UK General Election, June 8th 2017

[DL]

This might be more like 1987; Corbyn could get 33% of the vote, but with May at 45-46%, you'd still be looking at a near 100 majority.

Kinnock stayed on after 1987 after all...

Yes but in 1987 Kinnock gained vote share and seats for Labour after the disaster of 1983. It makes a difference whether you gain ground or lose ground

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It occurs to me that perhaps the Conservative manifesto was not entirely well judged in all respects.

I've been tuned out of this election for a couple of weeks. What was the matter with it?

[Phony Moderate]

Corbynmentum?

Bad polling? Labour was polling at 35% before the election in 2015 and look what happened there.

But the polls never showed any kind of surge during that campaign.

[Maxwell]

Tories have been acting like this thing is in the bag and I think that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

[Phony Moderate]

Tories have been acting like this thing is in the bag and I think that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

To be fair the leading figures have been quick to say "not a single vote has been cast".

[seb_pard]

I really hope that there is a shy labour effect, with people ashamed to support a leader like Corbyn. This is a hard to watch campaign but I really hope that this momentum continue, I really fear May, she can really damage the UK and the working class, specially with this pro working class message that is obviously fake. At the end, the main objective of the Tories right now is complete the Brexit negotiations and to lower the corporate taxes to "incentive investment and the industry".

[Shadows]

@election_data
Hard to get a grip of what is changing but a couple of things. YouGov had 45% of their 18-24s saying they were certain to vote last week
This week they have 57% of 18-24 year olds saying they are certain to vote. And there's also been a flip amongst 25 to 49 year olds.
Last week they had Tories up 7 amongst 25-49 yr olds. This week they have Labour up 8 amongst 25 to 49 year olds.
I'm comparing the 4-5 May YouGov poll with the 16-17 May

@election_data
Same story with Survation btw. In their last poll they had the Tories up 20 points among 35-54 yo's. Tonight's poll has it down to 43:37.
Tonight's survation also has support amongst over 55s increasing for the Conservatives. Pretty clear (so far) that middle-aged voters are moving away from the Conservatives in the last week.

@election_data
So I think we're seeing familiar patterns. The younger, urban voters are getting behind Labour. Older, suburban, rural are going Tory. What remains (as always) is the great mass of middle-aged, middle-income, suburban 'swingy' voters which decide seats and elections. They appear to be weakening in their support for the Tories.

YouGov/Sunday Times
On the changes to care funding 35% said they supported them, 40% they opposed them


Looks like Labour manifesto is turning more voters on then Tory manifesto turning people off.

Labour is doing a smart thing by focusing on their platform (granted they had no choice with Corbyn's popularity) - Scrapping tuition fee, Minimum wage increase, additional NHS funding, infra funding etc are all very popular (& many other policies).

The tories on the other hand have some truly bad statements like calling for Preemptive Nuclear strike (the more you think about this stuff for a few days with a cool head, the worse it looks, although this is not a big deal for voters) or policies like total regulation of the Internet (which was literally as if borrowing for North Korea).

A 30% to say 34% vote share may not do a lot in terms of seats (may protect some marginal seats) but it if goes to 37-38%, then Tories will also come down. And then a gain of 3-4% could mean a swing of 5-8% & that would swing many seats.

[Shadows]

BTW from Wikipedia, even Iran held 3 Presidential debates & all 5 major candidates were present.

There was three live televised debates in total. First debate focused on social issues while the next two revolved around economic and political matters. Every effort seems to have been made not to leave any room for accusations of partiality. According to schedule, the candidates could hold a meeting of 15 minutes with the aides and advisors after 90 minutes of debate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election_debates,_2017

Crazy that Theresa May has refused to debate !

[Silent Hunter]

Remember a little thing called margin of error. If Labour are polling at 34%, then it could in reality be between 31% and 37%...

Also, online pollsters have the suspectibiity to the fact that people who vote in them are more politically engaged than on average...

[mvd10]

Aaaaaaaaaaand it's gone.

[Hnv1]

Abbott declared support for IRA defeat of Britain

“is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”

“Though I was born here in London, I couldn’t identify as British,”



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/abbott-declared-support-for-ira-defeat-of-britain-rp79dvvmk

It was always coming, sort of innocent by Corbyn to assume he wouldn't be getting flak for his sympathy to the deplorable of the world

[Former President tack50]

How likely is it that Corbyn improves on Ed Milliband's result in 2015 in the popular vote? (that would mean Lab at 31 or more)

And would Corbyn stay? Could he sell that as a victory, maybe saying "we weren't going to get UKIP voters anyways" or something like that?

Yeah, but many of those UKIP voters were Labour voters before.

Also, Miliband improved on Labour's 2010 PV performance but still resigned.

Miliband improved by only 1% (from a recent historic low of 29%) & lost 29 seats! If he had improved by 4/5% or more even with a loss of couple of seats, he would probably have a case of arguing to stay on. If Labour draws 31 or 32%, Corbyn probably has to go !

Blair 43% 1997, Blair 40.7% 2001, Blair 35% 2005, Brown 29% 2010, Miliband 30.4% 2015!

If Corbyn atleast gets 36/37% of the votes (in which case Tories will be at 41/42 odd) amidst all this May-momentum & hostility towards him, he would probably stay on, who knows ! But more Labour votes could flip many seats & if the Tories go near 40, there's chances of a Lib Dem-Labour-SNP coalition !

BTW Miliband had 5 full years as a leader while Corbyn barely has a year or so. So with Miliband you could argue he had time, an incumbent Prime Minister who was there for long & he still failed.

There is a crucial factor here though. If the polls gets as close as 37 - 41, it's likely that the SNP factors will save the Conservatives like in 2015. And even if a Conservative majority is prevented and Labour gets a coalition deal with the SNP to enter government, that is political suicide for Labour.

Why would a Labour-SNP coalition be suicide for Labour? (at least not more than say, Labour-Plaid or Labour-SDLP)? Other than having to give Scotland a 2nd referendum (probably after Brexit, so in late 2019 or early 2020), what else would Labour have to do?

And why will the SNP save the Conservatives? Do people in England (who don't already vote Tory) hate the SNP that much as for voting conservative out of spite?

Then again, assuming it' a hung parliament (extremely unlikely), it will probably have the conservatives well ahead, so I guess there will just be a Conservative-DUP government or something like that.

[thumb21]

Why would a Labour-SNP coalition be suicide for Labour? (at least not more than say, Labour-Plaid or Labour-SDLP)? Other than having to give Scotland a 2nd referendum (probably after Brexit, so in late 2019 or early 2020), what else would Labour have to do?

And why will the SNP save the Conservatives? Do people in England (who don't already vote Tory) hate the SNP that much as for voting conservative out of spite?

Then again, assuming it' a hung parliament (extremely unlikely), it will probably have the conservatives well ahead, so I guess there will just be a Conservative-DUP government or something like that.

The SNP is deeply unpopular in England. Labour associating itself with the SNP will likely inherit some of that unpopularity. Furthermore, there is a deep feeling in England that Scotland is getting special treatment over England and those fears will only increase if the SNP gets into government and that would be something the Conservatives could easily exploit. Also, by going into coalition with the SNP, Labour would likely be seen as an example of them putting party over country as the SNP wants to break our country up. Not to mention the fact that the Conservatives would be able to position themselves as the sole Unionist party in Scotland and court even more of the Unionist vote.

The SNP factor is blamed as one of the key reasons for the Conservative victory in 2015 and was a key part of their campaign, likely the Conservatives would be able to repeat that now.

[DC Al Fine]

Why would a Labour-SNP coalition be suicide for Labour? (at least not more than say, Labour-Plaid or Labour-SDLP)? Other than having to give Scotland a 2nd referendum (probably after Brexit, so in late 2019 or early 2020), what else would Labour have to do?

And why will the SNP save the Conservatives? Do people in England (who don't already vote Tory) hate the SNP that much as for voting conservative out of spite?

Then again, assuming it' a hung parliament (extremely unlikely), it will probably have the conservatives well ahead, so I guess there will just be a Conservative-DUP government or something like that.

The SNP is deeply unpopular in England. Labour associating itself with the SNP will likely inherit some of that unpopularity. Furthermore, there is a deep feeling in England that Scotland is getting special treatment over England and those fears will only increase if the SNP gets into government and that would be something the Conservatives could easily exploit. Also, by going into coalition with the SNP, Labour would likely be seen as an example of them putting party over country as the SNP wants to break our country up. Not to mention the fact that the Conservatives would be able to position themselves as the sole Unionist party in Scotland and court even more of the Unionist vote.

The SNP factor is blamed as one of the key reasons for the Conservative victory in 2015 and was a key part of their campaign, likely the Conservatives would be able to repeat that now.

IIRC, when the Canadian left tried to put together a coalition that included the separatist Bloc Quebecois, the Tories went from the high 30's to the mid 40's in the polls.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Abbott declared support for IRA defeat of Britain

“is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”

“Though I was born here in London, I couldn’t identify as British,”



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/abbott-declared-support-for-ira-defeat-of-britain-rp79dvvmk

she's correct, though…?

[warandwar]

Abbott declared support for IRA defeat of Britain

“is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”

“Though I was born here in London, I couldn’t identify as British,”



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/abbott-declared-support-for-ira-defeat-of-britain-rp79dvvmk

It was always coming, sort of innocent by Corbyn to assume he wouldn't be getting flak for his sympathy to the deplorable of the world

Yes how naive of Corbyn to not fellate the UDA/RUC without question.

[Silent Hunter]

Why would he do that? He's not gay.

[afleitch]

I don't feel British...so meh.

[EnglishPete]

Abbott declared support for IRA defeat of Britain

“is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”

“Though I was born here in London, I couldn’t identify as British,”



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/abbott-declared-support-for-ira-defeat-of-britain-rp79dvvmk

she's correct, though…?

Correct to support the IRA and hope for the defeat of Britain. Well that's a matter of opinion. However its not an opinion widely shared in the UK. Wanting your country to be defeated by an enemy terrorist organisation is not a popular position in the UK. I don't imagine it would be popular in Germany or any other country for that matter.

[EnglishPete]

Abbott declared support for IRA defeat of Britain

“is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”

“Though I was born here in London, I couldn’t identify as British,”



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/abbott-declared-support-for-ira-defeat-of-britain-rp79dvvmk

It was always coming, sort of innocent by Corbyn to assume he wouldn't be getting flak for his sympathy to the deplorable of the world

Yes how naive of Corbyn to not fellate the UDA/RUC without question.

Corbyn made it perfectly clear by his words and actions during the 'troubles' that he supported SinnFein/IRA and wanted them to win. Frankly He has never renounced this view, just pretended it wasn't his position. His equivocal words even today are meant as a way of avoiding disavowing that position.

As for your positing that the, rather limited, counter insurgency efforts of the RUC were morally equivalent to IRA terrorist violence well you're entitled to your (morally bankrupt) views but I'm sure you can understand that UK voters might not be thrilled at the prospect of a potential PM who shares such views.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Correct to support the IRA and hope for the defeat of Britain. Well that's a matter of opinion. However its not an opinion widely shared in the UK. Wanting your country to be defeated by an enemy terrorist organisation is not a popular position in the UK. I don't imagine it would be popular in Germany or any other country for that matter.

Actually support for Irish Republicanism - not the same thing as support for the IRA and its bombing campaigns of course - was the majority position back during the Troubles, which is why it was always awkward for governments to rely on Unionist votes in the Commons at the time. The public saw the way the Catholic minority was treated splashed across its TV screens and mostly didn't like it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Incidentally, the Labour Uncut piece is really very, very bad; dubious 'data' (that is not shown to the reader - so we have no idea what it actually is or looks like or, bluntly, even if it actually exists - from sources that are not enumerated) that is then adulterated with various assumptions (exactly what these are or how they affect the 'data' is again not entirely clear) and turned into an extremely rigid predictive 'model' (one so crude that using the word 'model' seems inappropriate) that is then presented as absolute cast-iron Truth. A Truth that happens to fit in exactly with what Labour Uncut would like to see happen (these people having deluded themselves that they can return to relevance - they were never relevant but like to think that they were - only if Labour suffers an absolutely catastrophic defeat, after which they will be hailed as oracles or something). It is grotesque in its intellectual dishonesty and is the sort of thing that gives electoral analysis a bad name. It is disappointing to see it so eagerly linked to and re-tweeted across the wide political internet, though it isn't hard to see why. What amuses me slightly is that some of the people doing the sharing have had so much fun over the past year mocking the insistence of the more deluded Corbynites that (e.g.) LABOUR WERE AHEAD UNTIL CHICKEN COUP. Evidentially voodoo is voodoo and Polling is a Science you know and Rationality Matters until I Want To Believe...

...ah, you say, but what if it somehow turns out to be broadly accurate? Well, last year I made up up some fake polling figures from an entirely fictional firm for the state of Pennsylvania and posted them on this very forum as a joke. These fake figures turned out to be more accurate than those of the published polls. Does this mean that if I make up any more American polling stats for a joke that they should be treated as Serious and Reliable? No.

[Barnes]

And more specifically to Labour, Republicanism was the goal of the party until really the Good Friday Agreement. Which always meant Callaghan relying on both Gerry Fitt and Enoch Powell to win votes was rather dicey.

[EnglishPete]

Correct to support the IRA and hope for the defeat of Britain. Well that's a matter of opinion. However its not an opinion widely shared in the UK. Wanting your country to be defeated by an enemy terrorist organisation is not a popular position in the UK. I don't imagine it would be popular in Germany or any other country for that matter.

Actually support for Irish Republicanism - not the same thing as support for the IRA and its bombing campaigns of course - was the majority position back during the Troubles

Citation needed

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Citation needed

There's a whole bunch of survey data from the period out there if you want to look in detail, but I'll go with the easiest: there was majority support for a United Ireland in every British Social Attitudes survey up until the Good Friday Agreement.