UK General Election - May 7th 2015

[ObserverIE]

Sinn Féin will bleed 3k votes from the SDLP without trying too hard. Then Alliance will try to win, as political parties do. They will seek to take chunks of the 2010 McDonnell and Paula Bradshaw votes, two middle-class and liberal bloc relative to the province, not particularly hostile to immigration, not linked to loyalist paramilitaries. Belfast South SDLP people are not really traditional nationalists, as the history and demography of the constituency demonstrate. Is it likely? No. Is it possible? Yes.

Given the most likely outcome of switching from McDonnell to Lo (unless it's on a truly massive scale) will be to elect either a DUP or agreed Unionist candidate, I think it's highly unlikely.

Bradshaw was considerably more personally liberal than her remaining voters in 2010 were likely to be. If they switch, it's more likely to be to the DUP in the hope of electing a Unionist.

[EPG]

I think the DUP would struggle to improve much here. Their outlook works really well in Protestant provincial areas. But it does not suit here. And they are "in government". If they get the entire loyalist paramilitary and hardline unionist local election vote, and double it, they will be back to 9k which is where they have been recently. That is very unlikely to be enough to win a seat. But, yes, by the same token, an agreed Unionist (not DUP) would probably win against anyone else in 2010.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

David Blunkett is also retiring at the election. Expect many applicants. For those on AWS watch, Brightside had a female MP in the 70s and 80s (Joan 'Stalin's Granny' Maynard).

[You kip if you want to...]

Been looking over some of the target seats and the more I look, the more unpredictable this election looks. Surely gonna see the oddest set of results that we've seen for a long time.

Results like a rather healthy swing to Labour in Leeds North West, but a pretty harsh one against them 40 minutes down the road in Rotherham. This being one example of contrast.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

General Elections are not local elections with a high turnout. And even if they were, it wouldn't be advisable to take just one year's results.

[You kip if you want to...]

General Elections are not local elections with a high turnout. And even if they were, it wouldn't be advisable to take just one year's results.

You saying that UKIP won't do well in South Yorkshire?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That isn't quite what I was getting at.

Still, what does 'doing well' mean? Would be surprised - given the 2010 results even - if they didn't poll above average there in general, of course, but beyond that?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-Con-Lib-Dem-battleground-June-2014.pdf


Ashcroft has polled some Lib/Con marginals. The incumbency effect has never been so clear - seats with Tory incumbents have the Liberals rocketing backwards, often relegated to third or fourth. When voters are not prompted about their own constituency it's even worse.

Of their present seats, they are suffering worst in their SW base. (Sutton and Cheam, Cheadle and Eastleigh are the sole holds; though Cheadle is close.)

For optimists in the Liberal ranks, the only Tory seat remotely at risk of reversing national trends and becoming an LD pickup is Watford, which is polled as 29-25-24-16. Closest seat here to fourway marginal, mmm.

[YL]

Camborne & Redruth is interesting in that Ashcroft poll.

Re Rotherham, remember that Labour still got more than twice as many votes as UKIP in the November 2012 by-election, in spite of the problems with the council, the Labour selection farce and the circumstances of the by-election.

[doktorb]

There's a lot of unknown knowns. Southport could be held just by virtue of the local Tories collapsing like a souflee in a cupboard.

[politicus]

There's a lot of unknown knowns. Southport could be held just by virtue of the local Tories collapsing like a souflee in a cupboard.

Seems like a very British place to place a a souflee.

[doktorb]

Two very safe Labour seats now looking for new candidates/MPs presumptive, - Bootle, and from today Workington.

[You kip if you want to...]

As expected, Ashcroft is showing LDs getting slaughtered where they're fighting Labour.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-Labour-Lib-Dem-battleground-June-2014.pdf

The Libs would lose all seats polled (Bradford East, Brent Central, Manc' Withington, Norwich South) and Brighton Pav' would be too close to call between Labour and the Greens. Even on the "in my own constituency" question, the Libs would fall from 1st to a distant 5th in Norwich South.

But then, none of these poll results here are that shocking. I guess this means even the likes of Mulholland and Hughes are in danger.

[EPG]

These are the four most marginal LD-Lab seats, all won with smaller than 5% majorities. If Labour were not winning these, something would be seriously wrong with national polling. My guess is that Alexander and Hughes should be safe for the Lib Dems in this category but maybe not Featherstone. Still, thanks to post-97 tactical voting, there aren't that many seats Labour can take from the Lib Dems (maybe 10 on a good day).

[YL]

These are the four most marginal LD-Lab seats, all won with smaller than 5% majorities. If Labour were not winning these, something would be seriously wrong with national polling. My guess is that Alexander and Hughes should be safe for the Lib Dems in this category but maybe not Featherstone. Still, thanks to post-97 tactical voting, there aren't that many seats Labour can take from the Lib Dems (maybe 10 on a good day).

It's not that Labour are winning these seats in this poll that is notable, it's the size of the swings.  On those swings, even on the second question Hughes and Mulholland would indeed be in trouble if their seats were to behave the same way.  Two of the seats show 19% swings from Lib Dem to Lab, a size of swing I am very keen on for some reason.

[EPG]

These are the four most marginal LD-Lab seats, all won with smaller than 5% majorities. If Labour were not winning these, something would be seriously wrong with national polling. My guess is that Alexander and Hughes should be safe for the Lib Dems in this category but maybe not Featherstone. Still, thanks to post-97 tactical voting, there aren't that many seats Labour can take from the Lib Dems (maybe 10 on a good day).

It's not that Labour are winning these seats in this poll that is notable, it's the size of the swings.  On those swings, even on the second question Hughes and Mulholland would indeed be in trouble if their seats were to behave the same way.  Two of the seats show 19% swings from Lib Dem to Lab, a size of swing I am very keen on for some reason.

Yes. But the informed observer would have guessed there would be big swingback to Labour in these seats. They are mainly first-time, notional pick-ups for the Lib Dems, in what was their closest-ever election to Labour by a distance. You can categorise Redcar and Burnley in that bracket too, even though they're notionally safer, whereas the big Manchester, Withington swing is more interesting - Labour and the Lib Dems are back to their 2001 figures there. Anyway, this will be very much the tertiary battleground of the election. About a handful of seats are really up for grabs between the two parties. The net beneficiaries of the Lib Dem deflation will be the Tories if, as I think is likely, they end up with 20 to 30 seats.

[You kip if you want to...]

These are the four most marginal LD-Lab seats, all won with smaller than 5% majorities. If Labour were not winning these, something would be seriously wrong with national polling. My guess is that Alexander and Hughes should be safe for the Lib Dems in this category but maybe not Featherstone. Still, thanks to post-97 tactical voting, there aren't that many seats Labour can take from the Lib Dems (maybe 10 on a good day).

It's not that Labour are winning these seats in this poll that is notable, it's the size of the swings.  On those swings, even on the second question Hughes and Mulholland would indeed be in trouble if their seats were to behave the same way.  Two of the seats show 19% swings from Lib Dem to Lab, a size of swing I am very keen on for some reason.

Yes. But the informed observer would have guessed there would be big swingback to Labour in these seats. They are mainly first-time, notional pick-ups for the Lib Dems, in what was their closest-ever election to Labour by a distance. You can categorise Redcar and Burnley in that bracket too, even though they're notionally safer, whereas the big Manchester, Withington swing is more interesting - Labour and the Lib Dems are back to their 2001 figures there. Anyway, this will be very much the tertiary battleground of the election. About a handful of seats are really up for grabs between the two parties. The net beneficiaries of the Lib Dem deflation will be the Tories if, as I think is likely, they end up with 20 to 30 seats.

The Libs will obviously do better against the Tories than Labour, but there'll still be some massive swings to the Tories from the Libs. Probably stating the obvious, but they'll hold seats they have no business holding (Eastleigh, anyone?) and lose ones which everyone has down as safe for them (Fife NE?).

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

But I cannot imagine, that in duells with the Tories Progressives won't vote tactically.

Presumibly because Labour supporters (and other progressives) doesn't view the LibDems as the least of two evils any longer, but equally bad as the Tories. 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The effect of the Lib Dem vote depression will be primarily seen in seats where they never had any chance and perpetually took around 15% of the vote. Because under normal circumstances so much of the Liberals vote is wasted, they can afford to lose huge chunks of their national vote and still gain a decent caucus. If the party is polling nationally in the early teens, but they only managed to get 2% in Newark; that means the remaining LD voters are super concentrated.

I wish Ashcroft polled Labour held Lab-Lib marginals like Sheffield Central. Mainly because I want to see if the Greens have managed to steal chunks of the vote.

[You kip if you want to...]

The effect of the Lib Dem vote depression will be primarily seen in seats where they never had any chance and perpetually took around 15% of the vote. Because under normal circumstances so much of the Liberals vote is wasted, they can afford to lose huge chunks of their national vote and still gain a decent caucus. If the party is polling nationally in the early teens, but they only managed to get 2% in Newark; that means the remaining LD voters are super concentrated.

Not necessarily good news across the board for their incumbents though. Everyone says to look at Eastleigh to show they can hold on, but their vote fell further than the Tory's vote there and they only got back in because of UKIP, which they won't have to help them in all their seats.

[DL]

They key question has to be what happens to the LibDem vote in marginal Tory/Labour seats where there is a significant 3rd place LibDem vote. Let's say that in riding X in 2010 the Tory took 40%, Labour took 35% and the Lib Dem had 22% - seems to me that in a seat like that its likely that the LD vote will collapse to single digits and the vast majority of the collapsed LibDem vote will flow to Labour.

[YL]

I wish Ashcroft polled Labour held Lab-Lib marginals like Sheffield Central. Mainly because I want to see if the Greens have managed to steal chunks of the vote.

Yes, I was hoping to see Sheffield Central polled too, essentially to see just how far the Lib Dems are falling.  The Greens did extremely well in the local elections (over 30% across the constituency and first or second in all five wards).  They're no threat to Paul Blomfield now, but the constituency as presently drawn is not naturally safe for Labour and the Greens might be thinking they could challenge for it in the future.

[YL]

But I cannot imagine, that in duells with the Tories Progressives won't vote tactically.

Presumibly because Labour supporters (and other progressives) doesn't view the LibDems as the least of two evils any longer, but equally bad as the Tories. 

I think some will think that way, while others will continue to hold their noses and vote for the Lib Dem.

For me it would depend on the Lib Dem.  For example, I'd be happy to vote for the sitting MPs in Torbay or St. Ive's, but not in Yeovil or in Taunton Deane; in the latter case I feel a Tory gain might be a shift left.

[You kip if you want to...]

But I cannot imagine, that in duells with the Tories Progressives won't vote tactically.

Presumibly because Labour supporters (and other progressives) doesn't view the LibDems as the least of two evils any longer, but equally bad as the Tories. 

I think some will think that way, while others will continue to hold their noses and vote for the Lib Dem.

For me it would depend on the Lib Dem.  For example, I'd be happy to vote for the sitting MPs in Torbay or St. Ive's, but not in Yeovil or in Taunton Deane; in the latter case I feel a Tory gain might be a shift left.

Then you have seats like Hallam and Leeds NW where Labour are clearly in second now, but finished in a distant third last time...

[EPG]

Labour's net gain from Lib Dems is just % margin Lab - C. Lots of Lib Dems will be going to NOTA, some to UKIP and some to Greens, which are all useless to Labour. And some will even go Conservative. There is some reason why these people didn't vote Labour in 2010 and, often, for many years previously. (A classic example is Sheffield, Hallam, right? They've never chosen a Labour MP for years, if ever?)