in the most inaccessible bin in Westminster.

The impulse of the current Westminster government is to undo and roll up the devolution settlement altogether, not to accommodate it further through federalism. In that sense Gordon Brown's attempt to re-animate the cryogenically frozen corpse of federalism is as much wishing on a star as Lexit was. Federalism became fatally ill after the 2014 "Vow" was revealed as little more than a substance-free PR exercise, and killed completely by Brexit.

I described your original post as 'bizarre' as it was full of logical inconsistencies- that, somehow, Scotland was not really _that_ pro-European despite the referendum result, and that a massive pro-EU vote was somehow anti-establishment. It was a young Cristiano Ronaldo of a post- lots of fancy step overs but you ended up tackling yourself.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 28, 2021)

steeplejack said:


> How is federalism possible after Scotland voted to remain within the EU by _a substantial margin_ and England / Wales voted the other way (with Brexit therefore happening against the settled desire of the Scottish electorate, which was simply set aside and ignored?) How is it possible to accommodate two diametrically opposed outcomes within a federal compromise? The only way to do that would be to have a federal Scotland as part of the EU which is not on the table in Brussels and certainly very much off the table and in the most inaccessible bin in Westminster.
> 
> The impulse of the current Westminster government is to undo and roll up the devolution settlement altogether, not to accommodate it further through federalism. In that sense Gordon Brown's attempt to re-animate the cryogenically frozen corpse of federalism is as much wishing on a star as Lexit was. Federalism became fatally ill after the 2014 "Vow" was revealed as little more than a substance-free PR exercise, and killed completely by Brexit.
> 
> I described your original post as 'bizarre' as it was full of logical inconsistencies- that, somehow, Scotland was not really _that_ pro-European despite the referendum result, and that a massive pro-EU vote was somehow anti-establishment. It was a young Cristiano Ronaldo of a post- lots of fancy step overs but you ended up tackling yourself.



Cracking ‘step over’ jibe at the end. Even I laughed....

Anyway, the logic of your argument is that the Scottish working class is either more predisposed to the rotting carcass of the EU superstate, or that it must be more beguiled by its dubious charms than those of us in England and Wales. I don’t buy either line. I don’t buy exceptionalism arguments either. The logic you’ve applied is the footballing equivalent of a long punt up the park by Tony Pulis Stoke outfit..superficially effective.

Do you at least accept that the EU referendum was widely viewed in Scotland, by some people, through the lens of the wider campaign for independence? Do you acknowledge that it was carefully and skillfully (and effectively) crafted in that way by the SNP?

I also don’t buy that federalism as an idea is dead. I think the opposite is actually true and that it’s going to become an increasingly popular idea in England and Wales as the authority of Westminster and ‘London’ continues to decompose.  But the problem for the idea in Scotland is that those who might effectively argue for it are either dead (a Labour movement grounded in the working class) or are the class enemy who have given propulsive force to the SNP and allow them to govern consequence free in the first place (the Westminster political class).


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 28, 2021)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Cracking ‘step over’ jibe at the end. Even I laughed....
> 
> Anyway, the logic of your argument is that the Scottish working class is either more predisposed to the rotting carcass of the EU superstate, or that it must be more beguiled by its dubious charms than those of us in England and Wales. I don’t buy either line. I don’t buy exceptionalism arguments either. The logic you’ve applied is the footballing equivalent of a long punt up the park by Tony Pulis Stoke outfit..superficially effective.







Smokeandsteam said:


> Do you at least accept that the EU referendum was widely viewed in Scotland, by some people, through the lens of the wider campaign for independence? Do you acknowledge that it was carefully and skillfully (and effectively) crafted in that way by the SNP?



Yes of course- there is a crossover between being pro-EU and pro-Scottish independence. I don't think the SNP had to do much 'skilful crafting' as it has been their line since the 1992 General Election- "Independence in Europe". I always thought that a nonsensical line and have said so for a long time. The reality is that when it was crafted the SNP had 4 MPs, there was no Scottish parliament, and frankly they could say what they liked about Europe back then- nobody cared. But here we are, nearly 30 years later, living in a political reality that would have been seen at the fanciful edge of fiction back then.

For many the EU referendum was a pragmatic calculation. The pragmatic calculation of the overwhelming majority in Scotland was that staying in the EU was a better bet. Five subsequent years of spiralling chaos, endemic corruption and the UK becoming an international laughing stock in pretty short order suggests that the Scottish vote may have been the right calculation. One doesn't have to be an FBPE fanboy to argue that. The EU is deeply flawed, racist, corporatist; in need of fundamental political re-boot/reform/shift if it is to go in even a moderately progressive direction in the future. That's wishing on a star too, though, as is anything vaguely to the left of Michael Howard-style conservatism these days, across the continent.



Smokeandsteam said:


> I also don’t buy that federalism as an idea is dead. I think the opposite is actually true and that it’s going to become an increasingly popular idea in England and Wales as the authority of Westminster and ‘London’ continues to decompose.  But the problem for the idea in Scotland is that those who might effectively argue for it are either dead (a Labour movement grounded in the working class) or are the class enemy who have given propulsive force to the SNP and allow them to govern consequence free in the first place (the Westminster political class).



Wait, federalism isn't dead, but those who might argue for it are? I'm afraid that's one step-over too many- a raging Fergie has just told Mike Phelan to get the subs board out.

To be serious, federalism is of no interest to anyone in Scotland presently. I agree with the broad thrust of your statement. The demise of Labour that will accelerate in England is already turbocharged in this country- big Jum Murphy, late of the Henry Jackson society, with his skeletal grin on podiums across the country next to Rooth the Mooth and whoever leads the Liberal Democrats these days hasn't been forgotten. Labour may be struggling down south but it's a rotting corpse up here.

Federalism may well be a way for England and Wales to escape its current fate of being a Second World War museum run by the type of people we fought that war against.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 28, 2021)

Now I’ve recovered from the terrifying spectre of seeing a leering Pulis I can agree with your point steeplejack about the SNP and the collective dream state in Scotland that’s allowed it hegemonic status. A status accompanied by a seemingly widespread nostalgia laden myopia that overlooks its true nature, ambitions and the fact that, at its core, the SNP leadership project is a neoliberal Scotland cloaked in radical language.

When I talked about the dead labour movement in Scotland I wasn’t specifically talking about the Labour Party (although it is indeed dead). I was thinking more about the production of an industrial working class culture that was distinct. In my view it’s death was necessary for the rise of the SNP and the subsequent channelling of hope and energy which has gone into the independence movement.

Would a strong Labour movement - advancing class demands and able to exert pressure to achieve them - have charted a different course? We can only speculate. But what we can say is that it’s demise, and as you suggest the withdrawal of the elite from the post-war moral economy and the subsequent deindustrialisation in Scotland, that shattered the nexus of social democracy, Scottish nationalism and Unionism on which the old order was built. That’s why I say that federalism, as an idea, isn’t dead, but there is nothing to hand - with agency and social weight - that could advance it in the now there. I think here it’s an idea that is coming....


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 28, 2021)

There’s too much football. I glazed over.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 28, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> There’s too much football. I glazed over.



Steeplejack started it...


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jan 29, 2021)

You should be calling each other cunts by now


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 29, 2021)

Dom Traynor said:


> You should be calling each other cunts by now



I’m amazed we haven’t both had a temporary ban for not doing so. I’ll try better next time. Sorry...


----------



## ska invita (Jan 29, 2021)

steeplejack said:


> How is federalism possible after Scotland voted to remain within the EU by _a substantial margin_ and England / Wales voted the other way (with Brexit therefore happening against the settled desire of the Scottish electorate, which was simply set aside and ignored?) How is it possible to accommodate two diametrically opposed outcomes within a federal compromise?


Agreeing to a customs unions at a minimum would've been the compromise - not just for federalism, but for the brexit divide in general - but too late now. The Tories have had their way.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2021)

Anyway...polling  ...



A rare Labour YG lead; maybe the 100k death-toll has finally sunk in ?


----------



## magneze (Jan 29, 2021)

How is there a 3 in front of that 7?


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 29, 2021)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Now I’ve recovered from the terrifying spectre of seeing a leering Pulis I can agree with your point steeplejack about the SNP and the collective dream state in Scotland that’s allowed it hegemonic status. A status accompanied by a seemingly widespread nostalgia laden myopia that overlooks its true nature, ambitions and the fact that, at its core, the SNP leadership project is a neoliberal Scotland cloaked in radical language.



Leaving aside danny's predictably tedious contrarianism on football, your analysis of politics in contemporary Scotland isn't really one that I recognise. In fact your directionless waffle on "dream states" and "nostalgia laden myopia" are slightly more verbose developments of positions more normally found in the pages of _The Spectator._ That somehow SNP support is the result of a captive trance, that people are voting for one thing oblivious to the centre-right Blairite triangulation at the party's core.

Could it be that the political majority in Scotland are actually broadly gathered around that Blairite consensus, with the only vehicle to achieve it now focused on independence?

The wider pro-independence movement in Scotland is much broader than that dour, centrist, centralising pragmatism on offer from the SNP. Many people "of the left" in Scotland vote for the SNP in lieu of any better alternative. Many who voted no in 2014 are now stridently yes, simply because of the blatant lies that were told last time- two of which related to EU membership. We were told that we'd lose our EU membership automaticaly in event a Yes vote and aparently would be "behind Turkey" in the re-application "queue" which doesn't actually exist. And yet here we are five years later, as the result of different lies told by the same people. Leaving aside the frightening of old Dorises about the loss of their pension in the event of independence.

It's stuff like this which hardens support around a pro-independence position as much as anything the SNP say or do. I am keenly looking forward to the implosion of the SNP after independence. Oddly, only independence offers any hope of renewal to the old Brit parties. They are dead in the water until then. Similarly, the revivial of a class and trade-union based left won't happen until a fiundamental shift to an independent Scots political landscape, rather than a devolved one.

The old "British" left have always been pretty terrible at understanding nationalist positions in Scotland, Wales and Ireland, tbh, not least its evolution from the position you outline above (which probably last had a serious say at leadership level in the SNP in the mid 80s). The broader sadness is that the class based position you are ouitlining have as much traction in contemporary political discourse in Scotland as chartism or the corn laws. It's battle re-enactment society stuff.



Smokeandsteam said:


> When I talked about the dead labour movement in Scotland I wasn’t specifically talking about the Labour Party (although it is indeed dead). I was thinking more about the production of an industrial working class culture that was distinct. In my view it’s death was necessary for the rise of the SNP and the subsequent channelling of hope and energy which has gone into the independence movement.
> 
> Would a strong Labour movement - advancing class demands and able to exert pressure to achieve them - have charted a different course? We can only speculate. But what we can say is that it’s demise, and as you suggest the withdrawal of the elite from the post-war moral economy and the subsequent deindustrialisation in Scotland, that shattered the nexus of social democracy, Scottish nationalism and Unionism on which the old order was built. That’s why I say that federalism, as an idea, isn’t dead, but there is nothing to hand - with agency and social weight - that could advance it in the now there. I think here it’s an idea that is coming....



If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Your post actually reminded me of a lot of calls for a _"strong, disciplined and self-confident working class movement"_ from the days on here when the IWCA was prominent, about 15-20 years back. And here we are further away from that than ever. If a mention of the IWCA doesn't bring Joe "the Red Baron" Reilly out of hiding to try and shoot me down in flames then nothing will.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 29, 2021)

Smokeandsteam said:


> In England and Wales was widely perceived to be a vote against the interests of the establishment... ‘if they are for it, we should be against it’.


theres way too much 'perception' and projection involved with these topics. I don't know how familiar you are with the home counties and commuter belts where the older wealthier voters made up the core of the Brexit vote, but the notion that these people are deep antiestablishmentarians (lol never used that word before) is as convincing as Nigel Farage's claim to be one.


----------



## Sue (Jan 29, 2021)

steeplejack said:


> There wider pro-independence movement in Scotland is much broader than that dour, centrist, centralising pragmatism on offer from the SNP. Many people "of the left" in Scotland vote for the SNP in lieu of any better alternative.
> 
> It's stuff like this which hardens support around a pro-independence position as much as anything the SNP say or do. I am keenly looking forward to the implosion of the SNP after independence. Oddly, only independence offers any hope of renewal to the old Brit parties. They are dead in the water until then.
> 
> The old "British" left have always been pretty terrible at understanding nationalist positions in Scotland, Wales and Ireland, tbh, not least its evolution from the position you outline above (which probably last had a serious say at leadership level in the SNP in the mid 80s)


I absolutely agree with these bits. I think often there's a conflation between 'supporting independence' and 'supporting the SNP'. For many people, voting for the latter is a means to the former and nothing more. And the SNP membership is a very broad church indeed. That would all change if independence happens and is absolutely the only conceivable chance Labour has got in Scotland.

I live in England and the different interactions in Scotland of class, geography, religion, unionism and nationalism are really not understood/considered. Which I guess is not that surprising given a lot of it is not that clear to the casual viewer.

I've also been asked a couple of times in the last few days whether Devo Max would be a possibility .


----------



## JTG (Jan 29, 2021)

redsquirrel said:


> This could be just a puff piece playing down expectations but the current polling would seem to back it up to a certain level


The following is maddeningly shite even by the Guardian's low standards:


> Labour is more confident it may take the West of England mayoralty – covering parts of South Gloucestershire, and Bath and North East Somerset – from the Conservatives, in a sign of how the party’s voter base may be shifting towards the southern middle classes.



For a start, the WECA covers all of S Glos & BaNES (not 'parts') and somehow they seem to have left out one of the largest cities in England from their description. It is the Bristol Labour vote that they will need to turn out in high numbers if they want to take the mayoralty from the Tories so you'd have thought it might have been important to mention
Then there's this idea that winning in the Bristol metro area would signify a shift towards 'the southern middle classes'. Given that the 1997-2005 Blair years saw the region return 5 or 6 Labour MPs (all four Bristol seats - losing West in 05, Kingswood and Wansdyke which got boundary changed into NE Somerset and now returns JRM to Westminster), Labour has either run the council or been the largest party in Bristol for all but eight years since 1973 and S Glos/BaNES retains pockets of working class Labour support in Kingswood, Paulton, Patchway, Twerton etc it's a bit of a fucking liberty to suggest that this suggests anything is particularly different now.

All in all, it helps push the narrative that Red Wall areas are Labour heartlands while inner city Bristol, or traditional working class Somserset villages aren't and they can fuck off with that

As it is, I'd be quite surprised if Labour took the metro mayor. The candidate is Dan Norris - former Blairite MP for Wansdyke who voted for war in Iraq after the selection process was stitched up by regional office - and he's inspired deep resentment amongst a big chunk of the Bristol Labour left. They got fairly close in 2017 and may be helped by the fact that Bristol has its own mayor and council elections held over from last year so possibly a bigger turnout than the rest of the region. Even so, trying to get suburban S Glos and Bath to vote Labour is a very tough ask and just won't happen.

Incidentally, regional are busy stitching up the Bristol council candidate selections as well with a swathe of unexplained suspensions and reselections so don't expect a motivated young/left base for these. If you pushed me I'd say Marvin Rees will be reelected but Labour may well lose the council


----------



## brogdale (Feb 2, 2021)

Scottish polling showing surprisingly little change between 'pre-Brexit' November & 'post-Brexit' January?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 2, 2021)

> REFUK: 3% (-1)



but surely first it's got to be unfuked / defuked?  

at least this bunch are honest about it unlike the tories...


----------



## JTG (Feb 2, 2021)

JTG said:


> Incidentally, regional are busy stitching up the Bristol council candidate selections as well with a swathe of unexplained suspensions and reselections so don't expect a motivated young/left base for these. If you pushed me I'd say Marvin Rees will be reelected but Labour may well lose the council


Latest on this: Bristol Momentum are balloting for a campaign strike in Bristol


----------



## JTG (Feb 2, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Scottish polling showing surprisingly little change between 'pre-Brexit' November & 'post-Brexit' January?



tbf I'm not certain it's possible for Labour to go much lower there (until they do) and they've done fuck all to go higher. Ditto the SNP are surely maxed out or thereabouts.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 2, 2021)

Campaign strike?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 2, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Campaign strike?


Not knocking on doors or delivering leaflets.


----------



## JTG (Feb 2, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Not knocking on doors or delivering leaflets.


Aye. Some Momentumites in Bristol have been suspended on spurious grounds and their cases dragged out so that they can be replaced as council candidates without any due process. These include young and BAME members. Given regional office seem to be able to supercede pretty much any attempt at local democracy, up to and including suspending members and postponing CLP AGMs etc, it seems Bristol Momentum's last resort is simply not to campaign - or to only campaign for candidates who have signed their statement anyway. Given they turned out 100s for the GE campaign in 2019 and still have enough clout to have been reasonably sure of winning most of the Bristol West officer roles until regional postponed the AGM and doled out suspensions, this could actually be quite harmful to Labour's campaign in the city


----------



## brogdale (Feb 2, 2021)

JTG said:


> Aye. Some Momentumites in Bristol have been suspended on spurious grounds and their cases dragged out so that they can be replaced as council candidates without any due process. These include young and BAME members. Given regional office seem to be able to supercede pretty much any attempt at local democracy, up to and including suspending members and postponing CLP AGMs etc, it seems Bristol Momentum's last resort is simply not to campaign - or to only campaign for candidates who have signed their statement anyway. Given they turned out 100s for the GE campaign in 2019 and still have enough clout to have been reasonably sure of winning most of the Bristol West officer roles until regional postponed the AGM and doled out suspensions, this could actually be quite harmful to Labour's campaign in the city


The price they're prepared to pay in order to remove socialists from their party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2021)

JTG said:


> Aye. Some Momentumites in Bristol have been suspended on spurious grounds and their cases dragged out so that they can be replaced as council candidates without any due process. These include young and BAME members. Given regional office seem to be able to supercede pretty much any attempt at local democracy, up to and including suspending members and postponing CLP AGMs etc, it seems Bristol Momentum's last resort is simply not to campaign - or to only campaign for candidates who have signed their statement anyway. Given they turned out 100s for the GE campaign in 2019 and still have enough clout to have been reasonably sure of winning most of the Bristol West officer roles until regional postponed the AGM and doled out suspensions, this could actually be quite harmful to Labour's campaign in the city


sales of my tiny violins have never been higher in bristol


----------



## JTG (Feb 2, 2021)

brogdale said:


> The price they're prepared to pay in order to remove socialists from their party.


Yep. The council majority is slim and I'd expect them to lose it tbh given the last elections were 2016 at the height of Corbyn-mania and the anti-Ferguson wave as well. Without a load of leafleters and canvassers (even if by telephone depending on circs) they could lose several tight seats to all three opposition parties. Marvin will probably get home but they're certainly talking about an all out refusal to campaign for Dan Norris as WoE mayor


----------



## JTG (Feb 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> sales of my tiny violins have never been higher in bristol


Haha. Tbf we had a decade or so of Lib Dem rule before they regained control so, you know...


----------



## brogdale (Feb 11, 2021)

Starmer's LP remains dismal:



Still sniggering at re-fuck or whatever they call themselves!

e2a: the losing ground trend for Starmer:


----------



## Sue (Feb 11, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Still sniggering at re-fuck or whatever they call themselves!



Wait, what? Re-fuck...?


----------



## JTG (Feb 12, 2021)

Labour going back to the future


----------



## brogdale (Feb 12, 2021)

JTG said:


> Labour going back to the future



The streak of piss party knocking on double figure %...FFS


----------



## JTG (Feb 12, 2021)

brogdale said:


> The streak of piss party knocking on double figure %...FFS


From my facebook bubble there appears to have been gradual leakage as the reality of Captain Electable hits home - the Remain fixated non partisan liberals are losing faith in him and I wouldn't be surprised if they're trickling back to the LDs. Younger, more precarious radical types attracted by JC seem more inclined to head for the Greens or not voting. As the right's grip on the party tightens (see Starmer thread for Bristol West shenanigans, soon to be repeated in other CLPs across the West for example) I'd expect to see a lot more of these folks exiting for other alternatives. Welsh polling may be particularly instructive at this point


----------



## JTG (Feb 12, 2021)

Interestingly, the figure saying they have not heard of Starmer is up 1% in this latest poll, implying that he is inducing forgetfulness amongst the electorate. I would gladly skip to the front of that queue


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 12, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Starmer's LP remains dismal:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hold on. I’ve obviously not been paying attention. Who are REFUK?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 12, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Hold on. I’ve obviously not been paying attention. Who are REFUK?


It's the Brexit Party as relaunched on 06/01/2021 as _Reform UK; _or _ReFuck_


----------



## belboid (Feb 12, 2021)

JTG said:


> Labour going back to the future



Something weird going on there:

“Interestingly, CON lead amongst men actually decreased from 6% to 2% but among women, went from a LAB 2% lead to a CON 10% lead”


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 12, 2021)

brogdale said:


> It's the Brexit Party as relaunched on 06/01/2021 as _Reform UK; _or _ReFuck_


Passed me by.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 12, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Passed me by.


To your credit


----------



## brogdale (Feb 12, 2021)

I mean fully 3% of those responding seemingly expressing a voting preference for Farage's investment scam.
Clearly not the sharpest chisels.


----------



## chilango (Feb 12, 2021)

brogdale said:


> I mean fully 3% of those responding seemingly expressing a voting preference for Farage's investment scam.
> Clearly not the sharpest chisels.



I dunno. Voting for Farage's various mobs has arguably been the most effective use of a vote in England over the last decade or so.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 12, 2021)

chilango said:


> I dunno. Voting for Farage's various mobs has arguably been the most effective use of a vote in England over the last decade or so.


"...most effective use of a vote in England..."
Interesting concept and sounds like a thread in itself.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 12, 2021)

There will always be 3% of a random cross section of the population that will believe, say or do anything you can think of.  Think of your class at school and then imagine the most ridiculous kid in that class.  (If you can’t think of the most ridiculous kid, it was you.)


----------



## brogdale (Feb 15, 2021)

Just how fucking piss-poor do you have to be to fall behind Johnson in a credibility poll?
FFS


----------



## Knotted (Feb 15, 2021)

To be fair to Keith, Johnson has a solid fan base. I won't try to justify it, but it's something I see everyday.


----------



## killer b (Feb 15, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Just how fucking piss-poor do you have to be to fall behind Johnson in a credibility poll?
> FFS


Corbyn was behind whoever was tory leader in the credibility poll for the entirety of his time as leader (IIRC - there may have been one or two polls where he was ahead).  Fairly sure Miliband was behind Cameron throughout the coalition too. This is pretty normal.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Feb 15, 2021)

killer b said:


> Corbyn was behind whoever was tory leader in the credibility poll for the entirety of his time as leader (IIRC - there may have been one or two polls where he was ahead).  Fairly sure Miliband was behind Cameron throughout the coalition too. This is pretty normal.



Third time lucky, I guess.


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 15, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Just how fucking piss-poor do you have to be to fall behind Johnson in a credibility poll?
> FFS
> 
> View attachment 254563


Only BoZo has actually been PM so a lot of people voting for Corbyn/Starmer as best PM aren't really voting on that basis, this is more an indication of how pissed off they are with BoZo rather than how pleased they are with the alternative. A more pertinent question is not why Starmer is unpopular, it's why Bozo is not.


----------



## Supine (Feb 15, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Just how fucking piss-poor do you have to be to fall behind Johnson in a credibility poll?
> FFS
> 
> View attachment 254563



as poor as Corbyn looking at that data


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 20, 2021)

LibDem surge! Their new leader Naylor Lauren for PM!


----------



## brogdale (Feb 20, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> LibDem surge! Their new leader Naylor Lauren for PM!



ReFucks holding firm at 3%.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 4, 2021)

Good grief.


----------



## chilango (Mar 4, 2021)

Almost the mythical 20pts ahead when you chuck in (geddit?) the LibDem vote with the Tories.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 4, 2021)

chilango said:


> Almost the mythical 20pts ahead when you chuck in (geddit?) the LibDem vote with the Tories.


10k deaths per point lead.


----------



## splonkydoo (Mar 4, 2021)

A depressing and petty thought - but am I as bad as Emilie Oldknow et al now for wishing that Labour get absolutely trashed at the next election?


----------



## killer b (Mar 4, 2021)

I dunno if it really means much - we're still in the middle of a national crisis which saw them polling over 50% last spring, and currently the mood music is positive - and however you swing it, the various vaccine gambles seem to have paid off. The support given by the treasury is widely seen very positively, no-one is really listening about the corruption and the 100,000 dead is already forgotten. 

I think until this is over, you have to assume a strong lead for whoever is in government is the default. Maybe a more vigorous opposition could eke out a few points, but who knows.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 4, 2021)

killer b said:


> I dunno if it really means much - we're still in the middle of a national crisis which saw them polling over 50% last spring, and currently the mood music is positive - and however you swing it, the various vaccine gambles seem to have paid off. The support given by the treasury is widely seen very positively, no-one is really listening about the corruption and the 100,000 dead is already forgotten.
> 
> I think until this is over, you have to assume a strong lead for whoever is in government is the default. Maybe a more vigorous opposition could eke out a few points, but who knows.


Maybe, but the folk now in charge of the Labour party obviously thought that polling mattered when they sought to undermine the previous leadership by repeatedly saying that any other leader would be 20 points ahead.


----------



## killer b (Mar 4, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Maybe, but the folk now in charge of the Labour party obviously thought that polling mattered when they sought to undermine the previous leadership by repeatedly saying that any other leader would be 20 points ahead.


they were wrong - I'm not sure adopting one of the many things they were wrong about is much use is it?


----------



## chilango (Mar 4, 2021)

splonkydoo said:


> A depressing and petty thought - but am I as bad as Emilie Oldknow et al now for wishing that Labour get absolutely trashed at the next election?



I _always_ hope Labour take a heavy beating at the polls.

...just that the other Parties need to take an even heavier beating at the same time.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 4, 2021)

Duh duh, duh duh, dida-dada, boooowm 


(Countdown clock music)


----------



## brogdale (Mar 4, 2021)

killer b said:


> they were wrong - I'm not sure adopting one of the many things they were wrong about is much use is it?


Quite so, but polls like this afford useful opportunities to re-remind them quite how wrong they were then and how fucking useless they are now.


----------



## killer b (Mar 4, 2021)

It can be used to remind them how wrong they were - I don't think it says anything about how useless they are though. They were wrong to point at the polls and say 'anyone else would be 20 points ahead'. You're wrong to point at the polls and say 'this proves you're useless'. The times are unprecedented, and the polls can't be trusted to say anything right now except how the population is feeling about the pandemic.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 4, 2021)

killer b said:


> It can be used to remind them how wrong they were - I don't think it says anything about how useless they are though. They were wrong to point at the polls and say 'anyone else would be 20 points ahead'. You're wrong to point at the polls and say 'this proves you're useless'. The times are unprecedented, and the polls can't be trusted to say anything right now except how the population is feeling about the pandemic.


You don't really need to point to polling to show that the LP is useless, but they kind of corroborate what is evident.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 4, 2021)

i think these polls are way beyond a vaccine boost/rally around the leader
starmer has both been played and played himself


----------



## maomao (Mar 4, 2021)

killer b said:


> It can be used to remind them how wrong they were - I don't think it says anything about how useless they are though. They were wrong to point at the polls and say 'anyone else would be 20 points ahead'. You're wrong to point at the polls and say 'this proves you're useless'. The times are unprecedented, and the polls can't be trusted to say anything right now except how the population is feeling about the pandemic.


So them doing really shit in the polls and being absolutely useless is just a coincidence?


----------



## killer b (Mar 4, 2021)

yep! we need to wait till next year when things have settled down for the abysmal polling to be a reflection of how useless they are...


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 4, 2021)

ska invita said:


> i think these polls are way beyond a vaccine boost/rally around the leader
> starmer has both been played and played himself



I'm dubious that that (one-off!  ) YouGov poll was specifically showing  an anti-Starner vote really, useless though he is.

I'm not sure that the poll represents much (if it all!) beyond a vaccine boost, myself.

 With a booster-jab from Mail and Express and Telegraph etc., for a lot of people.

I couldn't see any voter age breakdown in YouGov's ultra-brief tweeting of their poll, either


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Mar 4, 2021)

ska invita said:


> Duh duh, duh duh, dida-dada, boooowm
> 
> 
> (Countdown clock music)


Boop boop, diddly boop boop


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 5, 2021)

killer b said:


> It can be used to remind them how wrong they were - I don't think it says anything about how useless they are though. They were wrong to point at the polls and say 'anyone else would be 20 points ahead'. You're wrong to point at the polls and say 'this proves you're useless'. The times are unprecedented, and the polls can't be trusted to say anything right now except how the population is feeling about the pandemic.



Just about the pandemic? Nothing longer term that has made the Labour Party unappealing?


----------



## killer b (Mar 5, 2021)

this is the polling showing public satisfaction with the government handling of Covid, currently at 43%, the same as in July last year



this one shows the party polling, with the lead at around 10%, the same as July last year



They follow the same pattern. There's various things the opposition could be doing that might make a small dent in the party polling (and could probably make a small dent in the covid polling too perhaps) but by and large, I don't think the opinion polls can tell us much more than how satisfied the public are with the covid effort. 

(Don't take this as any indication of approval of Labour's current trajectory btw, I hate it)


----------



## Knotted (Mar 5, 2021)

I don't think covid polling would be the same if Labour had set out a zero covid alternative strategy from the start.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 5, 2021)

Also little curious thing - the vaccine bounce isn't all that much on the handling Covid approvals. I wouldn't put Labour's current woes entirely or even mostly down to that.


----------



## killer b (Mar 5, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I don't think covid polling would be the same if Labour had set out a zero covid alternative strategy from the start.


Corbyn was still in charge at the start, and struggled to make any noise at all iirc


----------



## Knotted (Mar 5, 2021)

killer b said:


> Corbyn was still in charge at the start, and struggled to make any noise at all iirc



As outgoing opposition leader he was always going to be ignored. But more so, it's a matter of consistency, if they'd spent the last year putting forward a clearly different response and criticising the government from that perspective, it would filtered through. Plus if they'd been willing to say a few unpopular things, they would have got the headlines.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 5, 2021)

killer b said:


> View attachment 257360


thing about that poll of poll graph is it can be conservative with what it shows
there are these three result in yellow - and corresponding Tory results


outliers? I suspect not. of course its not just about polling results, its about whats actually happening in the world, and the thing is I think Starmer is failing deeply and those poll results show the bottom falling out amongst swing voters.

A week is a long time in politics and all that, and theres many weeks to come etc etc etc  but when you add up poll results with what is actually happening I think its worse for Starmer than that poll of polls graph shows


----------



## Knotted (Mar 5, 2021)

I don't think the poll of polls is conservative - there are outliers in both directions. But I think it lags behind when there are sudden changes of fortune.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 5, 2021)

killer b said:


> this is the polling showing public satisfaction with the government handling of Covid, currently at 43%, the same as in July last year
> 
> View attachment 257358
> 
> ...


I was actually looking at the same polling trajectory above, last night and thinking about it with regard to the pattern of the pandemic (in that Labour had a few poll leads in the Autumn at the time the government was fucking everything up over schools and the rest). There clearly does look to be a realtionship between party polling and perceptions of the government's handling of the pandemic. But ultimately, Labour's problem is that nobody knows what kind of party they are losing _as_.  Blair's neo liberal non-threatening 'what works' modernisation mush had at least a degree of coherence, however much I/we detested it. Similarly, Corbyn's unimaginative social democracy had something for some voters to cling onto. Starmer's not even a shit version of Ed Miliband, there really is nothing there to sell to voters.  Labour won't make anything out of the pandemic because they've nothing to say about anything else.


----------



## Rimbaud (Mar 5, 2021)

Highest ever support for Welsh independence, new poll shows
					

Nearly 40% of people in Wales are in favour of independence, survey suggests




					www.independent.co.uk
				




Welsh support for independence at 40%, with the rise driven mainly by the young. 

I think this is a consequence of the Labour Party's purge of Corbynism. Social Democrats are politically homeless again - SNP filled the gap in Scotland pre-Corbyn, Plaid may be set to fill the gap created by Starmerism in Wales. 

Performance of the Northern Independence Party is still too early to say, but they do also seem to be overwhelmingly young ex-Labour supporters turned off by Starmerism.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Mar 5, 2021)

Rimbaud said:


> Highest ever support for Welsh independence, new poll shows
> 
> 
> Nearly 40% of people in Wales are in favour of independence, survey suggests
> ...



I'm not paying that much attention as I don't live in wales anymore but from what I've read, increased support for independence isn't leasing to an increase in polling for Plaid.

Plaid are useless. Veered too hard towards Remain and too cosy with the Tories to do one over Labour. Like yh fuck labour but don't get into bed with the Tories to do so.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 23, 2021)

Wales


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2021)

"Go back to your constituencies, and prepare for government!"


----------



## maomao (Mar 30, 2021)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 260967
> 
> "Go back to your constituencies, and prepare for government!"


Luckily Labour have an electable leader now eh. Wankers.


----------



## JTG (Mar 30, 2021)

Just as a comparison, Labour were 4/5 points behind at the end of 2016 when the chicken coup plot was put into action


----------



## Knotted (Mar 30, 2021)

Yougov seem to be consistently showing larger Tory leads since the start of March. I haven't got any broader point to make, except it's a little polling curiosity.

Edit: Even curiouser - Yougov were almost unique in having Labour leads in January. Change of methodologies?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 15, 2021)

Not polling, as such, but a useful piece on the "Blue wall" of Tory marginals and the chances of them falling to centrist opponents:

The 'Blue Wall'



> ...rapidly liberalising suburbs which the Tories have long held, but which are fast trending away from them.



Detailed spreadsheet of the 'Blue wall' marginals here.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 15, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Not polling, as such, but a useful piece on the "Blue wall" of Tory marginals and the chances of them falling to centrist opponents:
> 
> The 'Blue Wall'
> 
> ...


Worth thinking about this piece from Jacobin, that while talking about the US, is pertinent to the above politics.


> November’s third major winner, filling out the picture, was America’s headlong march toward a party system entirely decoupledfrom the politics of class. To be sure, the class-aligned politics of the long New Deal era — which happened to produce virtually every worthwhile national law, from Social Security to the Voting Rights Act — began to erode decades ago. But the last four years have seen a rapid acceleration of this trend, with Republicans winning larger and larger chunks of the non-college-educated working class, while Democrats gain more and more votes from affluent professionals and managers.





> Yet the partisan politics of the Gilded Age, for all its storminess, was also the politics of class dealignment. Both Republicans and Democrats claimed the mantle of the American worker, accusing the other side of being owned by some privileged stratum of the elite — and they were both right. Although the two sides argued endlessly about economic issues, including tariffs and monetary policy, it was often difficult to identify any class-based fault lines underneath the ruckus.





> Far more than any Democratic president in US history, Biden’s victory in 2020 depended not on blue-collar workers but on white-collar professionals. When class is measured by education, rather than income — “education polarization,” as liberal wonks prefer to call it — the working-class retreat from the Democrats looks even more dramatic.
> 
> The most influential version of denial acknowledges that Democrats have lost enormous support from white workers since 2012: the numbers here are simply too large to ignore. But by touting the loyalty of black and Latino voters, liberal pundits can still cast a narrative that flaunts Democrats as the party of a multiracial working class. They’re not wrong, exactly — no more than Gilded Age Republicans were wrong to claim that their support from Mississippi sharecroppers and Vermont dairymen made them the party of a multiracial working class. But it’s not a very convincing way to describe a party that is less and less competitive with over half the blue-collar workers in America.





> For one prominent cluster of think-tank liberals, the changing Democratic coalition is not a fact to be mourned but an opportunity to be seized. As Trump draws the Republicans to “populism,” New America’s Lee Drutman argued after the 2016 election, the Democrats should work to win over “upscale cosmopolitan Republicans.” After Biden rode this advice to victory in 2020, the Brookings Institution issued a blunt pronouncement: “The future for Democrats is in the suburbs.”





> In Illinois, billionaire governor J. B. Pritzker spent much of the year attempting to sell voters on a progressive tax on income above $250,000 a year — funding needed to avoid dire cuts to the state budget. But in a statewide referendum, the bifurcated Democratic coalition failed him. In Chicago, nonwhite working-class voters strongly backed Pritzker’s tax, with the South Side’s 8th Ward (97 percent black) and the West Side’s 22nd Ward (89 percent Latino) supporting the measure by over 50 points. Yet overall Democratic turnout in both these inner-city wards — where Joe Biden’s vote share also dropped — was down from 2012 and 2016.
> 
> Meanwhile, wealthy and well-educated Illinois Democrats backed Biden with far more enthusiasm than they mustered for Chicago’s own Barack Obama, but their support did not extend to the progressive tax.



I do not agree with all of Karp's thesis but he is absolutely correct in this final paragraph


> As labor organizers battle in the trenches to challenge the power of capital, left electoral politics must continue to fight, against the partisan grain, for a working-class coalition. It is no great mystery why Democrats like Biden, Clinton, and Schumer have chosen the path of class dealignment, which suits both their electoral fortunes and the larger interests they serve. But for the fragile, fledgling Left that has emerged from the Sanders era, no choice could be more disastrous.


And compare that against Akehurst's piece (my emphasis)


> Like most *progressive* movements in the post-industrial world, the British left is stuck between the voters moving away from it and those moving towards them.


no mention of social democracy (let alone socialism). Progressivism (which the LDs are to be part of) is the goal


----------



## JTG (Apr 15, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Not polling, as such, but a useful piece on the "Blue wall" of Tory marginals and the chances of them falling to centrist opponents:
> 
> The 'Blue Wall'
> 
> ...


Most of which are places Labour right wingers disingenuously criticised Momentum et al for targeting in 2019


----------



## brogdale (Apr 16, 2021)

Tories on 72%


----------



## brogdale (Apr 16, 2021)

Them tracker trends...


----------



## ska invita (Apr 16, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Them tracker trends...
> 
> View attachment 263508


like i said upthread i think the tracker flatters labour


----------



## magneze (Apr 16, 2021)

"electable"


----------



## ska invita (Apr 16, 2021)

This latest -5% dip suggests Lab voters going Green/LibDem <as much as you can read into these things, that sounds like "left" voters moving away.


----------



## splonkydoo (Apr 16, 2021)

Why would Corbyn do this?


----------



## Knotted (Apr 16, 2021)

ska invita said:


> like i said upthread i think the tracker flatters labour



I don't agree. We just keep posting up Labour's worst polls.


----------



## Flavour (Apr 16, 2021)

that is pretty fucking bad. How the fuck are the LDs on 8%.


----------



## Chz (Apr 16, 2021)

Flavour said:


> that is pretty fucking bad. How the fuck are the LDs on 8%.


Locals are coming up, and they still have a following there. I know the poll is for Westminster, but the locals will be on some people's minds.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 16, 2021)

Labour are such cunts who have got just about every strategic question wrong in the last few years - either in their attempt at being a social democratic party or in their continuing attempt at being centrist neo-liberals.  And I hate them even more for the fact that it depresses the fuck out of me seeing them go further and further behind.


----------



## JTG (Apr 16, 2021)

Greens and Lib Dems getting some of that sweet vaccine bounce


----------



## kabbes (Apr 16, 2021)

I voted Labour throughout the Corbyn years but it would take a miracle to get me to vote for Sur Kieth, the smooth cunt.


----------



## JTG (Apr 16, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I voted Labour throughout the Corbyn years but it would take a miracle to get me to vote for Sur Kieth, the smooth cunt.


I too am a traditional die-hard Labour voter (2015-19) who has found it sadly impossible to maintain this support since the party was hijacked by these extremists. 
I intend to tweet endlessly about being politically homeless and undermine everything the party does until they dip below 25% in the polls 😎


----------



## killer b (Apr 16, 2021)

amazed to be the first to note that he's finally got them to 20 points ahead though! of the greens.


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Apr 18, 2021)

Chz said:


> Locals are coming up, and they still have a following there. I know the poll is for Westminster, but the locals will be on some people's minds.


Yup, more forests will be currently being depleted as the yellow-Tories bombard households in their target council wards with “it’s a two horse race” and dodgy-bar-chart-bullshit flyers.  Plus the thinnest veneer of sex/race pol focused social liberals may have been sheered away Lib Demwards by the recent Labour dogwhistling on GRT community, Law’n’ order and  flagshagging. All this probably worthy a few percentage points for Yellow-Tories.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 18, 2021)

I’ve seen a few ‘winning here’ diamonds about in the last couple of weeks, mostly in places they don’t have an earthly of taking.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 30, 2021)




----------



## killer b (Apr 30, 2021)

ska invita said:


>



what's the text from?


----------



## ska invita (Apr 30, 2021)

killer b said:


> what's the text from?


No idea 

There was a new times yougov poll? 

In 4 months seems unlikely


----------



## belboid (Apr 30, 2021)

ska invita said:


> No idea
> 
> There was a new times yougov poll?
> 
> In 4 months seems unlikely


Yup, it’s the new yougov one from yesterday. And while the level of drop seems a bit big, the general movement is clear, I think.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 30, 2021)

belboid said:


> Yup, it’s the new yougov one from yesterday. And while the level of drop seems a bit big, the general movement is clear, I think.


Less worried about the Labour loss more so any Tory gain


----------



## magneze (Apr 30, 2021)

It's not too surprising. There's nothing to vote for.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 30, 2021)

It's a good day for the media to focus on fucking curtains , and ignore other news such as the cladding shambles (no compo from the Tories for a high number) and fishing (no Norway fishing deal) . Long term, both could eat into the Tory vote.


----------



## JTG (Apr 30, 2021)

ska invita said:


>



I'd be interested to know how much of that is due to former Labour supporters simply saying they wouldn't vote rather than a straight move from Lab > Tory


----------



## MrSki (May 1, 2021)

Well it looks like people do care.


----------



## JTG (May 1, 2021)

JTG said:


> I'd be interested to know how much of that is due to former Labour supporters simply saying they wouldn't vote rather than a straight move from Lab > Tory


I'd also caution against reading too much into demographic crossbreaks in single polls. The overall sample may be fine but as we get into particular age groups or other splits, the sample often gets less reliable as it shrinks. So yeah, trends, not single polls


----------



## Pickman's model (May 1, 2021)

ska invita said:


>



Call me auld fashioned but being of working age doesn't end the day you turn 50


----------



## kabbes (May 1, 2021)

JTG said:


> I'd also caution against reading too much into demographic crossbreaks in single polls. The overall sample may be fine but as we get into particular age groups or other splits, the sample often gets less reliable as it shrinks. So yeah, trends, not single polls


There's also a more fundamental point of failure with opinion polling, which is harder to get your arms around.  A point of failure that is at the heart of all the difficulties that polling companies have with meaningfully predicting outcomes.  It comes down to this: what actually _is_ a poll?  Because what it is _not_ is a measurement of an objective metric.  People are not reporting a fact.  They are responding to an interaction, describing their subjective sense ("I feel") of how they as a distinct object (the "me") might behave under an ambiguous, unstated, contestable context.  The answer can't be a meaningful statement of fact, it has to be constructed in the moment.  There is a line of thought that claims the construction of the answer derives at least in part from the nature of the interaction itself, including the context within that interaction takes place.  That’s why you get different answers depending on who does the asking and what order the questions are asked in. People are adopting an identity in the moment that reflects a message they believe to be necessary.  This might be radically different to what they would do once in a ballot box.  This problem is bad enough during a wider social discourse dominated by an imminent election.  With no such discourse to frame the polling interaction, I can't see that it is possible to read across from polling to actual voting.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

One of the polling companies quoted in today's Guardian as showing the Tories with a marginally reduced lead is called 'Focaldata'. Did they really think about that name? If I was selling data I would want people to think I had at least _some_ data.


----------



## kabbes (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> One of the polling companies quoted in today's Guardian as showing the Tories with a marginally reduced lead is called 'Focaldata'. Did they really think about that name? If I was selling data I would want people to think I had at least _some_ data.


I've spent too much time recently thinking about Foucault and for at least two minutes I was convinced you were making a subtle and clever pun that I couldn't quite figure out about the subjectifying processes of normalising judgements used by those with power.

And then I saw it.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

kabbes said:


> convinced you were making a subtle and clever pun


Thanks, but unlikely given my track record.


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2021)

On the way to 20 points behind.


----------



## Wilf (May 14, 2021)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 268122
> 
> On the way to 20 points behind.


Labour got 32% in 2019 and, from memory, 28% in 1983. That was the lowest they've got in the postwar era and, I've always assumed, just about the lowest Labour could go. That assumption was a vague feeling that the class/party link would still hold fast for a core group of voters.  It's hard to know if there is a natural baseline figure for Labour anymore.  We're not at pasokification yet, in part because of FPTP. But even if they remain as the second biggest party, which they will, there's a point where they become irrelevant and not a serious competitor for power.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 18, 2021)

That Survation poll that MrSki posted (Labour one point behind Tories) and that YouGov poll that brogdale posted (Labour fifteen points behind Tories) *both* look wrong to me -- former too close, latter too extreme.


----------



## Knotted (May 18, 2021)

William of Walworth said:


> That Survation poll that MrSki posted (Labour one point behind Tories) and that YouGov poll that brogdale posted (Labour fifteen points behind Tories) *both* look wrong to me -- former too close, latter too extreme.



I've noticed that the polls are diverging. I've no idea why. But bare in mind that it could be that Yougov are getting it right and everybody is else is getting it wrong. Same could be true of Survation. Do wish people wouldn't just keep posting Yougov without noting this divergence though, it's feeding U75's confirmation biases.


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I've noticed that the polls are diverging. I've no idea why. But bare in mind that it could be that Yougov are getting it right and everybody is else is getting it wrong. Same could be true of Survation. Do wish people wouldn't just keep posting Yougov without noting this divergence though, it's feeding U75's confirmation biases.


Looking at the poll-of-poll trackers should help to avoid any individual polling skew.


----------



## killer b (May 18, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I've noticed that the polls are diverging. I've no idea why. But bare in mind that it could be that Yougov are getting it right and everybody is else is getting it wrong. Same could be true of Survation. Do wish people wouldn't just keep posting Yougov without noting this divergence though, it's feeding U75's confirmation biases.


It isn't really that simple - Yougov are showing a consistent large tory lead, but plenty of others are recording large tory leads too, although perhaps less consistently. Survation have recently been recording 6-10% leads. Redfield and Wilton Strategies have recorded an 11% lead and a 2% lead this month alone...


----------



## brogdale (May 22, 2021)

Nearly there.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 22, 2021)

the 20 point lead is nearly there...


----------



## William of Walworth (May 23, 2021)

Puddy_Tat said:


> the 20 point lead is nearly there...


My gut reaction is that with a Tory lead as extreme and big as that (  ), the only way is down.

But right now, my confidence is pretty shaky about that


----------



## killer b (May 26, 2021)

There's an interesting piece here (linked to in a NS piece I was just reading) with some YouGov analysis about why the tory sleaze stories of the last month or so haven't made any headway into their polling.
_
Amongst those who self-report paying a high level of attention to politics, our poll just two days before the local elections showed a five-point lead for Labour (38% to 33%). This was in stark contrast to the rest of our sample, which showed a 15-point lead for the Conservatives (46% to 31%), averaging out at an overall Conservative 10-point lead.

Looking at the trend over the last month, we also see two completely different stories depending on whether people are engaged in politics or not. There has been a dramatic shift amongst those with a self-reported political attention of 8/10 or higher, with the Conservatives collapsing from a 17-point lead on 13 April to a five-point Labour lead in early May. Amongst those with a political attention of 7/10 or lower, voting intention is virtually unchanged over this time.

YouGov started weighting by political attention after the 2015 general election, when we identified that our samples previously contained too many people highly engaged in politics. Without this adjustment, it is likely our polls leading up to the elections last Thursday would have presented a very different picture of where the country was, rather than our 10-point leads that correlated very closely with the local election results across England._


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2021)

killer b said:


> There's an interesting piece here (linked to in a NS piece I was just reading) with some YouGov analysis about why the tory sleaze stories of the last month or so haven't made any headway into their polling.
> 
> _Amongst those who self-report paying a high level of attention to politics, our poll just two days before the local elections showed a five-point lead for Labour (38% to 33%). This was in stark contrast to the rest of our sample, which showed a 15-point lead for the Conservatives (46% to 31%), averaging out at an overall Conservative 10-point lead.
> 
> ...


_Wake up Sheeple!   _


----------



## JimW (May 26, 2021)

killer b said:


> There's an interesting piece here (linked to in a NS piece I was just reading) with some YouGov analysis about why the tory sleaze stories of the last month or so haven't made any headway into their polling.
> 
> _Amongst those who self-report paying a high level of attention to politics, our poll just two days before the local elections showed a five-point lead for Labour (38% to 33%). This was in stark contrast to the rest of our sample, which showed a 15-point lead for the Conservatives (46% to 31%), averaging out at an overall Conservative 10-point lead.
> 
> ...


That really is an indictment of the weakness of Starmerite opposition to my mind, as there's obviously all sorts going on where policy is impacting people's lives in ways I'm sure they're very interested in but no-one's making the case that it could be done differently, hence leeway for stumbling through a crisis as most people put up with what they think can't be helped etc.


----------



## killer b (May 26, 2021)

JimW said:


> That really is an indictment of the weakness of Starmerite opposition to my mind, as there's obviously all sorts going on where policy is impacting people's lives in ways I'm sure they're very interested in but no-one's making the case that it could be done differently, hence leeway for stumbling through a crisis as most people put up with what they think can't be helped etc.


perhaps, although from what I've read on the topic it's an issue that faced Corbyn too, who for all his faults did try to make a case that things could be done differently.


----------



## JimW (May 26, 2021)

killer b said:


> perhaps, although from what I've read on the topic it's an issue that faced Corbyn too, who for all his faults did try to make a case that things could be done differently.


True, I suppose another part of it is the general complexity of a lot of stuff that means things like backdoor NHS privatisation can be kept sufficiently obscure to a casual look.


----------



## NoXion (May 26, 2021)

Is backdoor NHS privatisation really that complicated? Couldn't it reasonably be compared to outsourcing, with the exception that while the actual work is farmed out to Tory donors, it's done under the NHS "brand"?

I dunno, I just don't buy the idea that it's somehow too complicated a concept.


----------



## killer b (May 26, 2021)

The way outsourcing works is pretty complicated and most people don't really understand or care about it too though.


----------



## NoXion (May 26, 2021)

killer b said:


> The way outsourcing works is pretty complicated and most people don't really understand or care about it too though.



It should surely be an easy issue to frame though; it's being done to cut costs, not for the benefit of patients...


----------



## killer b (May 26, 2021)

Sure - and I think there's a general feeling that it's a bad thing. But the whole thing about doing stuff by the back door, a bit at a time is that each individual sell-off of services is difficult to oppose or often even detect. People are still accessing the services through the NHS, and if the service becomes poorer, it's the NHS that people grumble about rather than the myriad of companies providing the various services as they simply aren't very visible.


----------



## Dom Traynor (May 27, 2021)

killer b said:


> perhaps, although from what I've read on the topic it's an issue that faced Corbyn too, who for all his faults did try to make a case that things could be done differently.



I wonder if it's also a sense of general exhaustion and unwillingness to engage with politics, especially bad political news. I know that since before Brexit I've struggled to pay attention to any political detail outside my immediate area of interest and I am literally in a full time political job. Not because of whats happening politically which has been mostly shit with the odd highlight since the decline of the post war consensus; but more down to 24 Hour news and social media overwhelm.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2021)

Today's Survation.


----------



## Flavour (May 27, 2021)

That is quite impressive


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2021)

Flavour said:


> That is quite impressive


What's less impressive, for Survation, is that they had them on 38% each last time; clearly an outlier from the tracking.


----------



## Smangus (May 27, 2021)

What's even less impressive is that 44% of the people I am surrounded by are complete dick heads.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2021)

Smangus said:


> What's even less impressive is that 44% of the people I am surrounded by are complete dick heads.


Only 29% really, on 66% approx GE turnouts.


----------



## Smangus (May 28, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Only 29% really, on 66% approx GE turnouts.


You've never met the people I'm surrounded by......


----------



## Wilf (May 28, 2021)

I wonder if this is still in the shadow of brexit. There was an active feeling of alienation against Westminster and the whole political class that motivated a lot of voters in 2016 or at least a general feeling of grievance that shaped that vote.  Theresa May managed to put herself on the wrong side of that feeling as did Corbyn.  In a sense, the period through to the 2019 gen election was one of waiting for someone to capture that mood, right or left (and of course there was no chance of a left populism in Britain).  Johnson's government is still the 'answer' to that moment and has a fair wind still.  Labour have just ceased to be force of any kind, ideological or political, so that helps.  So, what resentment there is about Covid mismanagement has nothing to hook onto.  We're in a weird situation where 5 years ago people used to resent government(s) for their ills, now they don't.  I can't quite express it, but we somehow live in a world of non-politics.  Not in the way the Blair governments meant there was a neoliberal consensus amongst the parties, but a disconnect between the shitness of life and what we thing about government.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2021)

Wilf said:


> I wonder if this is still in the shadow of brexit. There was an active feeling of alienation against Westminster and the whole political class that motivated a lot of voters in 2016 or at least a general feeling of grievance that shaped that vote.  Theresa May managed to put herself on the wrong side of that feeling as did Corbyn.  In a sense, the period through to the 2019 gen election was one of waiting for someone to capture that mood, right or left (and of course there was no chance of a left populism in Britain).  Johnson's government is still the 'answer' to that moment and has a fair wind still.  Labour have just ceased to be force of any kind, ideological or political, so that helps.  So, what resentment there is about Covid mismanagement has nothing to hook onto.  We're in a weird situation where 5 years ago people used to resent government(s) for their ills, now they don't.  I can't quite express it, but we somehow live in a world of non-politics.  Not in the way the Blair governments meant there was neoliberal consensus amongst the party, but a disconnect between the shitness of life and what we thing about government.


I think there's a great deal of truth in what you say.

I've long suspected that the more hollowed-out the state becomes, the less folk feel any incentive to determine who manages it's decline.


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2021)

Stephen Bush in today's NS mailout says something about the whole covid mismanagement thing, and it's likely lack of purchase on public opinion (I think I agree with him looking at the yougov reaction to the Cummings stuff):

_I suspect that the problem for Cummings - and for any opposition party that thinks there is political joy to be had out of relitigating the mistakes of the past 18 months - is that just as people often want to move on past a period of ill health or personal trial in their personal lives, the country as a whole would, I think, be happier never to think about 2020-21 again. To not revisit the terrifying moment when the government had not only visibly lost control of the outbreak but the Prime Minister himself looked like he might die from it, leaving an overwhelmed government looking even more rudderless. To not think about the Zoom funerals, the overwhelming pressure of looking after children and working from home, the financial worries, and the seemingly never-ending month of January 2021. 

As aggravating as that may be for people who think, arguably rightly, that the mistakes of the last year matter and will make themselves felt in a new set of mistakes over the coming years, Johnson's biggest asset is surely that most people just want to never again think about the year just gone. _


----------



## chilango (May 28, 2021)

I think if you couple what killer b  quotes above with the defensiveness of the huge swathes of people who voted Tory in 2019 (because of Corbyn. or Brexit or whatever) and who, deep down, know that they are complicit in this, that they have enabled this Government. No one wants to admit to themselves (or others) that they fucked up big time here, do they? Far easier to double down. Just like a bigger. more real version, of the shit you see on Twitter. It's too hard, when all this is framed by (and bound into) values and identity.


----------



## Wilf (May 28, 2021)

I do wonder how the more administrative/less populist governments of May, Cameron on even Brown would have coped with Covid. Not so much how would they have handled Covid itself, more how would they have fared if they'd have fucked up as much as johnson's lot have. There'd have been the usual fair wind that all governments get at times of national crisis, but the relationship between voters and government would have been different.  I suspect they'd have attracted more blame and those government's would have been seen as responsible for, y'know, government stuff.  Johnson's lot somehow avoid getting judged as a government.


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2021)

Wilf said:


> I do wonder how the more administrative/less populist governments of May, Cameron on even Brown would have coped with Covid. Not so much how would they have handled Covid itself, more how would they have fared if they'd have fucked up as much as johnson's lot have. There'd have been the usual fair wind that all governments get at times of national crisis, but the relationship between voters and government would have been different.  I suspect they'd have attracted more blame and those government's would have been seen as responsible for, y'know, government stuff.  Johnson's lot somehow avoid getting judged as a government.


They did get judged as a government in the latter parts of the first two waves, before the vaccines changed the script. I expect this kind of pattern to be followed everywhere tbh: as the crisis subsides (assuming it does...) the governments which are scoring poorly at the moment will start to see their popularity increase. I don't know how much of it is to do with populism.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 28, 2021)

I think part of it is that no-one is really articulating what the outcome should have been if the government had handled it better tbh. What would be a good outcome from a situation like this? I know a lot on here will think that's an obvious question but it's really not IMO.


----------



## Knotted (May 28, 2021)

I'm inclined to agree with Wilf that Boris has a new populist relation with a section of the public. But I think part of that is that he's seen as someone who gets things done, and the Tories are the party that's willing to invest and to kick start the economy. I think these narratives are being undermined at present (especially the first) and that however much people want to move on, the headlines will seep through regardless.

I think the Tory sleeze problem is very different to the mishandling of coronavirus. The cronyism still looks like the government getting things done and doing up No. 10 is just Boris being Boris.

Not sure what the ultimate result is going to be. Labour look so bad at the minute it's hard to see them pressing home any advantages.


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2021)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I think part of it is that no-one is really articulating what the outcome should have been if the government had handled it better tbh. What would be a good outcome from a situation like this? I know a lot on here will think that's an obvious question but it's really not IMO.


yeah, we aren't even top ten in the deaths per million anymore. basically every country that feels comparable to us has fucked up badly - so if everyone has fucked up, the 'we tried our best' claim probably sounds reasonable to most people, even while they recognise there was a fuck up.


----------



## strung out (May 28, 2021)

killer b said:


> They did get judged as a government in the latter parts of the first two waves, before the vaccines changed the script. I expect this kind of pattern to be followed everywhere tbh: as the crisis subsides (assuming it does...) the governments which are scoring poorly at the moment will start to see their popularity increase. I don't know how much of it is to do with populism.


Just speculation, but it makes me wonder how much closer Trump would have come to winning if the vaccination programme in America had been 6 months further along.


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2021)

I think they had their election at just the right time tbh


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 28, 2021)

strung out said:


> Just speculation, but it makes me wonder how much closer Trump would have come to winning if the vaccination programme in America had been 6 months further along.



Even aside from the vaccination programme if he'd made even a half-hearted effort to look like he was dealing with the pandemic I think he would have won. Johnson has shown it doesn't take a lot for the incumbent to get a boost from that situation even while messing it up, but Trump couldn't even manage that.


----------



## Wilf (May 28, 2021)

killer b said:


> They did get judged as a government in the latter parts of the first two waves, before the vaccines changed the script. I expect this kind of pattern to be followed everywhere tbh: as the crisis subsides (assuming it does...) the governments which are scoring poorly at the moment will start to see their popularity increase. I don't know how much of it is to do with populism.


Yes, I think that's right and probably fits with your notion of a proportion of the population still engaged in political news - when the tories fuck up, there will be some movement in some part of the electorate, but not enough.  That Labour could only get to parity or a couple of points ahead in the lead up to the 2nd wave was telling. At that point there was sustained, real time plausible information that delay and confusion in government was killing people. Not a retrospective thing, something visible in the daily case/death figures.  The levers between these events and public attitudes towards government are not what we might expect.  Some of the levers are broken and others are producing counterintuitive results.


----------



## elbows (May 28, 2021)

killer b said:


> Stephen Bush in today's NS mailout says something about the whole covid mismanagement thing, and it's likely lack of purchase on public opinion (I think I agree with him looking at the yougov reaction to the Cummings stuff):
> 
> _I suspect that the problem for Cummings - and for any opposition party that thinks there is political joy to be had out of relitigating the mistakes of the past 18 months - is that just as people often want to move on past a period of ill health or personal trial in their personal lives, the country as a whole would, I think, be happier never to think about 2020-21 again. To not revisit the terrifying moment when the government had not only visibly lost control of the outbreak but the Prime Minister himself looked like he might die from it, leaving an overwhelmed government looking even more rudderless. To not think about the Zoom funerals, the overwhelming pressure of looking after children and working from home, the financial worries, and the seemingly never-ending month of January 2021.
> 
> As aggravating as that may be for people who think, arguably rightly, that the mistakes of the last year matter and will make themselves felt in a new set of mistakes over the coming years, Johnson's biggest asset is surely that most people just want to never again think about the year just gone. _



Thats part of my thinking when it comes to the risk to Johnson if new variants spoil the sense that the pandemic is coming to some kind of end.

Vaccine stuff was a significant boost for Johnson. If or when that starts to erode, again due to new variants or gradual changes in the virus, the landscape may end up looking quite different.

I dont have a prediction about when or if that will happen, or to what extent, so I also lack pandemic political predictions at the moment.


----------



## brogdale (May 31, 2021)

11 point margin:


----------



## brogdale (Jun 4, 2021)

Look, a 1% increase...the lurch to the vacuous right is paying off.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 4, 2021)

In January the Greens were on around 4% on the Poll-Of-Poll tracking and are now up to 7%, (with this YG giving them 9%); looks like some evidence of sustained drift from Starmer's Labour.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 4, 2021)

Survation offering a smaller Tory lead, but Labour static:


----------



## brogdale (Jun 13, 2021)

Another 13 point vermin lead:


 & very close to Politico's Poll of Polls tracker:


----------



## Argonia (Jun 13, 2021)

22nd and 23rd century historians are going to have a right laugh at these silly polls from the Former Regime.


----------



## Argonia (Jun 14, 2021)

We in the new Republic are in an abject mess due to the incredible and mind-blowing failures of the Former Regime. There is so much work to do at grassroots level to build a sane civic society. For example  - millions of people can't read very well or at all and are alienated from the 21st century Internet Revolution. What can be done about this urgent problem?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 14, 2021)

Argonia said:


> We in the new Republic are in an abject mess due to the incredible and mind-blowing failures of the Former Regime. There is so much work to do at grassroots level to build a sane civic society. For example  - millions of people can't read very well or at all and are alienated from the 21st century Internet Revolution. What can be done about this urgent problem?



Had to Google this. Apparently 1 in 5 people in England, and 1 in 4 Scots are functionally illiterate!


----------



## Argonia (Jun 14, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Had to Google this. Apparently 1 in 5 people in England, and 1 in 4 Scots are functionally illiterate!



So, so, so, so utterly sad. Oh well. Time to accelerate a genuine education system and help those marginalised and excluded and those who need extra help and support.


----------



## maomao (Jun 14, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Had to Google this. Apparently 1 in 5 people in England, and 1 in 4 Scots are functionally illiterate!


And you lack basic numeracy skills if you think 16.4% is one in five. It's slightly less than one in six.


----------



## elbows (Jun 14, 2021)

I expect that next time someone asks Starmer what Labour stand for, his reply will be 'the national anthem'.


----------



## Argonia (Jun 14, 2021)

maomao said:


> And you lack basic numeracy skills if you think 16.4% is one in five. It's slightly less than one in six.



I was rubbish at maths at school but my mum was a private maths tutor and is excellent.  I have great respect for mathematicians although my mind is literary and works that way instead. I enjoyed Hannah Fry's mathematics programmes on BBC One a while back on iPlayer but I might have an issue with her about Platonic ideals and how they relate to maths but who knows - will be an interesting discourse if we ever meet up for a green tea or a camomile tea or something in LDN.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 14, 2021)

maomao said:


> And you lack basic numeracy skills if you think 16.4% is one in five. It's slightly less than one in six.



It was a typo, ffs.


----------



## maomao (Jun 14, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> It was a typo, ffs.


Ok, illiterate after all then.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 14, 2021)

Damn you, The Internet!


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jun 14, 2021)

Being functionally illiterate does not invalidate your opinions nor necessarily make you ignorant. With radio and TV news and documentaries, films and biographies, potted history etc on the telly, you could be functionally illiterate nowadays and yet know and understand more than the average person a few decades ago. Much more so the average person from the 19th century or before. It's how you handle your illiteracy or lack of numeracy that matters. If your inadequacy makes you feel bad about yourself then it will affect your life adversely in myriad ways. If it doesn't then it needn't.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 14, 2021)

I've met plenty of people who think I'm clever, when in fact I've just read a lot of books.


----------



## Argonia (Jun 14, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Being functionally illiterate does not invalidate your opinions nor necessarily make you ignorant. With radio and TV news and documentaries, films and biographies, potted history etc on the telly, you could be functionally illiterate nowadays and yet know and understand more than the average person a few decades ago. Much more so the average person from the 19th century or before. It's how you handle your illiteracy or lack of numeracy that matters. If your inadequacy makes you feel bad about yourself then it will affect your life adversely in myriad ways. If it doesn't then it needn't.



Interesting but how could we expect people to keep up with our transition from the Jurassic era to the 21st century if they can't join Urban75 and read this explosion of documents and sources? Imagine having to watch the Orwellian telescreen the whole time. Imagine if you watched the 'news' channel and thought any of it was reality. Precisely how deluded would you be?


----------



## JTG (Jun 14, 2021)

NoXion said:


> I've met plenty of people who think I'm clever, when in fact I've just read a lot of books.


I've met a lot of people who think they're clever when etc etc


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jun 14, 2021)

Argonia said:


> Interesting but how could we expect people to keep up with our transition from the Jurassic era to the 21st century if they can't join Urban75 and read this explosion of documents and sources? Imagine having to watch the Orwellian telescreen the whole time. Imagine if you watched the 'news' channel and thought any of it was reality. Precisely how deluded would you be?


Imagine reading Urban and believing it was true.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jun 14, 2021)

Argonia said:


> Interesting but how could we expect people to keep up with our transition from the Jurassic era to the 21st century if they can't join Urban75 and read this explosion of documents and sources? Imagine having to watch the Orwellian telescreen the whole time. Imagine if you watched the 'news' channel and thought any of it was reality. Precisely how deluded would you be?


You raise an intriguing point. Who is most likely to fall for the fascist big lie? The illiterate sceptic? Or the gullible, literate, uneducated?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 14, 2021)

Any polling?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 19, 2021)

redsquirrel said:


> Worth thinking about this piece from Jacobin, that while talking about the US, is pertinent to the above politics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes; interesting to hear so much of the post Chesham+Amersham chatter focusing on the alignment of the home-owning (& aspirant) segment. Some seeing danger for the Tories in losing their aging, pensioner home-owner nimby core vote whilst trying to attract the 'replacement cohorts' with 'promises' of house building and exploring how the "progressives" can exploit that psephological conundrum.

This sort of stuff probably excites Starmer no end.


----------



## Chz (Jun 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Yes; interesting to hear so much of the post Chesham+Amersham chatter focusing on the alignment of the home-owning (& aspirant) segment. Some seeing danger for the Tories in losing their aging, pensioner home-owner nimby core vote whilst trying to attract the 'replacement cohorts' with 'promises' of house building and exploring how the "progressives" can exploit that psephological conundrum.
> 
> This sort of stuff probably excites Starmer no end.


TBF, Labour's big majorities in 01/05 were quite reliant on a strong LD vote to siphon support away from the Tories. It's no good getting 40% of the vote when the Conservatives get even more.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 21, 2021)

Can imagine the true believers at Starmer Towers funding great solace in that "n/c" leaving them trailing by just 14 % points.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 21, 2021)

_We've turned the corner, know...onwards to victory in Batley & Spen....then go back to your constituencies and prepare.....

_


----------



## brogdale (Jun 22, 2021)

14 point Tory leads seem to be pretty consistent now across a number of pollsters:


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2021)

Turns out that the majority of the electorate are not libertarian, nut-job psychopaths...


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2021)

Every poll seems to yield between 25% & 35% cunts.


----------



## belboid (Jul 22, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Turns out that the majority of the electorate are not libertarian, nut-job psychopaths...



Sadly those figures don’t show that.  Don’t forget the idiot Fox and his cobelievers would have voted ‘no’ there


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2021)

belboid said:


> Sadly those figures don’t show that.  Don’t forget the idiot Fox and his cobelievers would have voted ‘no’ there


Fair point; though I suspect the timing of the sudden inflexion in the graphed numbers suggest that most are reacting negatively to Johnson's dangerous 'experiement'; I'd imagine that the 'Fox brigade' would long have been in the 'No' camp anyway?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 24, 2021)

3rd wave impact?


----------



## Supine (Jul 24, 2021)

brogdale said:


> 3rd wave impact?




The dawn butler affect


----------



## maomao (Jul 24, 2021)

Supine said:


> The dawn butler affect


*e*ffect

More likely dissatisfaction with the opening up and then putting all the responsibility on the public. Everyone knows politicians are liars anyway.


----------



## Supine (Jul 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> *e*ffect
> 
> More likely dissatisfaction with the opening up and then putting all the responsibility on the public. Everyone knows politicians are liars anyway.



I always get that wrong. Probably shouldn’t have chosen science as a career tbh.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 24, 2021)

Supine said:


> The dawn butler affect


----------



## brogdale (Jul 24, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> View attachment 280282


I want that for my massively qualified eldest who still needs to note No. 16


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 24, 2021)

brogdale said:


> I want that for my massively qualified eldest who still needs to note No. 16


According to the dyslexia association I’m possibly dyslexic, so there are blind spots for me, but I suppose the amount of effort I had to put in to learn those ones makes me joke-irritated when people get them wrong. I wasn’t diagnosed at school, and no allowance was made for me, so I’m fucked if I’m making any allowances on this sarcastic bear pit.  😉


----------



## maomao (Jul 24, 2021)

brogdale said:


> I want that for my massively qualified eldest who still needs to note No. 16


I like writing it that way to wind people up and then arguing that as it's not actually a verb, merely a cliticised remnant of one it deserves its own spelling anyway. Hours of fun. Honest.


----------



## JimW (Jul 24, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> View attachment 280282


There are senses where effect is an action of course, effect a change etc, quite apart from the times where affect is a noun 😠


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 24, 2021)

JimW said:


> There are senses where effect is an action of course, effect a change etc, quite apart from the times where affect is a noun 😠


tHeRe ArE SeNsEs WhErE yada yada


----------



## JimW (Jul 24, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> tHeRe ArE SeNsEs WhErE yada yada


You've been taken for a mug.


----------



## JimW (Jul 24, 2021)

dp


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 24, 2021)

More than once.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 24, 2021)

brogdale said:


> 3rd wave impact?



They’ve been a bit more combative lately, hasn’t Starmer got someone new looking after messaging etc now? Just seem a bit more focused and using the same sound bites (“get a grip”) which is wretched yet effective politics. I don’t think they’d have been brave enough to use a phrase like ‘the Johnson variant” a few months back.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2021)

Dogsauce said:


> They’ve been a bit more combative lately, hasn’t Starmer got someone new looking after messaging etc now? Just seem a bit more focused and using the same sound bites (“get a grip”) which is wretched yet effective politics. I don’t think they’d have been brave enough to use a phrase like ‘the Johnson variant” a few months back.


To get anywhere labour needs a new politics, a new relationship to the working class and a way of organising beyond the borders of the party itself. None of that is going to happen, even less so as the whole period in the party is still dominated by the exit from Corbynism. Same time, you are right, without any of that happening, a louder clearer message from labour, something less apologetic and concerned at being opportunistic if it attacks johnson over Covid could make some progress.  Whilst also banging on about keeping services public all the time, of course. TBH, kieth is just about the last person you'd want for that 'soft left neo-populism', if there is such a thing, but even he could possibly get labour even with the tories if he goes on the attack.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 24, 2021)

I think the timidity has been more damaging than policy stuff. Elections are won by directing discontent at your opponents, not often by offering an inspirational alternative. Which is shit, but how it seems to work.

One of the reasons the Tories have been successful recently is directing people’s discontent towards Labour, all this red wall stuff, somehow giving the impression that Labour are the status quo, the ones in charge of the game. That they haven’t been for more than a decade makes this seem a perverse attack.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 24, 2021)

Wilf said:


> To get anywhere labour needs a new politics, a new relationship to the working class and a way of organising beyond the borders of the party itself. None of that is going to happen, even less so as the whole period in the party is still dominated by the exit from Corbynism. Same time, you are right, without any of that happening, a louder clearer message from labour, something less apologetic and concerned at being opportunistic if it attacks johnson over Covid could make some progress.  Whilst also banging on about keeping services public all the time, of course. TBH, kieth is just about the last person you'd want for that 'soft left neo-populism', if there is such a thing, but even he could possibly get labour even with the tories if he goes on the attack.


One of the things that has surprised me about the Starmer LP is that, contrary to the usual practice of the liberal side of the party, it is not looking more towards the model of the Biden Democrats. 

Usually the liberal and right sections of the party cannot but stick to the Democrats like flies on shit. But for the first time in a long time they seem determined to ignore the position of the Democrat's. Obviously Biden is a total twat but while he might be a liberal fuck he, and those around him, at least realise that those attached by Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez etc are a necessary part of any winning coalition. 

You are absolutely right in your first sentence, and the UK is not the US, Johnson is not Trump despite the protestations of some. I am not sure that even a LP that was built on the same sort of coalition to the Democrats would be ahead in the polls, but I'm convinced that it would be ahead of where the LP is at the minute.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 24, 2021)

Small point, I know, but possibly emblematic of the lack of unity/fire in the LP...when Butler was made to leave the Commons for speaking the truth, there were at least 7 other LP MPs who could/should have got up and left in solidarity with her. With about 1 hour left before recess and no cost/high impact performative act that would have gained media traction.

But, of course, no...


----------



## brogdale (Jul 24, 2021)

Anyway..back to some poll numbers; looks like Johnson's loony, 'libertarian' locks-off lark is losing the room:


----------



## brogdale (Jul 24, 2021)

Yawn from Opinium...apart from the 'go back to your constituencies' surge!


----------



## brogdale (Jul 30, 2021)

Seems them vermin 'libertarians' have some way to go to convince the punters it's a slippery slope to authoritarian control:



lol at the 90% pensioner support for the covid 'passport' for nightclubs!


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2021)

Volatile!


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 25, 2021)

To me at least, Labour need to ditch Starmer now. He has no credence.

Get Andy Burnham a seat and elect him as leader.


----------



## Supine (Aug 25, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> To me at least, Labour need to ditch Starmer now. He has no credence.
> 
> Get Andy Burnham a seat and elect him as leader.



If your a tory you might well want that


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 25, 2021)

Supine said:


> If your a tory you might well want that


Why would Burnham be the Tory’s dream ?


----------



## Supine (Aug 25, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> Why would Burnham be the Tory’s dream ?



Because i think they are more worried about how starmer comes across to *their* voters. Burnham would be popular with the left but they aren’t the people the tories worry about losing.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 25, 2021)

Supine said:


> Because i think they are more worried about how starmer comes across to *their* voters. Burnham would be popular with the left but they aren’t the people the tories worry about losing.


I haven’t seen any evidence that Starmer has much impact on ‘their voters’ tbh . Burnham , who is tbh hardly the socialist messiah but is fiercely loyal to the north , waltzed the mayoral elections across Greater Manchester which included Tory boroughs .


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 25, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> I haven’t seen any evidence that Starmer has much impact on ‘their voters’ tbh . Burnham , who is tbh hardly the socialist messiah but is fiercely loyal to the north , waltzed the mayoral elections across Greater Manchester which included Tory boroughs .



Indeed. 

Whereas I am not a Labour supporter, I do think that governments have a shelf life, at which point the other side should have a go.

The 'other side' are not going to get a go under Starmer, he seems to be an anathema to both Labour and Conservative voters.

With Corbyn, although I didn't support him, I knew what he stood for. I genuinely don't have a clue what Starmer stands for.

There is also the slight problem with a multi-millionaire knight of the realm standing as leader of the party of the working man.

Andy Burnham gives an air of both competence and integrity, Starmer doesn't.


----------



## Smangus (Aug 25, 2021)

Aye , King o' t'North , Aye.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 25, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Whereas I am not a Labour supporter, I do think that governments have a shelf life, at which point the other side should have a go.
> 
> ...


Was never a great fan of Corbyn , appreciate that he had to endure a smear campaign, but the fact is a lot of his economic stuff was popular . Burnham comes without the ‘international baggage’


----------



## Elpenor (Aug 25, 2021)

There’d be no own goals about looking scruffy / national anthem / the Queen etc as Burnham is a bit too street-smart for that.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of those issues, it just gives the right wing media a free hit, as it did with Corbyn.  

He should probably avoid eating bacon sandwiches in public just in case though


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Aug 25, 2021)

Elpenor said:


> There’d be no own goals about looking scruffy / national anthem / the Queen etc as Burnham is a bit too street-smart for that.
> 
> Regardless of the rights and wrongs of those issues, it just gives the right wing media a free hit, as it did with Corbyn.
> 
> He should probably avoid eating bacon sandwiches in public just in case though


I know what you mean, but wouldn't it be better if Labour leaders were just honest about things? Didn't pretend to listen to her maj on Christmas Day, didn't ponce around at ceremonies in Westminster Abbey, didn't sing the crappiest national anthem in the western world, didn't bow and scrape before our betters. You never know, just being honest might work once people got used to it.


----------



## Elpenor (Aug 25, 2021)

Liked but feels a bit utopian given our media. Let’s hope my cynicism is unfounded.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Aug 25, 2021)

Elpenor said:


> Liked but feels a bit utopian given our media. Let’s hope my cynicism is unfounded.


I'm just as cynical as you (probably), and so are lots of people. Cynical enough to easily see through the pretence.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 5, 2021)

Continuing drift.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 9, 2021)

Might be an outlier but polled after the NICs rise:


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 10, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> I know what you mean, but wouldn't it be better if Labour leaders were just honest about things? Didn't pretend to listen to her maj on Christmas Day, didn't ponce around at ceremonies in Westminster Abbey, didn't sing the crappiest national anthem in the western world, didn't bow and scrape before our betters. You never know, just being honest might work once people got used to it.



They are being honest, they admire such traditions as do many Labour voters. Even Corbyn secretly enjoyed the power and privilege of being on the Privy Council.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 10, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> They are being honest, they admire such traditions as do many Labour voters. Even Corbyn secretly enjoyed the power and privilege of being on the Privy Council.


I'm no Corbyn fan but so you mind explaining how you know his secrets?


----------



## marty21 (Sep 10, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> They are being honest, they admire such traditions as do many Labour voters. Even Corbyn secretly enjoyed the power and privilege of being on the Privy Council.


I thought you remained on the Privy Council until you die ?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 10, 2021)

marty21 said:


> I thought you remained on the Privy Council until you die ?


As opposed to Elvis, who died on the privy.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 11, 2021)

So it's tax that finally dents them...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 11, 2021)

brogdale said:


> So it's tax that finally dents them...




Looks that way. Seemingly confirmed by 4 polls now.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 11, 2021)

as ever, would be interested to know what percentage don't know / won't vote / sod the lot of them (or any combination thereof) is getting.  

gut feeling is it's probably higher than usual at the moment...


----------



## brogdale (Sep 11, 2021)

Puddy_Tat said:


> as ever, would be interested to know what percentage don't know / won't vote / sod the lot of them (or any combination thereof) is getting.
> 
> gut feeling is it's probably higher than usual at the moment...


posted this over in the Starmer thread...certainly a growing d/k brigade...


----------



## Elpenor (Sep 11, 2021)

I feel like the British public will vote for whoever will cost them the least in tax. As a whole we want Scandinavian quality public services but we don’t want to pay for them.

This extra money for social care is sorely needed and was needed decades ago but given the government has no problem spunking money on wars, aircraft carriers, test and trace fiasco… you can see why May dropped it from the manifesto, electoral poison.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 11, 2021)

brogdale said:


> posted this over in the Starmer thread...certainly a growing d/k brigade...



is there a similar poll for people who voted labour in 2019?  i can't help thinking there's at least some who would not vote for the starmerised version of the party


----------



## brogdale (Sep 11, 2021)

Puddy_Tat said:


> is there a similar poll for people who voted labour in 2019?  i can't help thinking there's at least some who would not vote for the starmerised version of the party


probably; haven't seen one yet, though.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 11, 2021)

Elpenor said:


> I feel like the British public will vote for whoever will cost them the least in tax. As a whole we want Scandinavian quality public services but we don’t want to pay for them.



I think that’s very debatable. Firstly, I think a range of taxes - specifically on unearned income - would be very very popular politically now.

In that vein, the onus is on our side to keep making the point that the dividing line on stuff like social care isn’t generational it’s one of wealth/class. 

Secondly, I think people would be prepared to pay more tax - if it was built in and explicitly presented as part of a wider programme of investment, borrowing, regeneration, millions of new jobs, tax justice via a tax on tech and other tax dodgers and so on.

Given the long standing reality that ‘only the little people pay tax’ - directly at source via deductions from pay - but the rich don’t, you can’t really blame anyone for politically objecting to paying more under the current arrangements.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 12, 2021)

FWIW polling has 'too little' taxation & spending consistently above 'too much'. The idea that pushing increased taxation and spending is "electoral poison" is a bizarre position when Labour's relative success in 2017 was to a large extent based on such a position (likewise a key part of the Tory success in 2019 was neutralising Labour's argument by committing to public spending). Moreover, the tracker shows that increasing taxation was most popular around the 2019 election.

Interpreting opposition to a regressive flat tax as opposition to greater taxation and public spending is wrongheaded. I mean was the opposition to the poll tax opposition to higher tax?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 17, 2021)

Divergence resumed...?


----------



## Raheem (Sep 17, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Divergence resumed...?



They'll have tweaked their algorithms to correct their error.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 17, 2021)

They’re obviously doing something to attract Lib Dem and green voters, if you accept the simplistic way these polls are normally interpreted by the press.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 17, 2021)

LD has always been partial to right wing opportunistic carpetbagging manoeuvres


----------



## Supine (Sep 30, 2021)

Some interesting poll data


----------



## brogdale (Oct 4, 2021)

Pollsters R&W seems to be detecting some trends towards convergence:


----------



## Supine (Oct 4, 2021)




----------



## brogdale (Oct 4, 2021)

Supine said:


>



still on 41% FFS


----------



## brogdale (Oct 6, 2021)

Savanta are not seeing any convergence, though...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 27, 2021)

Savanta:



Wave 4 dip?


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Oct 27, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Savanta:
> 
> 
> 
> Wave 4 dip?



Partly wave 4, partly an early reaction to the "shit in the water" farce and the focus on the climate conference, with the Greens picking up a few extra fans.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 27, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Savanta:
> 
> 
> 
> Wave 4 dip?



other 10?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 27, 2021)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Partly wave 4, partly an early reaction to the "shit in the water" farce and the focus on the climate conference, with the Greens picking up a few extra fans.


Maybe, but fieldwork ending 24th puts it pre-shit for most, I'd have thought?


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Oct 27, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Maybe, but fieldwork ending 24th puts it pre-shit for most, I'd have thought?


The parliamentary vote was on the 20th.  It wasn't the biggest immediate story of the year by any stretch of the imagination, but it's been gaining a bit of traction (partly because it's so easy to put it into simplistic terms of "Tories want to fill your rivers with shit") ever since so there might have been a slow drip feed into the responses to Savanta.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2021)

one poll, one company, and a couple of points only. at this point it's just noise.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Oct 27, 2021)

ska invita said:


> other 10?


SDP, Liberal Party, and Laurence Fox.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 27, 2021)

killer b said:


> one poll, one company, and a couple of points only. at this point it's just noise.


Not really just noise when it fits with the trending of poll of polls tracking showing a gradual decline in tory support from June:


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2021)

that looks to be more or less flat since mid september?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 27, 2021)

killer b said:


> that looks to be more or less flat since mid september?


As I said, gradual decline...from a mean high of 43% down to a mean of 39% as of Monday, but a few more like Savanta might obviously pull that mean a little lower. If the LP offered any discernible opposition the convergence might not be far off.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2021)

brogdale said:


> As I said, gradual decline...from a mean high of 43% down to a mean of 39% as of Monday, but a few more like Savanta might obviously pull that mean a little lower. If the LP offered any discernible opposition the convergence might not be far off.


there was a gradual decline until mid september, but it's been flat since then - this could be a sign of a further decline, or it could be noise, like the other polls showing a drop in tory support in the last month and a half.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 8, 2021)

Crossover ahoy?


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2021)

And that was taken _before_ all the Owen Patterson fun and games.


----------



## magneze (Nov 8, 2021)

Interesting where those votes seem to have gone. Green rather than Labour.


----------



## Carvaged (Nov 8, 2021)

For those who despair that anyone aside from a handful of billionaires and their sycophants would ever vote Tory, it's always worth bearing in mind that even the biggest news stories rarely garner more than about 1-4% awareness from the general public, and that few really understand what the parties actually stand for.

There's been a bunch of stuff on Anthony Well's site discussing this lack of political awareness over the years if anyone's interested.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 8, 2021)

Greens above the yellow peril I see. And whatever rebranded UKIP rump there is nowhere to be seen.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 8, 2021)

I imagine the greens are getting a bit of a polling boost from the debacle that is the Glasgow Climate jolly.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 8, 2021)

Teaboy said:


> I imagine the greens are getting a bit of a polling boost from the debacle that is the Glasgow Climate jolly.


If the LP are remaining resolutely static on 36%ish...then someone's gotta pick up the shed vote elsewhere, I guess.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 8, 2021)

Another showing a tory decline;



e2a: Green COP 'bounce' not evident here


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 9, 2021)

Posting this here on the basis that it is a report based on polling. Yes, it’s a report and polling of working class voters in America, but I think the results have a wider applicability for those interested.

Executive Summary

*Our experimental study, the first of its kind, offers a new and powerful perspective on working-class political views*. In collaboration with the public opinion firm YouGov, we designed a survey to test how working-class voters respond to head-to-head electoral matchups. By asking voters to choose directly between thousands of hypothetical candidates — rather than isolated policies or slogans — we can develop a richer, more realistic portrait of voter attitudes than conventional polls can provide. And by presenting this survey to a representative group of 2,000 working-class voters in five key swing states — a much larger sample of this demographic than appears in most polls — we are able to focus on these voters in much greater depth.
The key takeaways of our survey, listed briefly below and discussed in greater detail in the full report, can inform future progressive campaigns.

Key Takeaways

1. Working-class voters prefer progressive candidates who focus primarily on bread-and-butter economic issues, and who frame those issues in universal terms. This is especially true outside deep-blue parts of the country. Candidates who prioritized bread-and-butter issues (jobs, health care, the economy), and who presented them in plainspoken, universalist rhetoric, performed significantly better than those who had other priorities or used other language. This general pattern was even more dramatic in rural and small-town areas, where Democrats have struggled in recent years.

2. Populist, class-based progressive campaign messaging appeals to working-class voters at least as well as other varieties of Democratic messaging. Candidates who named elites as a major cause of America’s problems, invoked anger at the status quo, and celebrated the working class were well received by working-class voters —even when pitted against more “moderate” strains of Democratic rhetoric.

3. Progressives do not need to surrender questions of social justice to win working-class voters, but “woke,” activist-inspired rhetoric is a liability. Potentially Democratic working-class voters did not shy away from progres- sive candidates or candidates who strongly opposed racism. But candidates who framed that opposition in highly specialized, identity-focused language fared significantly worse than candidates who embraced either populist or mainstream language.

4. Working-class voters prefer working-class candidates.

A candidate’s race or gender does not appear to matter much to potentially Democratic working- class voters. But candidates with upper-class backgrounds performed significantly less well than other candidates. Class background matters.

5. Commonsense Solidarity

Working-class non-voters are not automatic progressives. We find little evidence that low-propensity voters fail to vote because they don’t see suffi- ciently progressive views reflected in the political platforms of mainstream Democratic candidates.

Democratic partisanship does not hurt progressive candidates. Working- class voters prefer progressive candidates running as Democrats to candidates who stress their independence from the party.

6. Blue-collar workers are especially sensitive to candidate messaging — and respond even more acutely to the differences between populist and “woke” language. Primarily manual blue-collar workers, in comparison with primarily white-collar workers, were even more drawn to candidates who stressed bread-and-butter issues, and who avoided activist rhetoric

Full report here:


			https://images.jacobinmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/08095656/CWCPReport_CommonsenseSolidarity.pdf


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2021)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Posting this here on the basis that it is a report based on polling. Yes, it’s a report and polling of working class voters in America, but I think the results have a wider applicability for those interested.
> 
> Executive Summary
> 
> ...


Makes sense so, i guess, would be ignored by Starmer.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2021)

Maybe a (temporary ?) post-Paterson tory dip, but the pollsters are seeing no swing to Labour; they seem stuck on the mid 30s.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 9, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Crossover ahoy?




Most striking thing about that one is the Green vote.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Most striking thing about that one is the Green vote.


True, but not really supported by other polls.


----------



## Elpenor (Nov 9, 2021)

Any spike in Greens / Lib Dems tends to be a indicator of the big 2 parties being particularly awful / uninspiring doesn’t it, as opposed to the Green and Orange mobs doing anything spectacular?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 11, 2021)

Usual 1 poll caveats...but a poll showing a slight LP uptick:


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 12, 2021)

Let’s hope it rattles the cunts a bit and stirs a bit of infighting, we’ve seen before how messy that can get


----------



## Carvaged (Nov 12, 2021)

Someone mentioned it elsewhere, but it does feel like we're now entering the traditional volcanic sleaze phase of the Tory corruption cycle. It doesn't really feel like a 1992 moment yet though.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 12, 2021)

labour's flatlining  polling should be really troubling them. Under starmer labour cant seem to get above the low/mid 30s (similar to  brown and milliband - but even worse) even mid term with a government that is in a mess.  
All they've managed to do post corbyn is lose their left wing/younger/green inclined voters whilst winning back none of the older ones who deserted cos of corbyn/brexit. 
Im sure with someone with a bit of charisma like Raynor fronting some properly radical (as opposed to managerial tinkering)  policies they would would be pulling ahead. 
Unless something changes, johnson will win the next election by default. I dont think the tories will boot him until the polls look properly grim and they start losing badly in byelections and the locals.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 12, 2021)

Obvious point really, but Labour's problem is they don't stand for anything so are not in a position to connect the disparate aspects of tory failure/corruption/killing tens of thousands.  Labour are there not even a default position for anyone leaving the tories. They aren't representing a particular group nor making an ideological pitch to anyone in particular.  They've no way of generating emotions amongst the electorate or even a sense that there's a 'project' going on.  Most depressingly, I can't think of any scenario between now and the next election for any of that to change.  

Within the narrow confines of electoral politics, Burnham is probably the least worst option, but even he doesn't come into play till after the 2024 defeat (perhaps parachuted into a 'safe' seat in the northwest and the sitting MP being sent to the lords).  He's 'least worst' pretty much on the grounds of being northern and sounding slightly more sincere than kieth, but that's as good as it gets.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2021)

Some movement here:


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 13, 2021)

LOL - Ive made a habit of gammon baiting on the spectator fb page. They are in meltdown cos johnsons is too woke, too green, not racist enough - "he doing what green wifey tells him!" "its not about sleaze - tis cos they've turned in to green labour!"


----------



## Ground Elder (Nov 13, 2021)

Kaka Tim said:


> Im sure with someone with a bit of charisma like Raynor fronting some properly radical (as opposed to managerial tinkering) policies they would would be pulling ahead.


at least 20 points


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 13, 2021)

Kaka Tim said:


> LOL - Ive made a habit of gammon baiting on the spectator fb page. They are in meltdown cos johnsons is too woke, too green, not racist enough - "he doing what green wifey tells him!" "its not about sleaze - tis cos they've turned in to green labour!"


I hope you’re stirring the pot a bit, adopting some Major Buffon Tufton persona.

it is noticeable that Refuk have gained a couple of points, probably where the tory Brexit bellends are migrating, they’re losing the right fringe, the centrist elements aren’t jumping into Starmer’s void.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 13, 2021)

Dogsauce said:


> I hope you’re stirring the pot a bit, adopting some Major Buffon Tufton persona.
> 
> it is noticeable that Refuk have gained a couple of points, probably where the tory Brexit bellends are migrating, they’re losing the right fringe, the centrist elements aren’t jumping into Starmer’s void.


Yeah, the cross Channel migrant stuff if definitely coming up a lot on the gammon rage ball. That, plus brexit fails, may well see refuk gaining.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 14, 2021)

Kaka Tim said:


> Yeah, the cross Channel migrant stuff if definitely coming up a lot on the gammon rage ball. That, plus brexit fails, may well see refuk gaining.


I've found that suggesting how the "Channel migrants" might solve our careworker crisis (to look after the Gammon in their dotage) hits the buttons quite well.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 14, 2021)

‘Channel migrants’ is suddenly getting a lot of attention from the press again as the government hits new levels of disgrace. Always a handy diversion. They’ll wheel out Patel with some tough words shortly.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 19, 2021)

Hat wankers surge!


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Hat wankers surge!



The ward is in central Whitstable and there’s been a lot of “progressive alliance” stuff going on, especially since the Greens gave way in the constituency in 2019 in an effort to support Duffield; looks like a bit of quid pro quo here from the yellow streak of piss.

Also...lots of recent profile for the Greens with the Southern Water (raw sewage pollution) protests and water rate boycott campaign. 

LP losing 6% against no LD (-6%) is not a great sign for them.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> The ward is in central Whitstable and there’s been a lot of “progressive alliance” stuff going on, especially since the Greens gave way in the constituency in 2019 in an effort to support Duffield; looks like a bit of quid pro quo here from the yellow streak of piss.
> 
> Also...lots of recent profile for the Greens with the Southern Water (raw sewage pollution) protests and water rate boycott campaign.
> 
> LP losing 6% against no LD (-6%) is not a great sign for them.


...and looks like Duffield interference with the ward selection process based on trans rights issues.

An Open Letter to Rosie Duffield, Keir Starmer and David Evans


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> ...and looks like Duffield interference with the ward selection process based on trans rights issues.
> 
> An Open Letter to Rosie Duffield, Keir Starmer and David Evans


that looks more like a blog by an unhinged paranoid crank tbh


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2021)

killer b said:


> that looks more like a blog by an unhinged paranoid crank tbh


LP tends to attract them.


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> LP tends to attract them.


It does, which is why it's probably best not to take personal blogs by obviously axe-grinding labour members you've never heard of before at face value


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2021)

killer b said:


> It does, which is why it's probably best not to take personal blogs by obviously axe-grinding labour members you've never heard of before at face value


Fair enough. I'll speak with family later to try to get their local take on the resignation of the previous councillor and the suspension of the preferred candidate.
Does not look as though all is well with the branch, though, what with the sitting councillor resigning forthwith (blaming the Tory council) and the suspensions of aspirant candidates. 
Looks like Duffield will lose the City badly at the next GE.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2021)

and still they didn't win!


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> the preferred candidate


prefered by this crank lady at least.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2021)

Thinking it might be a good idea to have a separate Council by-elections thread?


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2021)

I'm not sure I'm that bothered tbh. All it would be would be loads of posts by you saying 'this result looks bad for Labour!', and me replying with something about local issues and avoiding extrapolating national trends from tiny samples or suchlike.


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2021)

fwiw though, I think it's fair to say there _is_ some movement in the national polls now.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2021)

killer b said:


> prefered by this crank lady at least.


Well...this branch wouldn't be the first to have seen favoured local candidates blocked/suspended in order that the local MP/region/HQ could determine their preferred candidate. Happened recently in Croydon.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2021)

killer b said:


> I'm not sure I'm that bothered tbh. All it would be would be loads of posts by you saying 'this result looks bad for Labour!', and me replying with something about local issues and avoiding extrapolating national trends from tiny samples or suchlike.


I'm convinced; sounds like a good's, then!


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Well...this branch wouldn't be the first to have seen favoured local candidates blocked/suspended in order that the local MP/region/HQ could determine their preferred candidate. Happened recently in Croydon.


Seems like a lot of work - they're desperate to find people to stand for council round here, I bumped into the leader of the council the other week and he asked me to stand and I'm not even a member...

Either way, the way local Labour politics work is savagely factional and you can't really believe anything any member of any faction says about why something has happened the way it has.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2021)

killer b said:


> Seems like a lot of work - they're desperate to find people to stand for council round here, I bumped into the leader of the council the other week and he asked me to stand and I'm not even a member...
> 
> Either way, the way local Labour politics work is savagely factional and you can't really believe anything any member of any faction says about why something has happened the way it has.


Especially so in Croydon.


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2021)

I've seen a number of councillors from various factions deselected or not selected when they were expecting to be over the years, and what each event has had in common has been a failure of the candidate to marshal the necessary support he needed in the party to win, and a complete failure by them post-defeat to recognise that's what it was down to. It's always unfair game playing and dark plots by the other side that's at fault.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2021)

killer b said:


> I've seen a number of councillors from various factions deselected or not selected when they were expecting to be over the years, and what each event has had in common has been a failure of the candidate to marshal the necessary support he needed in the party to win, and a complete failure by them post-defeat to recognise that's what it was down to. It's always unfair game playing and dark plots by the other side that's at fault.


Yes, but suspending locally popular candidates also works effectively for the party machine if they happen to not like the faction/politics they represent.


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Yes, but suspending locally popular candidates also works effectively for the party machine if they happen to not like the faction/politics they represent.


dark plots. I'm sure it happens, but I'm also sure that most of the people who've been suspended 'for posting in support of palestine!' or similar actually posted some antisemitic rant.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2021)

killer b said:


> dark plots. I'm sure it happens, but I'm also sure that most of the people who've been suspended 'for posting in support of palestine!' or similar actually posted some antisemitic rant.


Are you? I don't have such faith in the probity of the right faction myself.


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Are you? I don't have such faith in the probity of the right faction myself.


I don't have any faith in the probity of the right faction either, but I do have faith in the capacity for absolute clown-shoed self sabotage by the left faction.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 19, 2021)

killer b said:


> dark plots. I'm sure it happens, but I'm also sure that most of the people who've been suspended 'for posting in support of palestine!' or similar actually posted some antisemitic rant.


That's a terrible unsubstantiated slur to make .


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2021)

It's substantiated by what I've found pretty much every occasion I've bothered to look into it. it's an old argument though, and there's a reason I've got the Labour antisemitism threads on ignore so I won't be bothering arguing about it today.


----------



## Supine (Nov 27, 2021)




----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 27, 2021)

killer b said:


> dark plots. I'm sure it happens, but I'm also sure that most of the people who've been suspended 'for posting in support of palestine!' or similar actually posted some antisemitic rant.


I'm glad you're so certain. It must make you feel good. Try looking at the Jewish Voice for Labour website. You don't have to agree with them, and you may think they're all tankies or whatever, but loads of Jewish Labour Party members are being suspended for being anti-semitic.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Try looking at the Jewish Voice for Labour website.


Lol fuck right off


----------



## splonkydoo (Nov 27, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> I'm glad you're so certain. It must make you feel good. Try looking at the Jewish Voice for Labour website. You don't have to agree with them, and you may think they're all tankies or whatever, but loads of Jewish Labour Party members are being suspended for being anti-semitic.



This open letter from Cohen is well worth reading imo and shows up the shambles this has all been Why on earth is citing me antisemitic? – asks Jewish blogger Robert A.H. Cohen


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 27, 2021)

killer b said:


> Lol fuck right off


I'll make a note of that reasoned response.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> I'll make a note of that reasoned response.


Did you imagine I'm not already familiar with Jewish Voice for Labour?


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 28, 2021)

killer b said:


> Did you imagine I'm not already familiar with Jewish Voice for Labour?


I'm sure you are, but familiarity can sometimes breed contempt, sometimes unwarrantedly. You're also probably familiar with the idea that other people read these conversations, so it's not unreasonable to point out what should be obvious to you, so that others can, in this case, look at the JVL website and appreciate that antisemitism is the smokescreen being used by the Labour Party right wing to attack the left.



killer b said:


> I've got the Labour antisemitism threads on ignore so I won't be bothering arguing about it today.


If you don't want to talk about antisemitism in the LP don't start throwing unsubstantiated allegations around on other threads.


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> If you don't want to talk about antisemitism in the LP don't start throwing unsubstantiated allegations around on other threads.


The racists in the labour party and their weirdo defenders helped destroy the only opportunity for a left wing government we've seen in my lifetime, and I'm still really fucked off about it. I'm still going to chuck the occasional brick over it, even if I'm not prepared to waste my time anymore arguing about the details with dickheads who refuse to see the reality of the situation.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 28, 2021)

killer b said:


> dickheads who refuse to see the reality of the situation.


Amazing how the same string of words can mean two completely different things.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 28, 2021)

killer b said:


> The racists in the labour party and their weirdo defenders helped destroy the only opportunity for a left wing government we've seen in my lifetime, and I'm still really fucked off about it. I'm still going to chuck the occasional brick over it, even if I'm not prepared to waste my time anymore arguing about the details with dickheads who refuse to see the reality of the they


I would suggest that the disgusting right wing press and a massively racist/greedy/corrupt political party may have added to this 🤔


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2021)

Badgers said:


> I would suggest that the disgusting right wing press and a massively racist/greedy/corrupt political party may have added to this 🤔


Yeah, that's why I said they helped to destroy it.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 28, 2021)

killer b said:


> Yeah, that's why I said they helped to destroy it.


5-10% implicit?


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 28, 2021)

Great to see people are still arguing about whether Labour lost the last election due to a devious plot by the Tories and right-wing press.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 28, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Great to see people are still arguing about whether Labour lost the last election due to a devious plot by the Tories and right-wing press.


The Labour Party has always had a gift for snatching defeat from the jaws of inevitable victory.


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2021)

Badgers said:


> 5-10% implicit?


I don't think you can really put a number on it: suffice to say though, if you're going to hold the disgusting right wing press etc responsible for Labour's election loss in 2019 then you might as well give up ever hoping for anyone but the tories winning again, cause the press aren't going to get any less disgusting and rightwing, and the tories are going to carry on being corrupt and greedy. These are also things we have no real control over. Antisemitism on the left (and within the Labour Party) in theory _is_ something we have some control over though.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 28, 2021)

Oh, you nearly forgot the self sabotage by a Labour Party right wing which has always been more concerned about having a left wing Labour government than a Tory one.


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Oh, you nearly forgot the self sabotage by a Labour Party right wing which has always been more concerned about having a left wing Labour government than a Tory one.


I hate those cunts too.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 29, 2021)

If you asked Starmer 'Would you like to ditch Rayner?'.

What would he answer?


----------



## magneze (Nov 29, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> If you asked Starmer 'Would you like to ditch Rayner?'.
> 
> What would he answer?


"Wrong thread"


----------



## Rimbaud (Dec 4, 2021)

I've noticed the YouGov polls seem to consistently put the Greens at around 10%, however most other polling companies seem to consistently put them at around half that. Any idea what methodology YouGov is using to get this differing result, and is it likely to be more or less accurate than the other polling companies?


----------



## Rimbaud (Dec 4, 2021)

Voting Intention: Con 36%, Lab 33% (1 - 2 Dec) | YouGov

What's interesting in this electoral tracker is that it seems to indicate that the declining Tory support over the last 6 months has not translated into increased support for Labour.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 4, 2021)

Rimbaud said:


> Voting Intention: Con 36%, Lab 33% (1 - 2 Dec) | YouGov
> 
> What's interesting in this electoral tracker is that it seems to indicate that the declining Tory support over the last 6 months has not translated into increased support for Labour.


Because for every wanky LibDem that Starmer's managed to attract he's alienated a socialist.


----------



## Rimbaud (Dec 4, 2021)

Rimbaud said:


> I've noticed the YouGov polls seem to consistently put the Greens at around 10%, however most other polling companies seem to consistently put them at around half that. Any idea what methodology YouGov is using to get this differing result, and is it likely to be more or less accurate than the other polling companies?



To answer my own question -









						How YouGov became the UK's best but most controversial pollster
					

It started with market research. It ended with correctly predicting Theresa May's election fiasco




					www.wired.co.uk
				






> That new methodology was called multilevel regression and poststratification, or MRP. This system works by training a model on a small set of data about people’s voting preferences and their demographics. Those bits of information – people’s interests, age, and voting history – are then used to try and predict how people may vote, on the grounds of shared features with other members of the electorate. For instance: if you have a Times-reading Labour-voter living in Barnsley who prefers brown sauce to ketchup, you can assume that Times-reading voters who live in Barnsley and prefer brown sauce may be more likely to vote Labour than any other party.



YouGov was the only polling company to correctly predict the 2017 hung parliament, and also correctly predicted the 2019 result, so I think it is likely that their methodology is more effective and so the polling of Green support is more accurate than others. Around 10% support passes the smell test for me, because there are so many disillusioned Corbynistas with nowhere else to go.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 4, 2021)

Edit - no I'm wrong.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 9, 2021)

34% would vote for this.


----------



## Hollis (Dec 9, 2021)

brogdale said:


> 34% would vote for this.




If nothing else it shows there's a soft element to the Tory vote, and good to see Reform not picking up votes..


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2021)

Not a 'proper' poll and still many hours left to run, but here is a snapshot of it moments ago:


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2021)

What an absolute shitshow of a choice


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 10, 2021)

Would agree that Brown is the best option, but it's a bit like asking who would be your favourite serial killer to babysit your children. Obviously the answer is Harold Shipman as he only went for the old ones but still....


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2021)

It amuses me that of those four, Brown is the biggest election loser.  Blair won three, Cameron won one and was the largest party in another, May was the largest party in her only one (to a lesser extent) whilst Brown was the smallest party in his only one.


----------



## killer b (Dec 10, 2021)

I'd imagine the followers of Martin Lewis on twitter lean heavily towards centrist technocrat loving types, so it makes sense.


----------



## strung out (Dec 10, 2021)

killer b said:


> I'd imagine the followers of Martin Lewis on twitter lean heavily towards centrist technocrat loving types, so it makes sense.


I posted a poll on my Fully Automated Luxury Communism closed Facebook group for disaffected former supporters of the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn, and they all said they wanted him to be in charge of the country at this most serious of times. What does this tell us about public opinion? Not for me to say.


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2021)

killer b said:


> I'd imagine the followers of Martin Lewis on twitter lean heavily towards centrist technocrat loving types, so it makes sense.



Yeah I dont follow him, I just saw that Gordon Brown was trending (and it doesnt take that many tweets in order to show up as trending).


----------



## Carvaged (Dec 10, 2021)

elbows said:


> Not a 'proper' poll and still many hours left to run, but here is a snapshot of it moments ago:
> 
> View attachment 300056


----------



## brogdale (Dec 10, 2021)

More incoming for the vermin...


----------



## strung out (Dec 10, 2021)




----------



## BristolEcho (Dec 10, 2021)

killer b said:


> I'd imagine the followers of Martin Lewis on twitter lean heavily towards centrist technocrat loving types, so it makes sense.


Hey. I love Martin Lewis. My money was an absolute shit show until I came across his site and information. Now it's simply a shit show.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Dec 11, 2021)

This recent polling news is fantastic! 33-34% of the country are sociopaths. Let us rejoice!


----------



## Hollis (Dec 11, 2021)




----------



## Smangus (Dec 11, 2021)

0


----------



## Knotted (Dec 12, 2021)

brogdale said:


> More incoming for the vermin...




Couple of comments.

Wow 'Other' are really slaying it in that poll. I guess that's mainly Refuk. Maybe a bit of an outlier there.

I wonder how much of the Tory losses are due to voters switching and how much are due to Tory voters being unsure they'll vote at all. I may look into this if I get time.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 12, 2021)

Have there been any of those  “how would you vote if the Tories were led by Sunak/Truss/Hunt etc” polls recently?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Have there been any of those  “how would you vote if the Tories were led by Sunak/Truss/Hunt etc” polls recently?


Yes


----------



## Supine (Dec 12, 2021)

brogdale said:


> More incoming for the vermin...




It really annoys me when poll results don’t show the party with the biggest number at the top of the list. It’s like they think the tories have it as their rightful position.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 12, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes



Not sure I believe you.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 20, 2021)

. less


----------



## brogdale (Dec 20, 2021)

Gap emerging...


----------



## Carvaged (Dec 21, 2021)

I did wonder if the natural and inevitable Tory sleaze and incompetence implosion would combine, at some point, with Starmer's lack of political nous and talent to revive the Lib Dems as a viable protest vote option. We'll probably have to wait until memory of the recent by-election has passed to know if they can actually hold their VI in the teens though.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 21, 2021)

oops.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 25, 2021)

25k sample size job:


----------



## brogdale (Dec 25, 2021)

With a smaller (normal) latest Opinium looking pretty similar:


----------



## Supine (Dec 25, 2021)

Wrong thread but too much wine..,


----------



## Knotted (Dec 27, 2021)

Hypothesis to test -

Both main parties have alienated a large section of their support so that there are going to be a lot more people who are uncertain how they are going to vote or if they are going to vote at all. Plainly the Tories are doing particularly badly at the present, but we should see a disproportionate boost to the smaller parties - Greens, Libdems, Brexit, SNP and Plaid combined with a general decrease in turn outs.

I think this is what most people on here, myself included, expect to see. But I'm not sure we're seeing it exactly. To play devil's advocate - maybe the centrists/Labour right are right. Maybe Starmer had a sound strategy all along and keeping quiet and waiting for the Tories to self-immolate and then forming a "progressive alliance" to tactically vote them out of power. Maybe we're not seeing general dissatisfaction but a long lasting switch of voters away from the Tories as happened in the 90's.

I don't think we can say yet. You could read North Shropshire either way and the current polling may or may not last if the Tories change leadership. Time will tell.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 27, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Hypothesis to test -
> 
> Both main parties have alienated a large section of their support so that there are going to be a lot more people who are uncertain how they are going to vote or if they are going to vote at all. Plainly the Tories are doing particularly badly at the present, but we should see a disproportionate boost to the smaller parties - Greens, Libdems, Brexit, SNP and Plaid combined with a general decrease in turn outs.
> 
> ...


Useful post.
Not sure about this bit, though:


> Both main parties have alienated a large section of their support


I know Starmer has alienated chunks of the activist membership, but I'm not convinced that much of the LP 'core' vote know about or give a fig about the inter-factional stuff; Labour is still putting a X in the box that says Labour.
I reckon, atm, the tories have alienated a bigger chunk of their core with the party stuff...but that anger will wane.


----------



## Sue (Dec 27, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Hypothesis to test -
> 
> Both main parties have alienated a large section of their support so that there are going to be a lot more people who are uncertain how they are going to vote or if they are going to vote at all. Plainly the Tories are doing particularly badly at the present, but we should see a disproportionate boost to the smaller parties - Greens, Libdems, Brexit, SNP and Plaid combined with a general decrease in turn outs.


In Scotland, the SNP are not a smaller party. And 'main parties' doesn't really include Labour (which alienated most of its support a long time ago).


----------



## Knotted (Dec 27, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Useful post.
> Not sure about this bit, though:
> 
> I know Starmer has alienated chunks of the activist membership, but I'm not convinced that much of the LP 'core' vote know about or give a fig about the inter-factional stuff; Labour is still putting a X in the box that says Labour.
> I reckon, atm, the tories have alienated a bigger chunk of their core with the party stuff...but that anger will wane.



I tend to agree with that. But this means that Labour will struggle to get its vote out at elections and we won't see any pre-election surges that we saw under Corbyn and there's a tendency towards unpopular local stitch ups. So I think that when push comes to shove Labour will do worse than expected.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 27, 2021)

Sue said:


> In Scotland, the SNP are not a smaller party. And 'main parties' doesn't really include Labour (which alienated most of its support a long time ago).



Fair point. I think there is still a question in Scotland of the extent to which Labour will be the beneficiaries of the drop in Tory support though.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 27, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I tend to agree with that. But this means that Labour will struggle to get its vote out at elections and we won't see any pre-election surges that we saw under Corbyn and there's a tendency towards unpopular local stitch ups. So I think that when push comes to shove Labour will do worse than expected.


Yeah, I think the much vaunted (Momentum) 'ground-war' will be much depleted for the next GE, but I'm figuring that the Starmerites have come round to the notion of spending more on the electronic 'air-war' like the tories have to.


----------



## Sue (Dec 27, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Fair point. I think there is still a question in Scotland of the extent to which Labour will be the beneficiaries of the drop in Tory support though.


Labour are an irrelevance tbh. Much newish Tory support in Scotland is actually unionist support so as long as they continue to out-union Labour... 🤷‍♀️

Eta There's a difference between the Tory vote that's always been there and support for the Tories as support for the union.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 27, 2021)

Sue said:


> Labour are an irrelevance tbh. Much Tory support in Scotland is actually unionist support so as long as they continue to out-union Labour... 🤷‍♀️



But that might be why Labour might see a minor resurgence. They are well placed as unionist party number 2 when the Tories fail on other grounds.


----------



## Sue (Dec 27, 2021)

Knotted said:


> But that might be why Labour might see a minor resurgence. They are well placed as unionist party number 2 when the Tories fail on other grounds.


They're even shit at being unionist party number 2.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 27, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Useful post.
> Not sure about this bit, though:
> 
> I know Starmer has alienated chunks of the activist membership, but I'm not convinced that much of the LP 'core' vote know about or give a fig about the inter-factional stuff; Labour is still putting a X in the box that says Labour.
> I reckon, atm, the tories have alienated a bigger chunk of their core with the party stuff...but that anger will wane.


Of course it will. Whether it will wane enough to secure election victory remains to be seen.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 27, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Hypothesis to test -
> 
> Both main parties have alienated a large section of their support so that there are going to be a lot more people who are uncertain how they are going to vote or if they are going to vote at all. Plainly the Tories are doing particularly badly at the present, but we should see a disproportionate boost to the smaller parties - Greens, Libdems, Brexit, SNP and Plaid combined with a general decrease in turn outs.
> 
> ...


I'm not at all sure about the Starmer point.  For one thing, parties aiming to form a government do need some sense of 'presence', to have some kind of identity, principles and policies that pick up on voters resentments and aspirations.  That's not where Labour are at all, Starmer even less.  The other thing is now is a perfect time to be shouting the virtues of the social democratic state, NHS, public services and redistribution.  And linking all of that to the tory's failure/corruption and to pandemic recovery.  I doubt many voters would have a clue what Labour stand for.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 27, 2021)

Wilf said:


> I'm not at all sure about the Starmer point.  For one thing, parties aiming to form a government do need some sense of 'presence', to have some kind of identity, principles and policies that pick up on voters resentments and aspirations.  That's not where Labour are at all, Starmer even less.  The other thing is now is a perfect time to be shouting the virtues of the social democratic state, NHS, public services and redistribution.  And linking all of that to the tory's failure/corruption and to pandemic recovery.  I doubt many voters would have a clue what Labour stand for.



That sounds like a reasonable thing a party of government needs to be and I'm inclined to agree with you. But maybe not? Maybe Labour can win by being generally "not too bad". Starmer's Labour stand for safe, uncontroversial managerial government. That's the brand. I don't think much of it, but I'm not the general population. Dissatisfied Tory voters _seem_ (there are alternative interpretations) to be switching to Labour (or Lib Dem) in some numbers when they have alternative Faragist protest votes to use if they feel so inclined.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 27, 2021)

Knotted said:


> That sounds like a reasonable thing a party of government needs to be and I'm inclined to agree with you. But maybe not? Maybe Labour can win by being generally "not too bad". Starmer's Labour stand for safe, uncontroversial managerial government. That's the brand. I don't think much of it, but I'm not the general population. Dissatisfied Tory voters _seem_ (there are alternative interpretations) to be switching to Labour (or Lib Dem) in some numbers when they have alternative Faragist protest votes to use if they feel so inclined.



There is a vast chasm between what people say they will do vote wise when they are annoyed with their PM or party, and what they actually do when standing in the voting booth.

In Scotland, the situation is more complicated, for the majority of people it is 'Anyone bar the SNP'. Much is made of Trump not winning the majority of votes cast, neither did the SNP. Hopefully, at the next election, the majority will vote tactically, and get shot of the SNP, whilst we still have a country left.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 27, 2021)

Knotted said:


> That sounds like a reasonable thing a party of government needs to be and I'm inclined to agree with you. But maybe not? Maybe Labour can win by being generally "not too bad". Starmer's Labour stand for safe, uncontroversial managerial government. That's the brand. I don't think much of it, but I'm not the general population. Dissatisfied Tory voters _seem_ (there are alternative interpretations) to be switching to Labour (or Lib Dem) in some numbers when they have alternative Faragist protest votes to use if they feel so inclined.


i dont see any evidence of tory voters switching to labour. If its someone "sensible" and competent seeming like Shunak that may well be enough for those tories revolted by johnson to come back to. I think the torys will loose some to refuck cos they have bungled brexit and are still letting foreign types in. Labour will lose votes to the greens and to stay-at-homes but will probably do marginally better than 2019, yellow vermin will gain some seats - tories will do marginally worse than last time - small majority/hung parliament with Tories biggest party probably likeliest outcomes. Especially when the tories have finished with their voter suppression and gerrymandering. 
If labour were offering an actual tangible alternative in the corbyn mode with a leader who came across as even vaguely fired up they'd be solidly and positively ahead - rather than being ahead in the polls by default.  Reminds me of team milliband's "strategy" of relying on UKIP to eat the tory vote rather than win people over with some actual policies, ideas and arguments.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 27, 2021)

Knotted said:


> That sounds like a reasonable thing a party of government needs to be and I'm inclined to agree with you. But maybe not? Maybe Labour can win by being generally "not too bad". Starmer's Labour stand for safe, uncontroversial managerial government. That's the brand. I don't think much of it, but I'm not the general population. Dissatisfied Tory voters _seem_ (there are alternative interpretations) to be switching to Labour (or Lib Dem) in some numbers when they have alternative Faragist protest votes to use if they feel so inclined.


The other thing is Starmer might be a harder target for the press to demonise due to his bland centrism, they can’t really play the reds-under-the-beds card so well. This might benefit the party.  At the same time his awkwardness/woodenness might lead to a bacon butty moment, or perhaps a ‘racist woman’ style gaff, but he’ll be a tougher target for the cunt press than Corbyn/Milliband.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 27, 2021)

Kaka Tim said:


> i dont see any evidence of tory voters switching to labour. If its someone "sensible" and competent seeming like Shunak that may well be enough for those tories revolted by johnson to come back to. I think the torys will loose some to refuck cos they have bungled brexit and are still letting foreign types in. Labour will lose votes to the greens and to stay-at-homes but will probably do marginally better than 2019, yellow vermin will gain some seats - tories will do marginally worse than last time - small majority/hung parliament with Tories biggest party probably likeliest outcomes. Especially when the tories have finished with their voter suppression and gerrymandering.
> If labour were offering an actual tangible alternative in the corbyn mode with a leader who came across as even vaguely fired up they'd be solidly and positively ahead - rather than being ahead in the polls by default.  Reminds me of team milliband's "strategy" of relying on UKIP to eat the tory vote rather than win people over with some actual policies, ideas and arguments.



My hunch is that the Tory's popular coalition from 2019 was fragile and has disintegrated around the edges and I don't think they'll win it (all) back. I suspect their woes are deeper than dissatisfaction with Johnson. [I keep saying Brexit Party but yes it's Refuk now].


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 29, 2021)

Kaka Tim said:


> i dont see any evidence of tory voters switching to labour. If its someone "sensible" and competent seeming like Shunak that may well be enough for those tories revolted by johnson to come back to. I think the torys will loose some to refuck cos they have bungled brexit and are still letting foreign types in. Labour will lose votes to the greens and to stay-at-homes but will probably do marginally better than 2019, yellow vermin will gain some seats - tories will do marginally worse than last time - small majority/hung parliament with Tories biggest party probably likeliest outcomes. Especially when the tories have finished with their voter suppression and gerrymandering.
> If labour were offering an actual tangible alternative in the corbyn mode with a leader who came across as even vaguely fired up they'd be solidly and positively ahead - rather than being ahead in the polls by default.  Reminds me of team milliband's "strategy" of relying on UKIP to eat the tory vote rather than win people over with some actual policies, ideas and arguments.




Me neither. 

It is time for a change of government, but how can one vote for Starmer? What does he actually stand for? What are his policies? I did not support Corbyn, but I knew what he stood for.

It isn't my job to track this info down, it is his job to ensure I know it.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 29, 2021)

That's an easy one, he stands for the bosses.


----------



## BristolEcho (Dec 29, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> That's an easy one, he stands for the bosses.


Flags too.


----------



## MickiQ (Dec 29, 2021)

I don't think Starmer stands for much of anything to be truthful. He doesn't seem to want to be Prime Minister to change the world, he seems to want to be Prime Minister because he just wants to be. The trouble with that is he doesn't seem to have much idea how to go about it. Taking the Labour Party to the Left  costs  Centrist votes, taking it to the Centre costs Leftist votes and neither bloc is big enough to win alone so he needs to forge common ground. Blair managed that not so much through policies but sheer force of will and personal charisma and Starmer just doesn't have those qualities. 
His motivation for being PM is basically the same as Boris but Boris has an unshakeable belief in his own divine destiny that can blind him to cockup after cockup but Starmer can basically just be summed up with one word. "meh"


----------



## philosophical (Dec 29, 2021)

If one of the Labour Party slogans is going to be ‘make Brexit work’, then they can either provide a detailed solution the land border issue in Ireland, or they can fuck off.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 29, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> That's an easy one, he stands for the bosses.



the only thing i can recall him having a firm opinion on was that the alpaca must die...

i'm hoping someone called Mr Al Packer stands against him at the next election...


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 29, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> I don't think Starmer stands for much of anything to be truthful. He doesn't seem to want to be Prime Minister to change the world, he seems to want to be Prime Minister because he just wants to be. The trouble with that is he doesn't seem to have much idea how to go about it. Taking the Labour Party to the Left  costs  Centrist votes, taking it to the Centre costs Leftist votes and neither bloc is big enough to win alone so he needs to forge common ground. Blair managed that not so much through policies but sheer force of will and personal charisma and Starmer just doesn't have those qualities.
> His motivation for being PM is basically the same as Boris but Boris has an unshakeable belief in his own divine destiny that can blind him to cockup after cockup but Starmer can basically just be summed up with one word. "meh"



Charisma and Starmer? Nope.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 29, 2021)

philosophical said:


> If one of the Labour Party slogans is going to be ‘make Brexit work’, then they can either* provide a detailed solution the land border issue in Ireland*, or they can fuck off.



What colour of unicorn do you want?


----------



## Smangus (Dec 29, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> What colour of unicorn do you want?



Orange? 

#getscoat...


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 29, 2021)

Smangus said:


> Orange?
> 
> #getscoat...


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 29, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> Me neither.
> 
> It is time for a change of government, but how can one vote for Starmer? What does he actually stand for? What are his policies? I did not support Corbyn, but I knew what he stood for.
> 
> It isn't my job to track this info down, it is his job to ensure I know it.


He’s a cop and stands for protecting the property of the wealthy.


----------



## Supine (Dec 29, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> Me neither.
> 
> It is time for a change of government, but how can one vote for Starmer? What does he actually stand for? What are his policies? I did not support Corbyn, but I knew what he stood for.
> 
> It isn't my job to track this info down, it is his job to ensure I know it.



This isn’t the point in the election cycle where the position need to put out their agenda. And it will be labour policies not just starmers when they are developed.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 29, 2021)

Supine said:


> This isn’t the point in the election cycle where the position need to put out their agenda. And it will be labour policies not just starmers when they are developed.


How does Starmer know what point we're in the election cycle?


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Dec 29, 2021)

Supine said:


> This isn’t the point in the election cycle where the position need to put out their agenda. And it will be labour policies not just starmers when they are developed.


Once upon a time parties had things that they called 'principles'. At any time of any day in any year you could look at these 'principle' thingies and it gave you a rough idea of what the parties supposedly stood for, not what some bunch at the top decided at the last moment without any recourse to the party members, if there are any left by then.


----------



## Sue (Dec 29, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Once upon a time parties had things that they called 'principles'. At any time of any day in any year you could look at these 'principle' thingies and it gave you a rough idea of what the parties supposedly stood for, not what some bunch at the top decided at the last moment without any recourse to the party members, if there are any left by then.


What is this madness? Will no-one think of the poor focus groups?


----------



## kabbes (Dec 29, 2021)

Supine said:


> This isn’t the point in the election cycle where the position need to put out their agenda. And it will be labour policies not just starmers when they are developed.


This is the point in the election cycle where the electorate get the hang of what the other team would do if they were in charge. Without that, there is no credibility.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 31, 2021)

brogdale said:


> How does Starmer know what point we're in the election cycle?



That is a bloody good question.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 31, 2021)

kabbes said:


> This is the point in the election cycle where the electorate get the hang of what the other team would do if they were in charge. Without that, there is no credibility.



I refer you to my initial point re Starmer.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2022)

Savanta showing a double digit lead to Lab, but not quite the decay of the tory base that might have been expected?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2022)

Slightly bigger lead by YG:


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 14, 2022)

be interesting to see how the insulting the queen stuff plays out. May be the sort of thing that really fucks off older toryish voters.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2022)

Kaka Tim said:


> be interesting to see how the insulting the queen stuff plays out. May be the sort of thing that really fucks off older toryish voters.


Statesman has this pre-Queen stuff polling showing that the base was/is already very soft:


----------



## Knotted (Jan 17, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Statesman has this pre-Queen stuff polling showing that the base was/is already very soft:




That's really interesting. Shows the Tories have lost the bulk of their support to non of the above.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2022)

Knotted said:


> That's really interesting. Shows the Tories have lost the bulk of their support to non of the above.


Yes, a full 1/3 of them saying they'd just sit on their hands is quite something.
Of course, we'd expect that figure to decline when faced with an actual election leading to the 'normal' pre-polling convergence, but the longer Johnson hangs around the more deep-seated their electoral challenge becomes.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 17, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Yes, a full 1/3 of them saying they'd just sit on their hands is quite something.
> Of course, we'd expect that figure to decline when faced with an actual election leading to the 'normal' pre-polling convergence, but the longer Johnson hangs around the more deep-seated their electoral challenge becomes.


very much so
onaly a tiny 5% to Labour suggests the election will be a lot tighter than any Labour leading polls show


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2022)

Johnson's approval polling lined up with UK covid case rate data; letting rip from July 21 appears to be the point of divergence from which his personal polling has never recovered.


----------



## killer b (Jan 17, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Johnson's approval polling lined up with UK covid case rate data; letting rip from July 21 appears to be the point of divergence from which his personal polling has never recovered.
> View attachment 306346


The crossover point is Barnard Castle, not Letting Rip.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2022)

killer b said:


> The crossover point is Barnard Castle, not Letting Rip.


Yes, but the lowered case rates of Spring saw a re-convergence of the ratings that fluctuated around parity before the great divergence from July onwards.


----------



## killer b (Jan 17, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Yes, but the lowered case rates of Spring saw a re-convergence of the ratings that fluctuated around parity before the great divergence from July onwards.


You could look a those two lines and think that they follow each other almost exactly, but the true picture is more complex - you don't imagine that his current ratings are down to the soaring case rate do you?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 17, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Johnson's approval polling lined up with UK covid case rate data; letting rip from July 21 appears to be the point of divergence from which his personal polling has never recovered.


coincidence IMO.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2022)

killer b said:


> You could look a those two lines and think that they follow each other almost exactly, but the true picture is more complex - you don't imagine that his current ratings are down to the soaring case rate do you?


No, but I thought it worth posting for discussion.


----------



## killer b (Jan 17, 2022)

brogdale said:


> No, but I thought it worth posting for discussion.


It's a great example of correlation =/= causation. Not sure what it tells us beyond that.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2022)

killer b said:


> It's a great example of correlation =/= causation. Not sure what it tells us beyond that.


Fair enough; for me I think it offers an interesting context within which to analyse Johnson's own personal approval ratings...but each to their own.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2022)

Usual caveat...just one poll etc....but that -5 for the vermin can't be a big surprise?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2022)

Another apparently showing some "party gate" damage:


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jan 17, 2022)

Interesting to see the Libdems not benefiting. I wonder if the story is Labour people pissed off with Starmer being reminded that they hate the Tories enough to vote Labour rather than sulking because of Starmer being crap? Coupled with Tories saying they'll stay home? Which would suggest that the Libdems still don't offer a protest vote to either group.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2022)

Should stiffen the sinews of a few London vermin MPs...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2022)

I don't like blaming voters etc. but it does look like the folk of Dudley, Bassetlaw and Grimsby need to have a bit of talk with themselves!


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2022)

Wearing off?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2022)

Must be worth another letter to Brady?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2022)

Fairly constant 9 - 10 point lead across polls:


----------



## brogdale (Feb 10, 2022)

The Johnson effect:


----------



## brogdale (Feb 14, 2022)

Signs of post-party-gate re-convergence?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 15, 2022)

and YG picking up on the re-convergence...just a 3 point lead for the LP:


----------



## brogdale (Feb 23, 2022)

The war 'bounce' is not yet registering for Churchill II...


----------



## RileyOBlimey (Feb 23, 2022)




----------



## kabbes (Feb 23, 2022)

RileyOBlimey said:


> View attachment 311595


Nice to see the right answer winning in a poll for once.


----------



## Elpenor (Feb 23, 2022)

brogdale said:


> The war 'bounce' is not yet registering for Churchill II...



That would be the Churchill who didn’t make it to the end of the war as he lost an election


----------



## PR1Berske (Feb 27, 2022)

From today's Mail on Sunday




> Conservatives are facing 'electoral wipeout' following the Partygate scandal, a pollster warned, as data shows they are on track to lose a staggering 164 MPs, leaving them with just 201 - only three more than when Tony Blair thumped Michael Howard in 2005. The JL Partners poll of 4,500 people says Sir Keir Starmer's Labour would pick up 352 seats, an increase of 150, giving him an overall majority of 14. Meanwhile, the Tories would be wiped out of Scotland and Wales, losing all six and 14 seats they hold in each nation respectively. But the fatal blow would come from the 65 so-called 'red wall' consituencies in the north - who handed Boris a landslide in 2019, largely thanks to his promise to 'get Brexit done'. According to the latest poll, all but 10 of these - 55 - would revert back to Labour if an election were held tomorrow - including Blyth Valley, Redcar, Sedgefield, North West Durham, Bassetlaw, Great Grimsby and Ashfield. Other big name losses could include Defence Secretary Ben Wallace


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2022)

Someone's already having a good war.


----------



## strung out (Feb 28, 2022)

Things looking bad for Labour when Russia's nukes hit


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2022)

🤣 might be the Bishop's talking tbf


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2022)

strung out said:


> Things looking bad for Labour when Russia's nukes hit



Rosie Duffield being either party leader or deputy.

Is Manston off the nuke target list now, then?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 18, 2022)

_War, huh, yeah 
What is it good for?_


----------



## brogdale (Mar 28, 2022)

How bad?
That bad:


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2022)

Swing from the vermin to the yellow streak becoming more apparent to this pollster:


----------



## Whagwan (Jun 8, 2022)

Big thread on twitter from Chris Curtis today on how YouGov was pressured to not release positive Labour polling in 2017 by Zawahi.  Presented just as an interesting aside rather than evidence of the corruptness of the British establishment


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 8, 2022)

Lawyers have presumably been on the blower, 'cos 2 of the tweets have been deleted.









						Thread by @chriscurtis94 on Thread Reader App
					

@chriscurtis94: My experience of the 2017 General Election was probably a bit different from Andrew's. Firstly, it is worth noting just how dramatically the opinion polls changed during the course of the campaign. T...…




					threadreaderapp.com


----------



## killer b (Jun 8, 2022)

That detail about Labour drawing level on the day of the Manchester bomb is cruel.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 8, 2022)

Whagwan said:


> Big thread on twitter from Chris Curtis today on how YouGov was pressured to not release positive Labour polling in 2017 by Zawahi.  Presented just as an interesting aside rather than evidence of the corruptness of the British establishment
> 
> View attachment 326180



banned by who?


----------



## killer b (Jun 8, 2022)

Their boss presumably


----------



## PR1Berske (Jun 8, 2022)




----------



## Whagwan (Jun 8, 2022)

So they've only responded to that one claim.  No denial of Zawahi phoning the CEO to pressure them...


----------



## Whagwan (Jun 9, 2022)

It was just all a joke!

Cheers for confirming the conversation happened though!


----------



## killer b (Jun 9, 2022)

the detail about the conversation with Zahawi was lifted from a Tim Shipman book I think - not totally clear which one though, he doesn't seem to have published one since the 2019 election - maybe actually an article?


----------



## killer b (Jun 9, 2022)

Oh, it was the 2017 election of course - it's from 'Fall Out' I guess. Seems strange no-one has thought to raise this before now.


----------



## Elpenor (Jun 9, 2022)

To perhaps fire a warning shot at a leadership bid


----------



## killer b (Jun 9, 2022)

I don't think that's what Chris Curtis has done here, he's not a political actor in that kind of way. I think he just shared what he thought was an interesting story about the 2017 election that pulled back the curtain on the polling industry in ways that he didn't anticipate.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 9, 2022)

Whagwan said:


> It was just all a joke!
> 
> Cheers for confirming the conversation happened though!
> 
> View attachment 326358


I suppose they probably spiked the poll as a punchline.


----------



## Whagwan (Jun 10, 2022)

Some's had a telling off.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 11, 2022)

And still 28% of the dopey fuckers...


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 11, 2022)

Polls are silly now because some respondents will think "I'm not voting for the Conservatives led by Johnson" and others will think "I'll vote Conservative because my preferred candidate is sure to be leading them soon", etc. 

Why not wait until a new leader is chosen so that when people think "how would I vote in a general election tomorrow" they will all be starting with the assumptions?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Polls are silly now because some respondents will think "I'm not voting for the Conservatives led by Johnson" and others will think "I'll vote Conservative because my preferred candidate is sure to be leading them soon", etc.
> 
> Why not wait until a new leader is chosen so that when people think "how would I vote in a general election tomorrow" they will all be starting with the assumptions?


Because polling companies poll.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 2, 2022)

Polls suggesting that the vermin may be pulling out of the Johnson death dive?



Politico Poll tracker:


----------



## Elpenor (Aug 2, 2022)

Tories have cut the Johnson cancer out of their party which must have been putting off some of their voters?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 19, 2022)

Labour with a 15% lead - so much for the truss honeymoon - I actually do think the tories are finally fucked. Cost of living will do for them. To be talking about tax cuts when the coutnry is facing a huge hike in energy bills that will send tens of millions of people to wall, knacker thousands of companies and collapse the economy is utter bobbins. As Gove said today - "Truss is taking a holiday from reality".


----------



## ska invita (Aug 20, 2022)

Kaka Tim said:


> Labour with a 15% lead - so much for the truss honeymoon - I actually do think the tories are finally fucked. Cost of living will do for them.


yeah and its only just begun...but next general election is "scheduled to be held no later than Friday 24 January 2025" ...lot of madness to happen before then


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 20, 2022)

Kaka Tim said:


> Labour with a 15% lead - so much for the truss honeymoon - I actually do think the tories are finally fucked. Cost of living will do for them.



Seems like it but Labour had a bigger lead in 2013 and two years later the Tories increased their number of seats. 🤷


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Seems like it but Labour had a bigger lead in 2013 and two years later the Tories increased their number of seats. 🤷


that wa the year of labours final collapse in scotland, in no small part* down to backing the 'better together' option in the scots indy reff (2014)

*theres more to it than that but observing from down here it looked like the straw that crippled the camel.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 20, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Seems like it but Labour had a bigger lead in 2013 and two years later the Tories increased their number of seats. 🤷



Labours lead in  2013 was  - IIRC - averaging around 5% (very rarely getting above 10%) . UKIP were polling consistently above 10% - much of that vote went back to the tories in 2015 after cameron promised a referendum - also the lib dem vote was in the toilet. UKIP are no longer taking a bite out of the tory vote and now lib dems are a threat to the tories again - so its not obvious where they can get votes back.
The point about the latest polls is that the labour lead has started to increase again - it narrowed after johnson resigned. Seems that the more people see of truss the less they like her . The energy price hike threatens to be poll tax mark two . That -  and other cost of living stuff - is going to cost the tories dearly.  
You also get the sense that significant sections  big money and the media are happy to swing behind labour as starmer is not much of a  threat and the tories are increasingly hopeless. similar to what happened prior to 1997.


----------



## Spandex (Aug 20, 2022)

Kaka Tim said:


> Labour with a 15% lead - so much for the truss honeymoon - I actually do think the tories are finally fucked. Cost of living will do for them. To be talking about tax cuts when the coutnry is facing a huge hike in energy bills that will send tens of millions of people to wall, knacker thousands of companies and collapse the economy is utter bobbins. As Gove said today - "Truss is taking a holiday from reality".
> 
> View attachment 338677



In March 1990 polling put Labour on 54% to the Cons 30%. Their 'modernising' leader who'd taken on the left of the party lost the election 2 years later with Cons on 42.8% and Lab on 35.2%.

Neil "We're alright!" Starmer


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Aug 20, 2022)

ska invita said:


> yeah and its only just begun...but next general election is "scheduled to be held no later than Friday 24 January 2025" ...lot of madness to happen before then


Worth bearing in mind that the names lined up for Truss’s cabinet are all culture war headbangers whose politics are not too far away from the mob who stormed the US Capitol building. To people of that mindset, crisis, violence and misery are not things to be necessarily avoided, but _opportunities_ to override whatever meagre restraints are left on govt in the UK and go full on for some kind of vicious Randian authoritarianism…


----------



## ska invita (Aug 20, 2022)

Jeremiah18.17 said:


> Worth bearing in mind that the names lined up for Truss’s cabinet are all culture war headbangers whose politics are not too far away from the mob who stormed the US Capitol building. To people of that mindset, crisis, violence and misery are not things to be necessarily avoided, but _opportunities_ to override whatever meagre restraints are left on govt in the UK and go full on for some kind of vicious Randian authoritarianism…


Absolutely a possibility, agreed. Hard to know at this point how much Truss is just playing to her crowd and how much will be vicious "philosophy" enacted, to quote the Telegraph


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 20, 2022)

Spandex said:


> In March 1990 polling put Labour on 54% to the Cons 30%. Their 'modernising' leader who'd taken on the left of the party lost the election 2 years later with Cons on 42.8% and Lab on 35.2%.
> 
> Neil "We're alright!" Starmer



The poll tax was killing the tories. replacing thatcher with major and ditching the poll tax  - plus kinnocks self evident wankerness - was enough for them to win in 1992.
But i dont think replacing Johnson with Truss is going to have the same effect - it doesnt pull off the trick of it being a different government in the same way. Truss is Johnson mk 2 with all the bullshit but without the personality. The polling seems to show that now the public have had a good look at truss - they are not very impressed. 

It was "black Wednesday" in 1992  - when the uk crashed out of the ERM - that destroyed the tories reputation for competence. Runaway inflation, soraing energy bills and the criticals state of the NHS will likely do the same for them now. Also - Truss an co are utterly incompetent and shit at politics . I wouldn't put money on her pulling off a Houdini act.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 20, 2022)

another poll -


----------



## Spandex (Aug 20, 2022)

Kaka Tim said:


> The poll tax was killing the tories. replacing thatcher with major and ditching the poll tax  - plus kinnocks self evident wankerness - was enough for them to win in 1992.
> But i dont think replacing Johnson with Truss is going to have the same effect - it doesnt pull off the trick of it being a different government in the same way. Truss is Johnson mk 2 with all the bullshit but without the personality. The polling seems to show that now the public have had a good look at truss - they are not very impressed.
> 
> It was "black Wednesday" in 1992  - when the uk crashed out of the ERM - that destroyed the tories reputation for competence. Runaway inflation, soraing energy bills and the criticals state of the NHS will likely do the same for them now. Also - Truss an co are utterly incompetent and shit at politics . I wouldn't put money on her pulling off a Houdini act.


Yeah, that's true. Although you don't mention Starmer's self evident wankerness. 

It seems likely the idiot Truss will make every wrong decision she faces as crisis after crisis comes her way and in a sane world she'll be out on her arse by Jan 2025. But we don't live in a sane world and who knows what'll happen in the next two years? She might be a patriotic war leader after bumbling into a general war with Russia and China. She might claim the credit for a surprise South American-led global economic upturn in 2024. One of her random idiotic thoughts might somehow capture the public mood. Starmer will be looking for banana skins to slip up on the whole time.

And that's before we enter the weirdness of a general election campaign. Two weeks out from the vote the Mail might run an exclusive expose of how Starmer once went apple scrumping when he was 12 and suddenly apple scrumping will become the defining issue of the election. The Tory press going mad about the horrors of scrumping apples, a Tory-donor chief-exec of a cider makers association will become a regular fixture on all news reports decrying the terrible economic impact of apple theft, the social media history of every Labour candidate will be scoured for evidence of being soft on scrumping. Every question asked of every Labour figure by the media will focus exclusively on the menace of scrumping apples. Twitter will discuss nothing else. People will say that Labour have no policies because they haven't heard of them amongst the noise created by Scrumpingate. And Truss will slip back into Downing Street after a close election result that she and her media partners describe as a landslide.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 20, 2022)

Spandex said:


> Yeah, that's true. Although you don't mention Starmer's self evident wankerness.
> 
> It seems likely the idiot Truss will make every wrong decision she faces as crisis after crisis comes her way and in a sane world she'll be out on her arse by Jan 2025. But we don't live in a sane world and who knows what'll happen in the next two years? She might be a patriotic war leader after bumbling into a general war with Russia and China. She might claim the credit for a surprise South American-led global economic upturn in 2024. One of her random idiotic thoughts might somehow capture the public mood. Starmer will be looking for banana skins to slip up on the whole time.
> 
> And that's before we enter the weirdness of a general election campaign. Two weeks out from the vote the Mail might run an exclusive expose of how Starmer once went apple scrumping when he was 12 and suddenly apple scrumping will become the defining issue of the election. The Tory press going mad about the horrors of scrumping apples, a Tory-donor chief-exec of a cider makers association will become a regular fixture on all news reports decrying the terrible economic impact of apple theft, the social media history of every Labour candidate will be scoured for evidence of being soft on scrumping. Every question asked of every Labour figure by the media will focus exclusively on the menace of scrumping apples. Twitter will discuss nothing else. People will say that Labour have no policies because they haven't heard of them amongst the noise created by Scrumpingate. And Truss will slip back into Downing Street after a close election result that she and her media partners describe as a landslide.


Dunno. As I said earlier - a lot of influential and powerful forces may swing behind labour. Similar to how murdochs papers supported blair.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Aug 20, 2022)

Spandex said:


> Yeah, that's true. Although you don't mention Starmer's self evident wankerness.
> 
> It seems likely the idiot Truss will make every wrong decision she faces as crisis after crisis comes her way and in a sane world she'll be out on her arse by Jan 2025. But we don't live in a sane world and who knows what'll happen in the next two years? She might be a patriotic war leader after bumbling into a general war with Russia and China. She might claim the credit for a surprise South American-led global economic upturn in 2024. One of her random idiotic thoughts might somehow capture the public mood. Starmer will be looking for banana skins to slip up on the whole time.
> 
> And that's before we enter the weirdness of a general election campaign. Two weeks out from the vote the Mail might run an exclusive expose of how Starmer once went apple scrumping when he was 12 and suddenly apple scrumping will become the defining issue of the election. The Tory press going mad about the horrors of scrumping apples, a Tory-donor chief-exec of a cider makers association will become a regular fixture on all news reports decrying the terrible economic impact of apple theft, the social media history of every Labour candidate will be scoured for evidence of being soft on scrumping. Every question asked of every Labour figure by the media will focus exclusively on the menace of scrumping apples. Twitter will discuss nothing else. People will say that Labour have no policies because they haven't heard of them amongst the noise created by Scrumpingate. And Truss will slip back into Downing Street after a close election result that she and her media partners describe as a landslide.


I bet that woke snowflake will only scrump organic apples.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Aug 21, 2022)

Truss is no Major but Starmer is certainly no Blair.


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 21, 2022)

Truss doesn’t even have the gravitas of Ian DunkedinShit. Fucking hopeless self-regarding lightweight. Here’s to her sinking the cunts yet not being competent enough to get through any of the reactionary shit she’s got planned for us.


----------



## flypanam (Sep 13, 2022)

A 6 point bounce, not terrible but not as good as the tories hoped.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 13, 2022)

Looks like labour unchanged, so that’s probably some headcases returning to the fold from the manifold UKIP spin-offs.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 13, 2022)

Green vote going to Tories ?


----------



## killer b (Sep 26, 2022)

Only three points short of the fabled 20 point lead, and the biggest lead Yougov have ever polled for Labour apparently. Truss going down like a cup of cold sick.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 26, 2022)

killer b said:


> Only three points short of the fabled 20 point lead, and the biggest lead Yougov have ever polled for Labour apparently. Truss going down like a cup of cold sick.
> 
> View attachment 344579


& fieldwork before today's market meltdown


----------



## brogdale (Sep 26, 2022)

Some stunningly poor polling for Truss:


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 26, 2022)

ah - the fabled "new leader bounce".


----------



## brogdale (Sep 26, 2022)

Kaka Tim said:


> ah - the fabled "new leader bounce".


When only 39% of your own side have any confidence...and that'll be lower after today's meltdown


----------



## Bingoman (Sep 27, 2022)

killer b said:


> Only three points short of the fabled 20 point lead, and the biggest lead Yougov have ever polled for Labour apparently. Truss going down like a cup of cold sick.
> 
> View attachment 344579


All labour have to do is keep their noses clean for the year or so


----------



## Raheem (Sep 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> When only 39% of your own side have any confidence...and that'll be lower after today's meltdown


When "your own side" consists of six people and they're all looking round thinking the other five are not as clever as they imagined.


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2022)

God, imagine if Starmer had any policies or charisma.


----------



## Smangus (Sep 27, 2022)

maomao said:


> God, imagine if Starmer had any policies or charisma.



At this rate he doesn't need any of those.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 27, 2022)

The strategy of being as much of a nonentity as possible can actually pay off if your opponents are the very most detestable humans imaginable.


----------



## Yossarian (Sep 27, 2022)

Labour might boost their lead if they rebrand as "Generic Opposition Party."


----------



## brogdale (Sep 27, 2022)

Yossarian said:


> Labour might boost their lead if they rebrand as "Generic Opposition Party."


Or _None of the Below _party; NOB


----------



## CyberRose (Sep 27, 2022)

This seems like a pretty good policy...









						Keir Starmer speech: Labour plans publicly owned renewable energy giant
					

Great British Energy could grow to rival foreign-owned energy giants like EDF, Labour sources say.



					www.bbc.com
				






> *Sir Keir Starmer has announced plans to create a publicly-owned renewable energy company if Labour wins the next general election.*
> Great British Energy would be modelled on France's EDF and other firms owned by foreign states operating in the UK.
> It would aim to ensure a massive expansion in clean energy planned by Labour, and would deliver British jobs and greater energy security.


----------



## JimW (Sep 27, 2022)

CyberRose said:


> This seems like a pretty good policy...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Only if he folds all the private fuckers into it.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 29, 2022)

In some ways unsurprising, but a little bit wow, nonetheless:


----------



## brogdale (Sep 29, 2022)

It'll all be over by Christmas:


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 29, 2022)

brogdale said:


> In some ways unsurprising, but a little bit wow, nonetheless:



Staggering failure of the Lib Dems to get a look in


----------



## brogdale (Sep 29, 2022)

50% again


----------



## PR1Berske (Sep 29, 2022)




----------



## maomao (Sep 29, 2022)

I know that's not real votes but Blair's landslide was 43% to 30%


----------



## brogdale (Sep 29, 2022)

PR1Berske said:


>



Certainly picks out the real cuntryside.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 29, 2022)

Essex really is such a cunts hole, isn't it?


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 29, 2022)

Don’t forget you need to subtract Truss’s honeymoon bounce from these figures when thinking about the general election.


----------



## Elpenor (Sep 29, 2022)

What’s the weird colour for east Devon? Speaker?  there seems to be a similar colour in the NW which could be Hoyle?


----------



## ska invita (Sep 29, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Certainly picks out the real cuntryside.
> 
> View attachment 345030



Really nice to see Kent in red


----------



## maomao (Sep 29, 2022)

Even Romford's red. I would live in the same street as an MP.


----------



## WhyLikeThis (Sep 29, 2022)

Thing is, the majority of 346 would be wasted on Sir Haircut. What would he do with it?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 29, 2022)

WhyLikeThis said:


> Thing is, the majority of 346 would be wasted on Sir Haircut. What would he do with it?


really fucking radically forensic


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 29, 2022)

WhyLikeThis said:


> Thing is, the majority of 346 would be wasted on Sir Haircut. What would he do with it?


Ban strikes


----------



## Bingoman (Sep 29, 2022)

Labour landslide 





__





						Election Prediction
					





					www.electoralcalculus.co.uk


----------



## PR1Berske (Sep 29, 2022)




----------



## SE25 (Sep 29, 2022)

WhyLikeThis said:


> Thing is, the majority of 346 would be wasted on Sir Haircut. What would he do with it?


A war


----------



## WhyLikeThis (Sep 29, 2022)

SE25 said:


> A war



On the Labour left?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 30, 2022)

Liz Truss: “I am prepared to be unpopular.”

YouGov: “Ok, then you’re gonna fucking love this.”

(not mine but thought id share)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 30, 2022)

It takes a certain genius to make yourself unpopular by announcing tax cuts.


----------



## Humberto (Sep 30, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It takes a certain genius to make yourself unpopular by announcing tax cuts.


 but it happened.


----------



## Humberto (Sep 30, 2022)

No genius though


----------



## kabbes (Sep 30, 2022)

Bingoman said:


> Labour landslide
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hahaha. Under that YouGov poll, the Tories would be left with three seats.


----------



## magneze (Sep 30, 2022)

3 too many


----------



## Raheem (Sep 30, 2022)

SNP would be the official opposition.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 30, 2022)

brogdale said:


> In some ways unsurprising, but a little bit wow, nonetheless:



The Tory conference is going to be excellent


----------



## Bingoman (Sep 30, 2022)

Raheem said:


> SNP would be the official opposition.


Wow never thought of,that


----------



## brogdale (Sep 30, 2022)

More poll porn for Labourites:


----------



## Bingoman (Sep 30, 2022)

Are we expecting any more polls this weekend?


----------



## Smangus (Oct 1, 2022)

Meanwhile in the real world


----------



## brogdale (Oct 1, 2022)

Toast.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 1, 2022)

Impressive numbers


----------



## Calamity1971 (Oct 1, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Impressive numbers
> 
> View attachment 345399


The 12% are either extremely wealthy, or extremely stupid.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 1, 2022)

And the Opinium top-line numbers:


----------



## Elpenor (Oct 1, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Toast.
> 
> View attachment 345398


Terrorism and defence - ouch. If you can’t win your base…


----------



## magneze (Oct 2, 2022)

Calamity1971 said:


> The 12% are either extremely wealthy, or extremely stupid.


Also could well be both.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 3, 2022)

Nice neat numbers...


----------



## PR1Berske (Oct 3, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Nice neat numbers...





Labour 525 +322
SNP 51 +3
Cons 33 -332
LD 17 +6
Green 1


----------



## brogdale (Oct 3, 2022)

Like poll porn? Want more?


----------



## belboid (Oct 4, 2022)

Latest from redwood and thingy - Labour were 15 points ahead in red wall seats a fortnight ago.  Today it’s 38%


----------



## PR1Berske (Oct 4, 2022)




----------



## brogdale (Oct 4, 2022)

PR1Berske said:


>



Pretty stunning that 23% want more of this.


----------



## PR1Berske (Oct 4, 2022)

Labour 570
SNP 51
LD 7
Con 3
Green 1
Others/NI (remaining)


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 4, 2022)

Ive never seen such dramatic polling surges. Spectacular.

here's another one -


----------



## brogdale (Oct 4, 2022)

Ooof


----------



## kabbes (Oct 4, 2022)

When 84% think you’re doing badly with the economy, you really are fucked.  Ties up perfectly with the voting intention polling


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 6, 2022)

today's poll porn -


----------



## Wilf (Oct 7, 2022)

The vermin are lucky there are no elections on the horizon (don't think there are any planned by elections?).  A phalanx of angry ex tory councillors, getting shouted at on the doorstep, would probably do for truss.


----------



## Flavour (Oct 7, 2022)

that figure of 84% for the economy will almost certainly be even higher in 6 months time


----------



## killer b (Oct 7, 2022)

Wilf said:


> don't think there are any planned by elections


West Lancs, but that's currently held by Labour.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 7, 2022)

killer b said:


> West Lancs, but that's currently held by Labour.


Cheers. I had a feeling there might have been one, but my searches threw nothing up.


----------



## Bingoman (Oct 7, 2022)

New poll says every Tory MP in London could lose their seat
					

Exclusive:  Conservatives fall 37 points behind Labour in London




					www.standard.co.uk


----------



## brogdale (Oct 7, 2022)

This pollster has the vermin flatlining on 20%:


----------



## brogdale (Oct 7, 2022)

26%? reckon the vermin will be pleased with that one.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 7, 2022)

20 - 26% deffo a thing now...


----------



## belboid (Oct 7, 2022)

Wilf said:


> Cheers. I had a feeling there might have been one, but my searches threw nothing up.


Tamworth and Bournemouth West are both looking promising


----------



## killer b (Oct 7, 2022)

belboid said:


> Tamworth and Bournemouth West are both looking promising


Has something new happened with Pincher?


----------



## belboid (Oct 7, 2022)

it’s 


killer b said:


> Has something new happened with Pincher?


there are still ongoing investigations I think, so we can hope.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 7, 2022)




----------



## Bingoman (Oct 7, 2022)

On electoral calculas they are suggesting that the Tories could lose thier deposits in likes of Glasgow and Liverpool and few other places if their was an election tomorrow


----------



## brogdale (Oct 8, 2022)

Disastruss


----------



## belboid (Oct 9, 2022)

killer b said:


> Has something new happened with Pincher?


You’re right, it’s not Pincher.  It’s David Warburton from Somerset & Frome who’s still under investigation.


----------



## Sue (Oct 9, 2022)

belboid said:


> You’re right, it’s not Pincher.  It’s David Warburton from Somerset & Frome who’s still under investigation.


It's difficult to keep up tbf.


----------



## steeplejack (Oct 9, 2022)

Let's face it the only way it could get worse for the Tories now, is for the genius of the 1997 election, Dr Brian Mawhinney, to be put in charge of 2024 via a fucking ouija board.


----------



## agricola (Oct 9, 2022)

steeplejack said:


> Let's face it the only way it could get worse for the Tories now, is for the genius of the 1997 election, Dr Brian Mawhinney, to be put in charge of 2024 via a fucking ouija board.



that would be better for the tories, for the following reasons:

i) Mawhinney wouldn't charge them hundreds of thousands of pounds for the priviledge
ii) the random movements of a ouija board would be more sensible than Truss
iii) people don't hate Brian Mawhinney


----------



## Sue (Oct 9, 2022)

steeplejack said:


> Let's face it the only way it could get worse for the Tories now, is for the genius of the 1997 election, Dr Brian Mawhinney, to be put in charge of 2024 via a fucking ouija board.


The pearl clutching about this is hilarious. 









						Sturgeon accused of using ‘dangerous language’ about Tories
					

Scottish first minister said she ‘detested’ Conservatives and wanted a Labour government in London




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## steeplejack (Oct 9, 2022)

Sue said:


> The pearl clutching about this is hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, of course the Tories have never ever ever used divisive language about refugees, "woke culture" (if it exists beyond social media), benefits claimants, foreigners...

the polls referred to in this thread suggesrts that "detesting" the Tories is a pretty mainstream position in 2022. The problem is getting them out as soon as possible- they will do everything to cling on grimly for another two years and destroy as much as they can in the process.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 9, 2022)

steeplejack said:


> Yes, of course the Tories have never ever ever used divisive language about refugees, "woke culture" (if it exists beyond social media), benefits claimants, foreigners...
> 
> the polls referred to in this thread suggesrts that "detesting" the Tories is a pretty mainstream position in 2022. The problem is getting them out as soon as possible- they will do everything to cling on grimly for another two years and destroy as much as they can in the process.


I've long posted up the idea that Labour's leads were soggy - back when they were a wee 10% to the 25%+ now (Labour having no policies that resonate, no real way of connecting to cost of living anger, a deeply shit leader, that kind of thing).  I'm starting to think about it the other way round now - what can the tories do to turn this around?  If truss remains, with all the ideological madness that inspired the budget and a genuine desire to do the most visible things that benefit the rich, there can be no way back.  She'd have to do mental backflips if she was to increase core public spending or start jacking up NHS salaries, say.  I could see her hurling money at pensioners before the next election, with what remains of the public finances, but not much else.  

The real stupidity was going for the top tax rate at a time of austerity (well and even more in terms of the things that your advisers - or GCSE Economics students - should have spotted with regard to markets).  There are plenty of other, less overt, ways of hurling money at 'entrepreneurs', doing this wasn't just ideological, it was crass stupidity.  The tories were always going to struggle in the next election, but this was almost inexplicable as a _strategy_.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 10, 2022)

> largest lead for ANY party that we've recorded.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 10, 2022)

brogdale said:


>



interestingly Truss did get an election win bounce (my red arrows)
they really fucked it up eh


----------



## JimW (Oct 10, 2022)

Not looking good for the Dems


----------



## brogdale (Oct 12, 2022)

Really quite something:


----------



## agricola (Oct 12, 2022)

Wilf said:


> I've long posted up the idea that Labour's leads were soggy - back when they were a wee 10% to the 25%+ now (Labour having no policies that resonate, no real way of connecting to cost of living anger, a deeply shit leader, that kind of thing).  I'm starting to think about it the other way round now - what can the tories do to turn this around?  If truss remains, with all the ideological madness that inspired the budget and a genuine desire to do the most visible things that benefit the rich, there can be no way back.  She'd have to do mental backflips if she was to increase core public spending or start jacking up NHS salaries, say.  I could see her hurling money at pensioners before the next election, with what remains of the public finances, but not much else.
> 
> The real stupidity was going for the top tax rate at a time of austerity (well and even more in terms of the things that your advisers - or GCSE Economics students - should have spotted with regard to markets).  There are plenty of other, less overt, ways of hurling money at 'entrepreneurs', doing this wasn't just ideological, it was crass stupidity.  The tories were always going to struggle in the next election, but this was almost inexplicable as a _strategy_.



Indeed.  The daftest thing about it is that it is that it took away their best argument - the "we can't afford it" one.  

A competent government could have said that, due to the energy price measures, that they couldn't afford to increase public sector pay to keep pace with inflation (and that the measures will benefit public sector workers anyway) and it would have been difficult to challenge.   Instead they've managed to suggest that they can afford to make the rich richer whilst also looking so weak that people think (probably correctly) that strike action will work.   This is not something that is going to be sustainable for very long and its hard to see how this government gets any support.  

One might almost think it was deliberate, some attempt to kill off the "zombie economy" and then build a utopia.  That they'd probably have ended up dangling from lamp-posts may not have occurred to them.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 12, 2022)

JimW said:


> Not looking good for the Dems



No it isn't and I find this very surprising. They've been doing very well in by-elections in the so-called blue wall and I would think that they would benefit from the Tory vote collapse. But no. They are actually getting outshone by Keir Starmer!


----------



## Raheem (Oct 12, 2022)

Knotted said:


> No it isn't and I find this very surprising. They've been doing very well in by-elections in the so-called blue wall and I would think that they would benefit from the Tory vote collapse. But no. They are actually getting outshone by Keir Starmer!


Probably the thing is that people mostly want the Tories out, so they will vote for whoever can deliver that, which is Labour in far more places than it is the Lib Dems.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 12, 2022)

Raheem said:


> Probably the thing is that people mostly want the Tories out, so they will vote for whoever can deliver that, which is Labour in far more places than it is the Lib Dems.



But the Lib Dem vote has been pretty static instead of getting a smaller portion of the Tory vote, it seems they getting none of it. I don't have an explanation for this.


----------



## Elpenor (Oct 12, 2022)

JimW said:


> Not looking good for the Dems



Davey is somehow even more anonymous than Starmer


----------



## Bingoman (Oct 12, 2022)

Elpenor said:


> Davey is somehow even more anonymous than Starmer


I think come near election time their vote could pick up but I think this more down to the fact that people are fed up with the government out and latched on to the Labour party


----------



## ska invita (Oct 12, 2022)

Elpenor said:


> Davey is somehow even more anonymous than Starmer


I couldn't name him, and by tomorrow I'll have forgotten what I just read


----------



## JimW (Oct 12, 2022)

I was really only doing that joke from US politics. Try not to think about Lib Dems if I can avoid it.


----------



## PR1Berske (Oct 14, 2022)




----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2022)

JFF & obviously quite ludicrous and all that...but gotta love a poll that yields a seat projection making the SNP a bigger party than the vermin!


----------



## Elpenor (Oct 14, 2022)

brogdale said:


> JFF & obviously quite ludicrous and all that...but gotta love a poll that yields a seat projection making the SNP a bigger party than the vermin!



Virtually all of Devon going red - that’s incredible


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 15, 2022)

brogdale said:


> JFF & obviously quite ludicrous and all that...but gotta love a poll that yields a seat projection making the SNP a bigger party than the vermin!



Wouldn’t that make them the official opposition? That would actually be quite funny.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 15, 2022)

PR1Berske said:


> Labour 570
> SNP 51
> LD 7
> Con 3
> ...


I want to know who those three Tory MPs would be, who would be the leader? Imagine if it was Dorries, Fabricant and Rosindale. Also what kind of fuckholes would be the last three places in the country to put them into parliament?


----------



## ItStillWontWork (Oct 15, 2022)

On a serious note, would a government with almost 5 times as many seats as the next biggest party be a good thing? It seems a pretty terrifying prospect to me, whatever party it was.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2022)

ItStillWontWork said:


> On a serious note, would a government with almost 5 times as many seats as the next biggest party be a good thing? It seems a pretty terrifying prospect to me, whatever party it was.


I wouldn't overly worry; there always pre-election poll convergence and there's a way to go yet for the billionaire press to work their 'magic'.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 15, 2022)

Elpenor said:


> Davey is somehow even more anonymous than Starmer



I read that, went down stairs and asked Mrs Sas (who is not a political animal) who the leader of the Lib Dems was. She didn't know. Doesn't bode well for them.


----------



## Fairweather (Oct 15, 2022)

Dogsauce said:


> *I want to know who those three Tory MPs would be, *who would be the leader? Imagine if it was Dorries, Fabricant and Rosindale. Also what kind of fuckholes would be the last three places in the country to put them into parliament?


Iain, Duncan and Smith according to Paul Merton on hignfy last night.


----------



## PR1Berske (Oct 16, 2022)




----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2022)

I'm the Private Fraser, Cassandra style voice of doom, but I'd expect these poll leads to be back to 10-15% within, who knows, 2 weeks?  A good % of the volatility is simply a reaction to the madness, not really voting intentions.  The only thing that keeps the leads at 20%+ is the wildcard, completely unexpected, off the wall outcome of the PM staying in office.  Well, more specifically:

Truss stays in office - leads 20%+
Slow unraveling of her leadership through letters to graham brady, cabinet ministers resigning - ditto.
Interest rates staying high and mortgage rises happening as planned - ditto.

Cunt or sunak taking over as interim leader, interest rates fall back - back to the baseline 10-15% leads of the glorious johnson era.


----------



## elbows (Oct 17, 2022)

Doubt it will recover to that extent at all.


----------



## killer b (Oct 17, 2022)

I can't see them falling back that low - a crisis this substantial causes lasting damage - we might not see 30+ leads once things aren't so hyper, but it's not going back down to 10 anytime soon


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 17, 2022)

Wilf said:


> I'm the Private Fraser, Cassandra style voice of doom, but I'd expect these poll leads to be back to 10-15% within, who knows, 2 weeks?  A good % of the volatility is simply a reaction to the madness, not really voting intentions.  The only thing that keeps the leads at 20%+ is the wildcard, completely unexpected, off the wall outcome of the PM staying in office.  Well, more specifically:
> 
> Truss stays in office - leads 20%+
> Slow unraveling of her leadership through letters to graham brady, cabinet ministers resigning - ditto.
> ...


Except that they were already behind by about 10% when Johnson was booted out. And they no longer have Brexit to get done. What do they offer?

I'm amazed their support is still in double digits right now, tbh, but it appears there is a hardcore of about 20% who'll vote for them whatever they do. But I don't see getting the rest back as an easy task.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 17, 2022)

On a less upbeat note, Major's government was clearly fucked for a long time before it was booted out but it still did a lot of damage in that time, notably the privatisation of rail.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> *Except that they were already behind by about 10% when Johnson was booted out*. And they no longer have Brexit to get done. What do they offer?
> 
> I'm amazed their support is still in double digits right now, tbh, but it appears there is a hardcore of about 20% who'll vote for them whatever they do. But I don't see getting the rest back as an easy task.


I didn't put it well, but the bold bit was what I meant.  I suppose with the rest of it, we live in profoundly fucked up times and that is reflected in the polls. But there will come a point when this returns to being Lab v Con again.  In some senses it's not so much 'what have they got to offer', it's about who is fighting who.  Daft to predict what will happen in 2 years, but my pointless tilt at that would be a Labour win, with a small advantage in the popular vote.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2022)

Lordy, Redfield and Wilton at 36% lead.  If Labour managed to come up with a few bold pro public sector policies...









						Latest GB Voting Intention (16 October 2022)
					

Redfield & Wilton Strategies’ latest voting intention poll in Great Britain finds the Labour Party leading by 36%, seven points higher as …




					redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com


----------



## killer b (Oct 17, 2022)

She's overtaken (undertaken?) Prince Andrew


----------



## ItStillWontWork (Oct 17, 2022)

killer b said:


> She's overtaken (undertaken?) Prince Andrew
> 
> View attachment 347611
> 
> View attachment 347610



Who the fuck are the 11 pro%?


----------



## killer b (Oct 17, 2022)

ItStillWontWork said:


> Who the fuck are the 11 pro%?


paedophiles


----------



## Raheem (Oct 17, 2022)

11 is prime, so there has to be at least 11 of them.

!


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2022)

That 7% approval rating is both astonishingly low and staggeringly high; interesting.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 20, 2022)

Today's polling porn -


----------



## brogdale (Oct 21, 2022)

Posted elsewhere for the lols, but probably should park this in here for posterity; don't think we'll have ever seen one of the 2 major parties as low as 14% before?


----------



## Benjamin F (Oct 21, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Posted elsewhere for the lols, but probably should park this in here for posterity; don't think we'll have ever seen one of the 2 major parties as low as 14% before?



Who are polling company PeoplePolling? Not sure I've heard of them before.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 21, 2022)

Benjamin F said:


> Who are polling company PeoplePolling? Not sure I've heard of them before.


Yeah, not sure myself, but they appear to be a BPC member. They were commissioned by FashNews and sampled a reasonable, if a tad small theses days, 1200 people.


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 21, 2022)

ItStillWontWork said:


> Who the fuck are the 11 pro%?


A while back I tripped over a Youtube channel dedicated to "un-cancelling" Gary Glitter


----------



## brogdale (Oct 21, 2022)

Well, with a sub 20% figure for the scum, YG offer some credibility to the PollingPeople's 14%; maybe there weren't that far off the mark?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 21, 2022)

Ever wondered what god-forsaken village idiots would still elect a vermin MP on 14% of plurality?


----------



## ska invita (Oct 21, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Ever wondered what god-forsaken village idiots would still elect a vermin MP on 14% of plurality?
> 
> View attachment 348172


looks like Clacton, Colchester,  Skeggy and Portsmouth
sounds about right
ETA: and Chester!!?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 21, 2022)

ska invita said:


> looks like Clacton, Colchester,  Skeggy and Portsmouth
> sounds about right
> ETA: and Chester!!?


Yep, probably about right. How depressing to live in such a constituency, knowing that if such a wildly unrealistic level of support were ever actually to materialise at the ballot box, you'd still have a fucking vermin scum MP.


----------



## Leafster (Oct 21, 2022)

ska invita said:


> looks like Clacton, Colchester,  Skeggy and Portsmouth
> sounds about right
> ETA: and Chester!!?


It's not Pompey. I think that one is Meon Valley.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 21, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Ever wondered what god-forsaken village idiots would still elect a vermin MP on 14% of plurality?
> 
> View attachment 348172



What's that dark spot in the north-west of England?


----------



## Leafster (Oct 21, 2022)

NoXion said:


> What's that dark spot in the north-west of England?


The Speaker's constituency


----------



## ska invita (Oct 21, 2022)

possibly rochester is blue too but the map is a bit small


----------



## strung out (Oct 21, 2022)

ska invita said:


> looks like Clacton, Colchester,  Skeggy and Portsmouth
> sounds about right
> ETA: and Chester!!?


That's the River Mersey, not Chester.


----------



## Leafster (Oct 21, 2022)

I went looking for a better map but found a list of them instead.

Matt Warman, Boston and Skegness
Alex Burghart Brentwood and Ongar
John Whittingdale Maldon
Flick Drummond Meon Valley
John Hayes South Holland and The Deepings


----------



## Elpenor (Oct 21, 2022)

Obviously a purely notional map but it really shows how bad FPTP is


----------



## ItStillWontWork (Oct 21, 2022)

gentlegreen said:


> A while back I tripped over a Youtube channel dedicated to "un-cancelling" Gary Glitter



Is he still alive? Maybe it was him that set it up


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2022)

I'll just leave the latest poll here.  It's quite...   





						Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## ska invita (Oct 23, 2022)

Wilf said:


> I'll just leave the latest poll here.  It's quite...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Wilf (Oct 24, 2022)

By the by, that seems to have been a hoax - it isn't on the Redfield and Wilton site and is no longer on wiki.


----------



## SysOut (Oct 24, 2022)

Wilf said:


> By the by, that seems to have been a hoax - it isn't on the Redfield and Wilton site and is no longer on wiki.


Yes wiki have removed it. I saw it beforehand there. Didn't check the R&W source though.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 24, 2022)

It's a real disappointment when we have to go back to those knife edge 37% leads.


----------



## moochedit (Oct 24, 2022)

Any post-sunak-as-pm polls yet?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 24, 2022)

moochedit said:


> Any post-sunak-as-pm polls yet?


No, but here's the real Redfield and Wilton. There's also an Omniss at 34% lead.









						Latest GB Voting Intention (23 October 2022)
					

Redfield & Wilton Strategies’ latest voting intention poll in Great Britain finds the Labour Party leading by 33%, three points lower as in …




					redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2022)

The beginnings of the great (re)convergence?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 27, 2022)

Strange times when a "bounce" still leaves the vermin 28% behind...


----------



## maomao (Oct 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Strange times when a "bounce" still leaves the vermin 28% behind...



It's got Truss in the photo. When was the data collected?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 27, 2022)

maomao said:


> It's got Truss in the photo. When was the data collected?


Tuesday & Wednesday; better tweet:


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2022)

No 'bounce' here:


----------



## brogdale (Nov 7, 2022)

Nope, nadda; not a sausage...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 10, 2022)

The Truss-effect appears to be quite persistent:


----------



## ska invita (Nov 10, 2022)

brogdale said:


> The Truss-effect appears to be quite persistent:



Red Kent ❤️


 there was a short four point bounce for  Sunak but that seems about the scale of it


----------



## Elpenor (Nov 10, 2022)

Amazing to see what is the Central Devon constituency go to Labour in that projection, Mel Stride has an 18k majority


----------



## Duncan2 (Nov 10, 2022)

When you consider that if you have a heart attack it is likely to take about an hour for you to be delivered to hospital it's surprising that the stats for the Tories are not even worse than they currently are.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 14, 2022)

and on it goes; respondents obviously not warming to austerity Sunak:


----------



## elbows (Nov 14, 2022)

Indeed.


----------



## ItStillWontWork (Nov 14, 2022)

Who the hell is still voting for the Libdems?


----------



## bluescreen (Nov 14, 2022)

ItStillWontWork said:


> Who the hell is still voting for the Libdems?


Tactical voters who will vote for anyone but Tory to keep them out


----------



## brogdale (Nov 14, 2022)

bluescreen said:


> Tactical voters who will vote for anyone but Tory to keep them out


2010


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2022)

Missed this from yesterday:



Vermin slipping again with the anti-brexit minor parties gaining.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 19, 2022)

The massive tax rises and spending cuts are going to fuck the tories even more. Definitely possible that they are in for an even bigger meltdown than 1997.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 19, 2022)

Kaka Tim said:


> The massive tax rises and spending cuts are going to fuck the tories even more. Definitely possible that they are in for an even bigger meltdown than 1997.


Just revving up my broken record on this though, I do think Labour's empty suit/lack of policies/lack of alternative positioning and identity is going to be a major factor in 2024.  Labour will also lose just about every televised debate as well, because they've nothing to say.  Pointless doing % predictions, but I could see it being something like Labour winning the popular vote by something like 38% to 36%.  What is even beyond my pointless speculation is how much the Libdems will get in England. That could be quite important, for example if the pattern is Lab beating the tories in the north and libdems winning various bits of the South and West.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 19, 2022)

The biggest problem Labour face is that they aren't actually ahead in the polls because they are popular it's because the Tories are so unpopular. If the Tories actually manage to make some progess on the major issues and they still have over 2 years then support will swing back to them. Starmer is doing his best not to improve Labour's standing as well. His recent statements about abandoning any traces of Corbynism are a sign of that. Yes Corbyn himself was unpopular with many voters but some of his policies like renationalising energy distribution, water and the railways were striking a chord with a lot of voters. If people are going to vote for Conservative policies they might as well just vote for the Conservatives and be done with it. Labour should be offering alternatives not the same thing with a different label on it.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 24, 2022)

Kantar not far off the poll of polls tracker


----------



## ska invita (Dec 4, 2022)

this is fucked up if true...add in voter suppression and uk's limited democracy looks to be taking a massive step backwards
...and if is true would proportional representation address the problem?


----------



## kabbes (Dec 4, 2022)

Proportional representation would give them... 280 seats.  45 short of a majority.


----------



## clusterfarce (Dec 4, 2022)

ska invita said:


> this is fucked up if true...add in voter suppression and uk's limited democracy looks to be taking a massive step backwards
> ...and if is true would proportional representation address the problem?
> 
> View attachment 354214


In 1997 Labour won 43% so the same as in that poll. The Lib Dems  16.8% and the Tories 30%, in the above poll they are on 8% while the Greens take up 6%.   Currently the Tories are about 29% so there and there abouts. 
Labour won 418 seats, this has Labour on 323 but the SNP on 48 for a combined 371, this easily explains the lack of majority. The tories winning 237 vs the 165 they won in 97. The Lib Dems won 46 seats. The Tories winning 35% of the seats is a slight advantage on PR, Labour on 49% is significantly better than their vote share. 20/650 the Lib Dems concede about 5% of their vote share to 3% of parliamentary seats and the Greens and Refrendum are the biggest losers with about 12% of votes for 1 seat between them. 
The boundary changes play a role, but its smaller than the rise of the SNP and to a lesser degree the death of the Lib Dems in terms of seat allocation.
Though the boundary changes would be much starker on near run elections, but in a near run election Labour relying on the SNP will be a huge issue for voters.


----------



## belboid (Dec 4, 2022)

kabbes said:


> Proportional representation would give them... 280 seats.  45 short of a majority.


only a kind of PR that I don't think anywhere on there planet actually uses


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 4, 2022)

ska invita said:


> this is fucked up if true...add in voter suppression and uk's limited democracy looks to be taking a massive step backwards
> ...and if is true would proportional representation address the problem?
> 
> View attachment 354214


I guess the ID requirement is the voter suppression but what is the limited democracy bit?


----------



## MickiQ (Dec 4, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> I guess the ID requirement is the voter suppression but what is the limited democracy bit?


FPTP, the majority of seats are safe so it doesn't matter how most people vote. The election will be decided by maybe 200K-300K swing voters who live in 100-150 or so marginal seats.  If you're not one of those then it really doesn't matter whether you go to the polls or not.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 4, 2022)

MickiQ said:


> FPTP, the majority of seats are safe so it doesn't matter how most people vote. The election will be decided by maybe 200K-300K swing voters who live in 100-150 or so marginal seats.  If you're not one of those then it really doesn't matter whether you go to the polls or not.


I read ska’s post as asking whether PR would address ‘limited democracy’ . Are you saying that ‘limited democracy’ is not having PR ?


----------



## MickiQ (Dec 4, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> I read ska’s post as asking whether PR would address ‘limited democracy’ . Are you saying that ‘limited democracy’ is not having PR ?


I would definitely agree with that statement yes (not sure if ska does) I'm not saying PR is a cure all but it would certainly be better than what we have now.


----------



## ItStillWontWork (Dec 4, 2022)

clusterfarce said:


> In 1997 Labour won 43% so the same as in that poll. The Lib Dems  16.8% and the Tories 30%, in the above poll they are on 8% while the Greens take up 6%.   Currently the Tories are about 29% so there and there abouts.
> Labour won 418 seats, this has Labour on 323 but the SNP on 48 for a combined 371, this easily explains the lack of majority. The tories winning 237 vs the 165 they won in 97. The Lib Dems won 46 seats. The Tories winning 35% of the seats is a slight advantage on PR, Labour on 49% is significantly better than their vote share. 20/650 the Lib Dems concede about 5% of their vote share to 3% of parliamentary seats and the Greens and Refrendum are the biggest losers with about 12% of votes for 1 seat between them.
> The boundary changes play a role, but its smaller than the rise of the SNP and to a lesser degree the death of the Lib Dems in terms of seat allocation.
> Though the boundary changes would be much starker on near run elections, but in a near run election Labour relying on the SNP will be a huge issue for voters.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 4, 2022)

ska invita said:


> this is fucked up if true...add in voter suppression and uk's limited democracy looks to be taking a massive step backwards
> ...and if is true would proportional representation address the problem?


I'll make the same point I made on the voter suppression thread - how are they modelling the conversation from share of vote to seats?

During the last decade Labour's vote has tended to be inefficiently distributed.


> Some of you may be wondering why, if the boundary changes are about evening out the size of constituencies the result is still a system that seems to favour the Conservatives over Labour. This is not a sign of something being afoot - the four boundary commissions are genuinely independent - rather it's because differently sized constituencies ("malapportionment") is only one of several factors that can produce a skew in the electoral system, and the current Conservative advantage comes not from seat size, but from the impact of third parties and the Tory vote being more efficiently distributed. For example, when it comes to translating votes into seats huge majorities in safe seats are "wasted" votes. At the 2017 election there were 89 Conservative seats where they got over 60% of the vote, but 115 Labour seats where they got over 60% (and 37 seats where Labour got over 70%). None of this is set in stone of course - up until 2015 the system tended to favour Labour - if a party outperforms in marginal seats it can do better than uniform swing suggests, if it gains votes in safe or unwinnable seats then it would do worse.


But this was not always the case. Go back to the New Labour years, or even during Miliband's time, the distribution of Labour vote was better than the Tories.


> The more important measure of the impact of the boundary changes will be the swing/lead needed by each party to win. Currently the Conservatives need to be about 11 points ahead of Labour to win an overall majority, while Labour need to be about 3 points ahead of the Conservatives for an overall majority


Seeing as though Labour have made a constant effort to appeal to swing voters, at the price of disappointing many of their core voters, while the Tories have lost support I'm skeptical that the distribution of votes will be the same as in 2019 (or 2017). In fact, as things stand at present I think there is a good chance that Labours vote will be more efficiently distributed than the Tories.

I'm highly skeptical that the currently suggested boundary changes are the issue. Yes there is a benefit to the Tories from the boundary changes but there are far more significant factors.

NB: The dates on those UKPR links are borked the first os from ~2017, I think the second dates from between 2010 and 2015.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 4, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> I read ska’s post as asking whether PR would address ‘limited democracy’ . Are you saying that ‘limited democracy’ is not having PR ?


Limited in that we live in a two party state with little difference between the two options, with greatly reduced local democracy/municipalism, with a highly biased press, etc etc etc.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 4, 2022)

ska invita said:


> Limited in that we live in a two party state with little difference between the two options, with greatly reduced local democracy/municipalism, with a highly biased press, etc etc etc.



It's also limited in the very literal sense that a lot of stuff is just fundamentally off limits isn't it. Jeremy Corbyn was treated to a large degree as being not just wrong or a bad politician or whatever, but in being essentially illegitimate. Anything more radical would meet stronger resistance and not in a 'well if people vote for it then we accept defeat' sort of way.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 4, 2022)

ska invita said:


> Limited in that we live in a two party state with little difference between the two options, with greatly reduced local democracy/municipalism, with a highly biased press, etc etc etc.


Ok getcha. Don’t think PR is going to resolve that tbh .


----------



## ska invita (Dec 4, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Ok getcha. Don’t think PR is going to resolve that tbh .


It would break the two party mold, but I still don't understand how it's possible to lead so much in the popular vote and result in a hung parliament...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 13, 2022)

Savanta making an 'interesting' contribution 'Labour set for 314 seat majority'.

This would be remarkable more for the near parliamentary disappearance of the Tories, rather than the sunlit uplands made possible by Starmer's massive mandate!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2022)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Savanta making an 'interesting' contribution 'Labour set for 314 seat majority'.
> 
> This would be remarkable more for the near parliamentary disappearance of the Tories, rather than the sunlit uplands made possible by Starmer's massive mandate!
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


'Interesting' as you say, but worth noting that lately the polls have, unsurprisingly, been showing a degree of re-convergence from the heady days of the Trussageddon:


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 13, 2022)

brogdale said:


> 'Interesting' as you say, but worth noting that lately the polls have, unsurprisingly, been showing a degree of re-convergence from the heady days of the Trussageddon:
> 
> View attachment 355572


It's mrp polling which is sort of the interesting bit. There's a New Scientist article that talks about the mrp model in relation  to polling; worth a read (sorry I can't  link to it on my phone).

Cheers  - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2022)

Louis MacNeice said:


> It's mrp polling which is sort of the interesting bit. There's a New Scientist article that talks about the mrp model in relation  to polling; worth a read (sorry I can't  link to it on my phone).
> 
> Cheers  - Louis MacNeice


Yeah, but any comparison with the situation in September ("early Truss"  ) is going to overplay things as they are now in 'Mid Sunak'


----------



## Sue (Dec 13, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, but any comparison with the situation in September ("early Truss"  ) is going to overplay things as they are now in 'Mid Sunak'


What a time to be alive. Hell in a handcart.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 22, 2022)

This year's newbie pollsters _Omnisis _end the year with the LP >50%:


----------



## brogdale (Dec 29, 2022)

Vermin ending their _annus horribilis sub 20%:_


----------



## belboid (Dec 30, 2022)

19??? N-n-n-n-nineteen????  I've seen the fucking Greens get higher than that!


----------



## ska invita (Dec 30, 2022)

roughly:


----------



## kabbes (Dec 30, 2022)

The big incentive for people to vote for a party that focuses on property rights… is to own property.

(Incidentally, demographers would usually say that the generations are not aligned between the UK and US. But that’s by the by.)


----------



## ska invita (Dec 30, 2022)

kabbes said:


> The big incentive for people to vote for a party that focuses on property rights… is to own property.


....or owning property and accumulating wealth/capital in itself has an effect on your political ideology
<<the point i was making in the Class thread.

Its not like abolishing private property is an option at the ballot box - all parties support property rights

OR maybe its a simple as old people are more likely to become bitter reactionaries.
The FT puts it down to home ownership


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 30, 2022)

kabbes said:


> The big incentive for people to vote for a party that focuses on property rights… is to own property.
> 
> (Incidentally, demographers would usually say that the generations are not aligned between the UK and US. But that’s by the by.)


Gove is keen on housing. Before he was a big Htler appeaser Chamberlain was about house building. Of course Goves party shot down mandatory building targets the other day. Not so long ago you had some young bright blue sort cons moaning about how do you create capitalists when nobody under 40 has any capital.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 30, 2022)

ska invita said:


> ....or owning property and accumulating wealth/capital in itself has an effect on your political ideology
> <<the point i was making in the Class thread.


I would say “yes and” in answer to this. Yes, it does have an effect.  But the effect is not a change, it’s an accretion.  There is no one “ideology” that people have. Ideologies are inherently dilemmatic — we all associate with identities that contain conflicting ideologies. You can even see this in daily aphorisms — in 1605, Francis Bacon listed all common maxims and found that they all come in opposites. For every “too many cooks spoil the broth” there was a “many hands make light work”. It’s not that one version has adherents who war against the followers of the other. It’s that sometimes we believe in one and other times we believe in the other.  Applied to this case, I would say that owning property and accumulating wealth starts to allow for additional self-categorisations using previously unavailable identities.  With those new self-categorisations come the salience of alternative ideologies, which now exist in parallel within the same brain.  Not replacing, not dominating, just co-existing.  Like a scientist can also be religious.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 30, 2022)

DotCommunist said:


> Gove is keen on housing. Before he was a big Htler appeaser Chamberlain was about house building. Of course Goves party shot down mandatory building targets the other day. Not so long ago you had some young bright blue sort cons moaning about how do you create capitalists when nobody under 40 has any capital.


The ultimate incompetence of the current Tory government — they haven’t even understood how to build a world that favours them in the long-term.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 30, 2022)

kabbes said:


> I would say “yes and” in answer to this. Yes, it does have an effect.  But the effect is not a change, it’s an accretion.  There is no one “ideology” that people have. Ideologies are inherently dilemmatic — we all associate with identities that contain conflicting ideologies. You can even see this in daily aphorisms — in 1605, Francis Bacon listed all common maxims and found that they all come in opposites. For every “too many cooks spoil the broth” there was a “many hands make light work”. It’s not that one version has adherents who war against the followers of the other. It’s that sometimes we believe in one and other times we believe in the other.  Applied to this case, I would say that owning property and accumulating wealth starts to allow for additional self-categorisations using previously unavailable identities.  With those new self-categorisations come the salience of alternative ideologies, which now exist in parallel within the same brain.  Not replacing, not dominating, just co-existing.  Like a scientist can also be religious.


sure people are complex - but they start voting tory more, its that simple


----------



## ska invita (Dec 30, 2022)

they  also more likely start hanging out with other wealthier propertied people, living in different areas etc etc othering themselves away from the precarious parts of the working class


----------



## brogdale (Dec 30, 2022)

ska invita said:


> sure people are complex - but they start voting tory more, its that simple


Not quite; more of them vote tory as the cohort ages.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 30, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Not quite; more of them vote tory as the cohort ages.


thats what i thought i said, but if the meaning isnt clear then yes exactly


----------



## ska invita (Dec 30, 2022)

kabbes said:


> The ultimate incompetence of the current Tory government — they haven’t even understood how to build a world that favours them in the long-term.


With right to buy they sold off council housing - it was a genius move by Thatcher in buying out huge sections of the working class and extending 'stakeholding' within the capitalist system....many other Tories were vehemently against it because it was seen as a hand out from the state - and it was just that, a handover of state assets to (working class) private hands.  

There has been house building going on but its private sector and unaffordable. Under no version of reality are the Tories about to start building council housing, which is what is really needed.


----------



## prunus (Dec 30, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Not quite; more of them vote tory as the cohort ages.



A greater proportion of those that vote do, the actual number voting Tory might be smaller; without demographic (death rate) and voting numbers we cannot tell from that data if the effect is changes of attitude or differential dying off of left leaning people or excess disillusion with voting among the same.  Also the Gen Z data is missing from the graphs, but influential as the graphs show deviation from national average; perhaps gen Zers become massive more left voting as time passes, bringing the average down and making the deviation from average of eg boomers grow without any changes in voting patterns in that group (NB the leftward drift in the millennials shown will be having that effect, if real; perhaps millennials are voting the same and the other groups’ rightward surge is making millennials look leftward drifting). 

I’m not saying any of that is likely, but a fiver says none of it has been excluded in the original analysis, and always beware of implicit assumptions in analysis, especially when such assumptions support your thesis…


----------



## kabbes (Dec 30, 2022)

prunus said:


> A greater proportion of those that vote do, the actual number voting Tory might be smaller; without demographic (death rate) and voting numbers we cannot tell from that data if the effect is changes of attitude or differential dying off of left leaning people or excess disillusion with voting among the same.  Also the Gen Z data is missing from the graphs, but influential as the graphs show deviation from national average; perhaps gen Zers become massive more left voting as time passes, bringing the average down and making the deviation from average of eg boomers grow without any changes in voting patterns in that group (NB the leftward drift in the millennials shown will be having that effect, if real; perhaps millennials are voting the same and the other groups’ rightward surge is making millennials look leftward drifting).
> 
> I’m not saying any of that is likely, but a fiver says none of it has been excluded in the original analysis, and always beware of implicit assumptions in analysis, especially when such assumptions support your thesis…


While we’re querying the analysis itself, I’d also note that the UK millennial graph does not, to my eye, adequately represent the underlying data points. They’ve extrapolated a downward curve, whereas to me it looks roughly level (and is arguably turning upwards at the end).


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2022)

prunus said:


> A greater proportion of those that vote do, the actual number voting Tory might be smaller; without demographic (death rate) and voting numbers we cannot tell from that data if the effect is changes of attitude or differential dying off of left leaning people or excess disillusion with voting among the same.  Also the Gen Z data is missing from the graphs, but influential as the graphs show deviation from national average; perhaps gen Zers become massive more left voting as time passes, bringing the average down and making the deviation from average of eg boomers grow without any changes in voting patterns in that group (NB the leftward drift in the millennials shown will be having that effect, if real; perhaps millennials are voting the same and the other groups’ rightward surge is making millennials look leftward drifting).
> 
> I’m not saying any of that is likely, but a fiver says none of it has been excluded in the original analysis, and always beware of implicit assumptions in analysis, especially when such assumptions support your thesis…


Saw this useful graphic today:


Seems to indicate that the cohort born 1955 - 1965 were persuaded by the Thatcherite turn, as young voters, to support the dismantling of the social contract to an extraordinary level, quite out of step with other eras. 

That cohort, now aged 58 to 68, still show a considerable propensity to vote and obviously played a significant part in the 2016 referendum turnout.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 31, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Saw this useful graphic today:
> 
> View attachment 357894
> Seems to indicate that the cohort born 1955 - 1965 were persuaded by the Thatcherite turn, as young voters, to support the dismantling of the social contract to an extraordinary level, quite out of step with other eras.
> ...


Any numbers though for the 18-24 vote ?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Any numbers though for the 18-24 vote ?


This sort of thing?


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 31, 2022)

brogdale said:


> This sort of thing?
> 
> View attachment 357900


Thanks , I should have been clearer as I meant turn out ie how many actually voted over that period from the 70s onward .


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Thanks , I should have been clearer as I meant turn out ie how many actually voted over that period from the 70s onward .


Oh, I see.
I'm not aware of any such linear data that follows a specific cohort, but the evidence of turnout by age is well documented.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 1, 2023)

Full FT article

Millennials are shattering the oldest rule in politics​
“If you are not a liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 35 you have no brain.” So said Winston Churchill. Or US president John Adams. Or perhaps King Oscar II of Sweden. Variations of this aphorism have circulated since the 18th century, underscoring the well-established rule that as people grow older, they tend to become more conservative. The pattern has held remarkably firm. By my calculations, members of Britain’s “silent generation”, born between 1928 and 1945, were five percentage points less conservative than the national average at age 35, but around five points more conservative by age 70. The “baby boomer” generation traced the same path, and “Gen X”, born between 1965 and 1980, are now following suit. Millennials — born between 1981 and 1996 — started out on the same trajectory, but then something changed. The shift has striking implications for the UK’s Conservatives and US Republicans, who can no longer simply rely on their base being replenished as the years pass.

It’s not every day that concepts from public health analytics find a use in politics, but if you’re a strategist on the right, then now might be a good time for a primer on untangling age, period and cohort effects. Age effects are changes that happen over someone’s life regardless of when they are born, period effects result from events that affect all ages simultaneously, and cohort effects stem from differences that emerge among people who experience a common event at the same time. 

This framework is used to understand differences in a population and whether they are likely to be lasting. This makes it perfectly suited to interrogating why support for conservative parties is so low among millennials and whether it will stay there. 

Let’s start with age effects, and the oldest rule in politics: people become more conservative with age. If millennials’ liberal inclinations are merely a result of this age effect, then at age 35 they too should be around five points less conservative than the national average, and can be relied upon to gradually become more conservative. In fact, they’re more like 15 points less conservative, and in both Britain and the US are by far the least conservative 35-year-olds in recorded history. 

On to period effects. Could some force be pushing voters of all ages away from the right? In the UK there has certainly been an event. Support for the Tories plummeted across all ages during Liz Truss’s brief tenure, and has only partially rebounded. But a population-wide effect cannot completely explain millennials’ liberal exceptionalism, nor why we see the same pattern in the US without the same shock. 

So the most likely explanation is a cohort effect — that millennials have developed different values to previous generations, shaped by experiences unique to them, and they do not feel conservatives share these. This is borne out by US survey data showing that, having reached political maturity in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, millennials are tacking much further to the left on economics than previous generations did, favouring greater redistribution from rich to poor. 

Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories. 

The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another. 

UK millennials and their “Gen Z” younger cousins will probably cast more votes than boomers in the next general election. After years of being considered an electoral afterthought, their vote will soon be pivotal. Without drastic changes to both policy and messaging, that could consign conservative parties to an increasingly distant second place.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 1, 2023)

I echo prunus and kabbes points above. There are all kinds of questions here - e.g how are the LDs assigned? - though to be fair the piece does not draw the sort of firm conclusions that are being attributed to it


ska invita said:


> The FT puts it down to home ownership


That is not really true, home ownership is mentioned as one possible factor, childcare is another, Brexit another.

 I think there is also a lot of work that needs to be done to untangle social liberal positions from economic 'left' ones. E.g. younger generations are far more socially liberal on LGBT issues, and this is true across social groups, 538 did some analysis that indicted that even among Christian evangelicals there was a significant shift to more social liberal LGBT attitudes.

If you were going to try to connect this shift to home ownership then you would need to compare home ownership with 'left' views.

Despite the questions I have I'll post a link to the tweet below as it might be interesting




(My immediate thought is the noise in the non-anglophone west data, especially for the millennials)


----------



## Rimbaud (Jan 1, 2023)

redsquirrel said:


> I echo prunus and kabbes points above. There are all kinds of questions here - e.g how are the LDs assigned? - though to be fair the piece does not draw the sort of firm conclusions that are being attributed to it
> 
> That is not really true, home ownership is mentioned as one possible factor, childcare is another, Brexit another.
> 
> ...




I'm not sure how they are defining west there, but this could be explained by the fact that the neoliberal turn of the 80s was spearheaded by Thatcher and Reagan and in non-Anglophone countries neoliberalism has not been quite so severe and they have generally retained affordable or free education, social or affordable housing, affordable access to childcare etc to a greater degree than the US or the UK. 

Millenials in English speaking countries have generally spent their entire adult lives experiencing losing access to things they need that their parents had access to and having their interests totally ignored politically, the reaction to Corbynism in the UK is the most striking example of this.


----------



## Rimbaud (Jan 1, 2023)

ska invita said:


> View attachment 357747
> 
> roughly:
> View attachment 357748



Tories are going to get obliterated I think, out of power for at least 3 election cycles for sure and maybe even permanently.

While they could reinvent themselves and stage a come back after losing a couple of elections, they are also failing to attract and retain millenial MPs, members, and policy makers, which suggests that the possibility of a successful reinvention is low.









						Where have all the young Tories gone? | Hannah Fearn
					

As the Bright Blue director steps back, Ryan Shorthouse and his ideas couldn’t be more divorced from the parliamentary Conservative Party




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 1, 2023)

I don't see Starmer and the current iteration of Labour doing anything much to address the material reasons for this change, so there's definitely an opening for a form of red Toryism. I wouldn't write them off when the opposition is so feeble and default.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 1, 2023)

Rimbaud said:


> Tories are going to get obliterated I think, out of power for at least 3 election cycles for sure and maybe even permanently.
> 
> While they could reinvent themselves and stage a come back after losing a couple of elections, they are also failing to attract and retain millenial MPs, members, and policy makers, which suggests that the possibility of a successful reinvention is low.
> 
> ...


People were definitely also saying this stuff 25 years ago, because I remember being 21 and starry-eyed for the future off the back of it.


----------



## Rimbaud (Jan 1, 2023)

kabbes said:


> People were definitely also saying this stuff 25 years ago, because I remember being 21 and starry-eyed for the future off the back of it.



Maybe but I think this is different. Younger people were actually more likely to vote Thatcher than middle aged people iirc. There wasn't the same prolonged neglect of an entire generation based on the flawed assumption that they would become Conservative as they got older. Even if millenials do start getting property now the Tory brand is quite toxic now, and worse they are also seen as incompetent now.


----------



## gosub (Jan 1, 2023)

Rimbaud said:


> Tories are going to get obliterated I think, out of power for at least 3 election cycles for sure and maybe even permanently.
> 
> While they could reinvent themselves and stage a come back after losing a couple of elections, they are also failing to attract and retain millenial MPs, members, and policy makers, which suggests that the possibility of a successful reinvention is low.
> 
> ...





			Welcome to nginx!
		


Tbf can see why Sunak thinks the undecided are shy tories cos I saw the headline in the shop yesterday and my first thought was how the fuck is anyone undecided?

Agree on tories gone for 3 election cycles but reckon it be them that gets it after that purely on the gaming inherent in the system


----------



## Knotted (Jan 1, 2023)

kabbes said:


> People were definitely also saying this stuff 25 years ago, because I remember being 21 and starry-eyed for the future off the back of it.



The Tories were in a particularly bad state in 1997 but they weren't facing this demographic issue they face now. Personally I was the exact reverse of optimistic 25 years ago, Labour as a party of progressive social reform had been destroyed, Tony Blair was enthusiastically elected not so much on an anti-Tory ticket but a competent alternative Tory ticket and there was no left wing opposition or discourse outside very marginal groups. The political prospects in this country at that time were truly grim, soft(ish) neo-liberalism for ever while the economy looked pretty stable.

But more broadly, the argument that the Tories have always recovered in the past doesn't actually have any weight to it. It's an argument by superficial induction. It neglects to look at the reasons why they recovered and it becomes this sort of abstract unchangeable law of British politics. It's a thought stopper.


----------



## Knotted (Jan 1, 2023)

I think Labour are in long term decline as well. That's probably the biggest hope for a Tory come back IMO.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 1, 2023)

Rimbaud said:


> Tories are going to get obliterated I think, out of power for at least 3 election cycles for sure and maybe even permanently.
> 
> While they could reinvent themselves and stage a come back after losing a couple of elections, they are also failing to attract and retain millenial MPs, members, and policy makers, which suggests that the possibility of a successful reinvention is low.
> 
> ...



interesting...theyve also burned through a lot of their current sitting cabals in the last year even, and even Tory supporters are publicly saying that Conservativism has run out of "ideas" (lol)




Plumdaff said:


> there's definitely an opening for a form of red Toryism.


They also have Farage to the right of them, polling around 4-8pc IIRC which makes that less likely

This all sounds like good news but they are incredibly die hard, plus have voter suppression and boundary changes to bump them


----------



## kabbes (Jan 1, 2023)

Knotted said:


> The Tories were in a particularly bad state in 1997 but they weren't facing this demographic issue they face now. Personally I was the exact reverse of optimistic 25 years ago, Labour as a party of progressive social reform had been destroyed, Tony Blair was enthusiastically elected not so much on an anti-Tory ticket but a competent alternative Tory ticket and there was no left wing opposition or discourse outside very marginal groups. The political prospects in this country at that time were truly grim, soft(ish) neo-liberalism for ever while the economy looked pretty stable.
> 
> But more broadly, the argument that the Tories have always recovered in the past doesn't actually have any weight to it. It's an argument by superficial induction. It neglects to look at the reasons why they recovered and it becomes this sort of abstract unchangeable law of British politics. It's a thought stopper.


The argument that the Tories will return is by no means just based on induction. Quite the opposite. It’s deduced from the fact that we have a first past the post system that massively favours the established two parties, and it’s not that hard to reinvent yourself when out of government for ten years or more.


----------



## gosub (Jan 1, 2023)

ska invita said:


> interesting...theyve also burned through a lot of their current sitting cabals in the last year even, and even Tory supporters are publicly saying that Conservativism has run out of "ideas" (lol)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Forage ain't ever going to personally run for Westminster again....his MEP pension is worth more than a MP's salary...and you can't have both


----------



## Knotted (Jan 1, 2023)

kabbes said:


> The argument that the Tories will return is by no means just based on induction. Quite the opposite. It’s deduced from the fact that we have a first past the post system that massively favours the established two parties, and it’s not that hard to reinvent yourself when out of government for ten years or more.



Not when the interests you represent prevent you from doing so. The thing is they didn't reinvent themselves last time, they just put some effort into shedding their "nasty" image and the different wings came to a truce after a decade of infighting, but economically there wasn't much difference between Major and Cameron. The last time they actually reinvented themselves was between Heath and Thatcher and I can't think of another clear instance.


----------



## gosub (Jan 1, 2023)

Knotted said:


> Not when the interests you represent prevent you from doing so. The thing is they didn't reinvent themselves last time, they just put some effort into shedding their "nasty" image and the different wings came to a truce after a decade of infighting, but economically there wasn't much difference between Major and Cameron. The last time they actually reinvented themselves was between Heath and Thatcher and I can't think of another clear instance.


They've always tried to project themselves as economically competent...so Liz Truss was a bold step in an interesting direction


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 2, 2023)

Rimbaud said:


> I'm not sure how they are defining west there, but this could be explained by the fact that the neoliberal turn of the 80s was spearheaded by Thatcher and Reagan and in non-Anglophone countries neoliberalism has not been quite so severe and they have generally retained affordable or free education, social or affordable housing, affordable access to childcare etc to a greater degree than the US or the UK.
> 
> Millenials in English speaking countries have generally spent their entire adult lives experiencing losing access to things they need that their parents had access to and having their interests totally ignored politically, the reaction to Corbynism in the UK is the most striking example of this.


I don't discount that hypothesis but TBH I'm skeptical that trying to put countries into those two buckets, with a simple left-right division and over multiple different voting systems makes much sense - hence the large variance. 
French polling has Le Pen's vote highest with millenials - so you have a move to 'the right', but also a move against liberalism - social and economic


----------



## kabbes (Jan 2, 2023)

Yeah, quite.  I wouldn’t discount the millennials having a reactionary response to the consolidation of capital, rather than a socially-inclusive response.


----------



## Rimbaud (Jan 2, 2023)

redsquirrel said:


> I don't discount that hypothesis but TBH I'm skeptical that trying to put countries into those two buckets, with a simple left-right division and over multiple different voting systems makes much sense - hence the large variance.
> French polling has Le Pen's vote highest with millenials - so you have a move to 'the right', but also a move against liberalism - social and economic


Yeah I agree with you - I don't think it makes much sense to group "non-Anglophone west" as a single category. And I'm not sure if the same patterns seen in the UK and US would be replicated in Canada, Australia and New Zealand either, but UK and US have the lion's share of Anglophone population so would have a significant effect on it.


----------



## Flavour (Jan 2, 2023)

I think it probably has a lot to do with home ownership and birthrates. That is to say, the increased difficulty of buying a home for Millennials (and increase in people choosing not to have children, with "not being able to afford it" being one of, if not the main reason) makes them less likely to vote for parties whose policies keep the housing ladder even further out of reach.

Also agree that grouping the non-Anglophone West together as a group is unhelpful.

I can only speak for Italy but the statistics showed a lot of young people voted for Far Right parties in the last election (at least according to polling), and it is not the case that only the older generations swung Right. It's society-wide, but these Right parties have not been in power for a long time and have a history of trying to appeal to a sense of economic justice (for ethnic Italians), i.e. the classic divide and rule whereby the immigrants are blamed for all social ills, and by lowering immigration rates we'll make life better for _real_ Italians. This narrative has been quite successful given that there's been a series of technocrat, EU-appointed governments over the last 10 years who were not seen as improving living conditions for Italians (standards of living have fallen for a large section of society over that time as prices have increased and wages remained stagnant).

Obviously the ability of the Far Right parties to actually cure any of the social ills through racist policies will soon be shown up as farcical, but there is no political party even remotely on the "Left" (their PD quite similar to Starmer Labour) that actually has the ear of the working class.

The emptying of the political Left of all real content (i.e. proposed political programs that would reduce inequality) has been crushed by neoliberalism in Italy too -- nobody dares propose, for example, raising taxes on the wealthiest. It is inconceivable. Overton Window has shifted quite far to the right... but that is not necessarily the case in Germany, France or Spain.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 4, 2023)

gosub said:


> Forage ain't ever going to personally run for Westminster again....his MEP pension is worth more than a MP's salary...and you can't have both


Farage's role is to be seen, but 








						Reform UK to field candidate against every Tory at next election, says leader
					

Richard Tice rules out 2019-style deal with Conservatives even if they back some of his party’s policies




					www.theguardian.com


----------

