UK General Election - May 7th 2015

[Lurker]

Survation poll:
CON - 31% (+2% on December poll)
LAB - 30% (-2%)
UKIP - 23% (+3%)
LD - 7% (-4%)
SNP - 5% (+2%)
GRN - 3% (+1%)
OTH - 1% (N/C)

May2015 says with those results:
CON - 283 seats
LAB - 252 seats
SNP - 50 seats
LIB - 25 seats
UKIP - 17 seats
GRN - 1 seat
Others - 4 seats
NI - 18 seats

Depressing.

How can a virtual tie in the popular vote give the Tories a clear plurality of seats? That seems impossible, when considering Labour's recent large advantages in the vote/seats distribution (even when taking a possible Labour disaster in Scotland into account).

As recently as 2005, the Tories received (barely) more votes than Labour in England, yet received only 194 seats there, compared to Labour's 286. I'm probably missing something here, but I really can't understand May2015's model.

[You kip if you want to...]

OK... Here we go again...

Based also on an estimate of how many new voters there are for each seat.



SNP - 37
Lab - 21
Con - 2
Lib - 1

Seems more realistic.

Maybe underestimating the tide against Labour in Glasgow, but then the SNP have been overestimated there before.

Still think Charles Kennedy's seat is at least leaning Lib.

[Clyde1998]

OK... Here we go again...

Based also on an estimate of how many new voters there are for each seat.



SNP - 37
Lab - 21
Con - 2
Lib - 1

Seems more realistic.

Maybe underestimating the tide against Labour in Glasgow, but then the SNP have been overestimated there before.

Still think Charles Kennedy's seat is at least leaning Lib.

There's still a few things that I will probably change - such as a more regional look (using the regional sub samples) and the incumbency bonus in certain seats.

[afleitch]

We're getting a drop of Ashcroft constituency polls for Scotland tomorrow I think.

[Hifly]

OK... Here we go again...

Based also on an estimate of how many new voters there are for each seat.



SNP - 37
Lab - 21
Con - 2
Lib - 1

Seems more realistic.

I think this is still wrong.

[Clyde1998]

OK... Here we go again...

Based also on an estimate of how many new voters there are for each seat.



SNP - 37
Lab - 21
Con - 2
Lib - 1

Seems more realistic.

I think this is still wrong.

We'll see how it ends up, but it's simply based on redistribution of voters to new parties and a small amount of new voters (which I may have not added enough - which may affect the vote shares in each seat).

My calculations don't take into account regional factors either, but a lot of seats only have the SNP behind Labour by a few hundred votes.

[AelroseB]

OK... Here we go again...

Based also on an estimate of how many new voters there are for each seat.



SNP - 37
Lab - 21
Con - 2
Lib - 1

Seems more realistic.

There will be no Tory gains in Scotland. 

[Clyde1998]

OK... Here we go again...

Based also on an estimate of how many new voters there are for each seat.



SNP - 37
Lab - 21
Con - 2
Lib - 1

Seems more realistic.

There will be no Tory gains in Scotland. 

The gained seat - Berwickshire - the Conservatives are second to the Lib Dems and the equivalent seat in the Scottish Parliament is held the Conservatives. It wouldn't be a shock gain for the Tories there.

[EPG]

Plus, it voted heavily Unionist in 2014.

[bore]

Plus, it voted heavily Unionist in 2014.

Well yeah, but so did Orkney and Shetland, and they won't be returning a conservative mp.

[Lurker]

Survation poll:
CON - 31% (+2% on December poll)
LAB - 30% (-2%)
UKIP - 23% (+3%)
LD - 7% (-4%)
SNP - 5% (+2%)
GRN - 3% (+1%)
OTH - 1% (N/C)

May2015 says with those results:
CON - 283 seats
LAB - 252 seats
SNP - 50 seats
LIB - 25 seats
UKIP - 17 seats
GRN - 1 seat
Others - 4 seats
NI - 18 seats

Depressing.

How can a virtual tie in the popular vote give the Tories a clear plurality of seats? That seems impossible, when considering Labour's recent large advantages in the vote/seats distribution (even when taking a possible Labour disaster in Scotland into account).

As recently as 2005, the Tories received (barely) more votes than Labour in England, yet received only 194 seats there, compared to Labour's 286. I'm probably missing something here, but I really can't understand May2015's model.

Anyone have an explanation?

[Phony Moderate]

Many top Tories are probably regretting that they opposed AV now.

[You kip if you want to...]

Many top Tories are probably regretting that they opposed AV now.

True.

I read an interesting suggestion for Ed the other day which said he should just make PR his top, unbreakable vow. Basically, it'd say to SNP, Greens (and old Labour UKIPers) 'Vote Labour just this one last time'.

I personally think it'd be suicide, but definitely something to ponder. Scottish Labour would definately go for it considering some of the predictions being made and the lopsided result FPTP's gonna give up there.

[ChrisDR68]

Neither the Conservatives or Labour will endorse or vote for true proportional representation as the FPTP system is the only one where it is possible for either of them to win a majority in the House Of Commons.

From their point of view better to have full power half the time than shared power with smaller parties for an unknown amount of time.

They both know it's unrepresentative (and therefore undemocratic) but naked self interest rules the roost on this issue and always has.

[YL]

Survation poll:
CON - 31% (+2% on December poll)
LAB - 30% (-2%)
UKIP - 23% (+3%)
LD - 7% (-4%)
SNP - 5% (+2%)
GRN - 3% (+1%)
OTH - 1% (N/C)

May2015 says with those results:
CON - 283 seats
LAB - 252 seats
SNP - 50 seats
LIB - 25 seats
UKIP - 17 seats
GRN - 1 seat
Others - 4 seats
NI - 18 seats

Depressing.

How can a virtual tie in the popular vote give the Tories a clear plurality of seats? That seems impossible, when considering Labour's recent large advantages in the vote/seats distribution (even when taking a possible Labour disaster in Scotland into account).

As recently as 2005, the Tories received (barely) more votes than Labour in England, yet received only 194 seats there, compared to Labour's 286. I'm probably missing something here, but I really can't understand May2015's model.

I wouldn't necessarily endorse May2015's model, but a Labour disaster in Scotland really does have the potential to make a mess of their advantage from the way votes are distributed.  It'll probably take at most 2 percentage points or so off their UK vote share, but at worst it could cost them nearly 40 seats, which is quite a bit more than a similarly sized uniform national swing.

For comparison electionforecast.co.uk (in its central forecast) currently gives a 283-283 tie between Labour and the Tories with the Tories having a 1.9% popular vote lead, but it only gives the SNP 33 seats, with Labour holding onto 23 in Scotland.

The way the very high UKIP figure (a Survation speciality) is being treated might possibly be hurting Labour too, but I haven't investigated how the model treats UKIP.

[You kip if you want to...]

Neither the Conservatives or Labour will endorse or vote for true proportional representation as the FPTP system is the only one where it is possible for either of them to win a majority in the House Of Commons.

From their point of view better to have full power half the time than shared power with smaller parties for an unknown amount of time.

They both know it's unrepresentative (and therefore undemocratic) but naked self interest rules the roost on this issue and always has.

Within a Westminster system, they're much more likely to become New Zealand than Scandanavia. And heck, look at Wales and Scotland. The SNP have a maj which was meant to be impossible, Welsh Labour missed out in 2011 by 1 seat.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The answer is that seat projections are usually worthless.

[Lurker]

Survation poll:
CON - 31% (+2% on December poll)
LAB - 30% (-2%)
UKIP - 23% (+3%)
LD - 7% (-4%)
SNP - 5% (+2%)
GRN - 3% (+1%)
OTH - 1% (N/C)

May2015 says with those results:
CON - 283 seats
LAB - 252 seats
SNP - 50 seats
LIB - 25 seats
UKIP - 17 seats
GRN - 1 seat
Others - 4 seats
NI - 18 seats

Depressing.

How can a virtual tie in the popular vote give the Tories a clear plurality of seats? That seems impossible, when considering Labour's recent large advantages in the vote/seats distribution (even when taking a possible Labour disaster in Scotland into account).

As recently as 2005, the Tories received (barely) more votes than Labour in England, yet received only 194 seats there, compared to Labour's 286. I'm probably missing something here, but I really can't understand May2015's model.

I wouldn't necessarily endorse May2015's model, but a Labour disaster in Scotland really does have the potential to make a mess of their advantage from the way votes are distributed.  It'll probably take at most 2 percentage points or so off their UK vote share, but at worst it could cost them nearly 40 seats, which is quite a bit more than a similarly sized uniform national swing.

For comparison electionforecast.co.uk (in its central forecast) currently gives a 283-283 tie between Labour and the Tories with the Tories having a 1.9% popular vote lead, but it only gives the SNP 33 seats, with Labour holding onto 23 in Scotland.

The way the very high UKIP figure (a Survation speciality) is being treated might possibly be hurting Labour too, but I haven't investigated how the model treats UKIP.

Interesting! I do have the feeling though that the May2015 model underestimates Labour's advantage in the votes/seats distribution (based on the last couple of GEs), but who knows. Guess we'll find out on May 7.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Unite have decided to give the Labour campaign £1.5 million and haven't ruled out further donations.

[afleitch]

Unite have decided to give the Labour campaign £1.5 million and haven't ruled out further donations.

They can pay off Andy Burnham.

[You kip if you want to...]

Another one on Scotland.

Of course turnout won't be as high as the referendum, no where near, but is it a fair bet that it'll have the highest turnout for all the regions? 70%?

[Clyde1998]

Another one on Scotland.

Of course turnout won't be as high as the referendum, no where near, but is it a fair bet that it'll have the highest turnout for all the regions? 70%?

I think the turnout will stay roughly the same as the previous election, but the actual number of people voting will increase - due to increased numbers of people who are part of the electorate.

[ChrisDR68]

Neither the Conservatives or Labour will endorse or vote for true proportional representation as the FPTP system is the only one where it is possible for either of them to win a majority in the House Of Commons.

From their point of view better to have full power half the time than shared power with smaller parties for an unknown amount of time.

They both know it's unrepresentative (and therefore undemocratic) but naked self interest rules the roost on this issue and always has.

Within a Westminster system, they're much more likely to become New Zealand than Scandanavia. And heck, look at Wales and Scotland. The SNP have a maj which was meant to be impossible, Welsh Labour missed out in 2011 by 1 seat.

Well... the Additional Member voting system is more proportional than FPTP but it's still not truely proportional. For example in 2011 the SNP won 45% of the votes cast but 53.5% of the seats. With true PR they would have won 45% of the seats.

Under the increasingly ridiculous FPTP system Labour won 35% of the popular vote in 2005 but 55% of the seats

I'd like to think there is a system out there which is truly proportional and which also has an element of constituency connection with individual MP's

[You kip if you want to...]

Neither the Conservatives or Labour will endorse or vote for true proportional representation as the FPTP system is the only one where it is possible for either of them to win a majority in the House Of Commons.

From their point of view better to have full power half the time than shared power with smaller parties for an unknown amount of time.

They both know it's unrepresentative (and therefore undemocratic) but naked self interest rules the roost on this issue and always has.

Within a Westminster system, they're much more likely to become New Zealand than Scandanavia. And heck, look at Wales and Scotland. The SNP have a maj which was meant to be impossible, Welsh Labour missed out in 2011 by 1 seat.

Well... the Additional Member voting system is more proportional than FPTP but it's still not truely proportional. For example in 2011 the SNP won 45% of the votes cast but 53.5% of the seats. With true PR they would have won 45% of the seats.

Under the increasingly ridiculous FPTP system Labour won 35% of the popular vote in 2005 but 55% of the seats

I'd like to think there is a system out there which is truly proportional and which also has an element of constituency connection with individual MP's

AV+ is the one I'd be hoping for.

[joevsimp]

hopefully not on the same terms that the Jenkins report proposed, total mess and didn't have enough top-up to even out disproportionality