UK General Election, June 8th 2017

[thumb21]

So how likely is it that Theresa May outperforms Blair's 1997 numbers?

In terms of the popular vote, she will probably do better than Blair but in terms of seats, probably not.

[thumb21]

I have recently seen Labour gain some slight traction in YouGov polls, much to the delight of British twitter. Should this at all concern May and the Tories, is YouGov trash, or is it just noise and it will soon subside?

Its to be expected that polls tighten a bit as an election approaches. The Conservatives have nothing wrong about.

[thumb21]

Westminster voting intention:
CON: 47% (-)
LAB: 28% (-)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
UKIP: 8% (-)
GRN: 4% (-)
(ICMResearch / 28 Apr - 02 May)

Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition has been
Effective: 13%
Ineffective: 69%
(YouGov / 27 - 28 Apr)

Theresa May as Prime Minister has been
Effective: 46%
Ineffective: 34%
(YouGov / 27 - 28 Apr)

Interesting how UKIP and the Libs are tied for PV 3rd place here. The polls overall seem to show a slight dip for the LibDems. The pipe dream of some that the Liberals will replace Labour as the opposition seems to be evaporating.

[thumb21]

Westminster voting intention:
CON: 47% (-)
LAB: 28% (-)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
UKIP: 8% (-)
GRN: 4% (-)
(ICMResearch / 28 Apr - 02 May)

Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition has been
Effective: 13%
Ineffective: 69%
(YouGov / 27 - 28 Apr)

Theresa May as Prime Minister has been
Effective: 46%
Ineffective: 34%
(YouGov / 27 - 28 Apr)

Interesting how UKIP and the Libs are tied for PV 3rd place here. The polls overall seem to show a slight dip for the LibDems. The pipe dream of some that the Liberals will replace Labour as the opposition seems to be evaporating.

I think it's been more of a question of whether the Lib Dems would overtake the SNP in terms of seats. Right now, that seems unlikely, but it's possible that the national vote share figures aren't showing that there may be individual constituency results that could see the Lib Dems manage this.

It could be the case. I assume what you mean by this is Conservative Remain seats getting sniped by the Lib Dems like in Richmond Park? I think that this phenomenon is over hyped. The Lib-Dems won Richmond park by a small margin in a by election and by elections are typically worse for the governing party than general elections and that was against a strong Brexiteer - and the Greens stepped aside. The Lib Dems are targetting a niche of voters so I think they severely restrict their path to third place again anyway.

[thumb21]

Westminster voting intention:
CON: 48% (+2)
LAB: 24% (-)
LDEM: 11% (-)
UKIP: 7% (-1)
(TNS_UK / 27 Apr - 02 May)

Westminster voting intention:
CON: 48% (+4)
LAB: 29% (-2)
LDEM: 10% (-1)
UKIP: 5% (-1)
(YouGov / 02 - 03 May)

Looks like that Labour "surge" didn't last long. The Diane Abbot gaffe is related I suppose.

[thumb21]

Lol Corbyn's team has banned Buzzfeed from having access to events

Lol. I suddenly like Corbyn a bit more.

[thumb21]

Scottish local election results, largest party by votes and seats. 2012 -> 2017

Interesting how the Conservatives won Edinburgh. I suppose the reason there is so much blue on that map is independents splitting the vote? Either way, it's a good year if you are a Scottish Conservative.

[thumb21]

No Conservative election expenses charges from 14 police force inquiries

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/10/no-conservative-election-expenses-charges-from-14-police-force-inquiries

ANOTHER CAR CRASH Labour’s education spokesman ‘does a Diane Abbott’ and gets her figures wrong in another excruciating election interview fail

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3525863/labours-education-spokesman-does-a-diane-abbott-and-gets-her-figures-wrong-in-another-excruciating-election-interview-fail/

^^Incompetence at it best .........

At this rate, Labour will have more car crash interviews by the end of the election than mps ._.

[thumb21]

YouGov poll of London, with changes compared to 2015:

Lab 42 (-2)
Con 36 (+2)
Lib Dem 14 (+6)
UKIP - 6 (-2)
Greens - 3 (-2)

The likes of Wes Streeting (Ilford North) would have a fighting chance on these figures.

Do you have crosstabs for that? I couldn't see anything on the YouGov website.

I suspect that Labour will be holding up much better in Inner London than Outer London.

Would the rise in Lib vote potentially save Sarah Olney?

Personally I think Olney is a shoo-in to be reelected. SW London is going to be the Lib Dems' bright spot where they gain 2-3 seats.

Olney won by a quite small margin last year and that was a by election which tends to be better for opposition parties. Therefore, she will probably lose.

[thumb21]

Lord Ashcroft Mega poll (40K)

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2017/05/election-2017-ashcroft-model/#more-15204



UK sample of (40,000):
Cons 40%
Lab 23%
Lib 10%
UKIP 5%
others 6%
Won't vote or Won't say 15%

CONSTITUENCY-BY-CONSTITUENCY



https://dashboards.lordashcroftpolls.com/Storyboard/RHViewStoryBoard.aspx?RId=%C2%B2%C2%B7&RLId=%C2%B2%C2%B3&PId=%C2%B1%C2%B4%C2%BA%C2%B5%C2%B4&UId=%C2%B4%C2%B9%C2%B9%C2%B9%C2%BC&RpId=26

If 2017 is bigger landslide then 1997 , would that convince Labour to move in a more centrist direction.

I think the Blairites would use it as an opportunity to take back control of Labour and most Labour members would probably fall for it to be entirely honest. However, going centrist is just as disastrous.

What is holding back Labour is not their left-wing policies, the polls are very clear that the British people support most of them. The problem is messaging. Corbyn especially and the Labour party as a whole is bad at messaging and Corbyn as an individual is holding Labour quite far back.

What Labour needs is not to become the Red Tory, but to have fresh leadership with better messaging that is straight to the point. They should probably move to the right on issues like immigration to appeal to English voters as well as coming out in favour of English devolved parliament. An important factor that will cost Labour this election is the fact that they have failed to pick up much of the collapsing UKIP vote.

[thumb21]

Well there hasn't been a single piece of military action (including Falklands/Kosovo) since 1945 that Jeremy has actually supported...

Probably better than supporting the war in Iraq, better to err on the side of caution rather than killing & butchering children like Blair supported !

Kosovo is understandable but I don't even blame for Corbyn for Falklands which was a total un-necessary war over islands near South Americans having a few thousand people which Thatcher & General Galtieri used to boost their own national popularity & play the patriotism card !

The Falklands are a British sovereign territory and the people living there are British and have confirmed that through democratic referendum. I agree that Britain should not be getting involved in most international wars but the Falklands are British territory and the job of the British government is to keep British people safe from attack.

[thumb21]

Well there hasn't been a single piece of military action (including Falklands/Kosovo) since 1945 that Jeremy has actually supported...

Probably better than supporting the war in Iraq, better to err on the side of caution rather than killing & butchering children like Blair supported !

Kosovo is understandable but I don't even blame for Corbyn for Falklands which was a total un-necessary war over islands near South Americans having a few thousand people which Thatcher & General Galtieri used to boost their own national popularity & play the patriotism card !

The Falklands are a British sovereign territory and the people living there are British and have confirmed that through democratic referendum. I agree that Britain should not be getting involved in most international wars but the Falklands are British territory and the job of the British government is to keep British people safe from attack.

Falklands was a Southern American island which has been colonized by the British, Spanish, Argentine people & so on. Majority of the people (who are very few btw) are probably of British descent because UK colonized it in the last 150 years. But anyways, UK has a right to protect its citizens & to fight for its territories but my point is Falkland war could have been avoided & both leaders literally jumped into the war to boost their own national popularity.

I totally understand why Corbyn is so reticent about going into war - I mean when Mossadegh tried to nationalize Iran's oil, the British oil interests (BP) & government had him killed - An innocent democratic secular leader butchered for no good reason but because more money can be obtained from Iran's oil. And he was replaced by a brutal dictator in Shah which created the Islamic Revolution & Khomeini coming to power. And then you have Iraq which has totally f**ked up the world.

Corbyn's dovish stance & aversion about going to un-necessary war & mass killings is atleast understandable - More than a million people have died in iraq-Syria alone. And you have the Tories talking about "Pre-emptive" use of nuclear weapons & more strikes & regime change with Assad !

How could the Falklands war be avoided? Argentina launched a surprise invasion. When your country is attacked, you have to respond. Of course, you can try and negotiate and get the Argentinians to withdraw but that wouldn't work because the Argentine Junta needed the Falklands to survive. Ultimately, the only way to repel Argentina was military force.

When it comes to the issues of Iraq, Syria, Iran that you mentioned, I agree with Corbyn on them. We shouldn't be trying to interfere in those countries' politics. However, the Falklands is an entirely different issue because it was another country invading British territories.

[thumb21]

It's not as simple as "move to the right on migration and you win!!!!!!", they already have done that and it quite clearly hasn't worked.  As a party it's always going to be an issue that you'll struggle with, you have to square the circle between the people who've moved away from Labour on that kind of cultural issue and people who would be more reluctant to support Labour if they went down that route - that's probably more than some would think and both groups are needed for Labour to form a government.  Being a left-wing UKIP runs the risk of alienating more people than it brings back...

I'd argue that Labour's biggest mistake in the past was not responding to the increasing importance of migration as an issue (2005 is probably the big one; the Howard campaign used it a lot more than any mainstream campaign ever) with a positive defence of migration, but instead running around like a headless chicken trying to out-Tory the Tories on it.  That both hurt Labour's credibility generally; plus it basically conceded the whole framing of the issue to the anti-migration side.  I mean I'm broadly pro-migration (I'm looking for work outside the UK so I'd by a hypocrite if I wasn't really) so maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see it being any worse for the party...

I don't think anyone is saying its simple as just move to the right on immigration. Labour also has to improve its messaging, stop speaking in jargon and they need to stop electing people like Miliband and Corbyn and get someone who is a good leader and is likeable.

Labour hasn't really moved to the right on immigration. They have failed to give a real firm stance on it and people haven't forgotten the boom of immigration under Blair. It goes back to what I was saying about messaging really. Even if they have moved to the right on immigration, they have failed to get that message across.

As for how many people move away from Labour from this, I think the number won't be too high. I don't think a massive number of people would be willing to potentially give the Tories a victory just because they don't like one policy change. On the other hand, when you look at the polls, you see that there is a large constituency of people are economically left wing but right wing on immigration who could be attracted to Labour. Let's not forget that the Conservatives' mega-lead in the polls mostly comes from UKIP defectors who Labour has completely failed to attract.

[thumb21]

Lord Ashcroft Mega poll (40K)

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2017/05/election-2017-ashcroft-model/#more-15204



UK sample of (40,000):
Cons 40%
Lab 23%
Lib 10%
UKIP 5%
others 6%
Won't vote or Won't say 15%

CONSTITUENCY-BY-CONSTITUENCY



https://dashboards.lordashcroftpolls.com/Storyboard/RHViewStoryBoard.aspx?RId=%C2%B2%C2%B7&RLId=%C2%B2%C2%B3&PId=%C2%B1%C2%B4%C2%BA%C2%B5%C2%B4&UId=%C2%B4%C2%B9%C2%B9%C2%B9%C2%BC&RpId=26

If 2017 is bigger landslide then 1997 , would that convince Labour to move in a more centrist direction.

I think the Blairites would use it as an opportunity to take back control of Labour and most Labour members would probably fall for it to be entirely honest. However, going centrist is just as disastrous.

What is holding back Labour is not their left-wing policies, the polls are very clear that the British people support most of them. The problem is messaging. Corbyn especially and the Labour party as a whole is bad at messaging and Corbyn as an individual is holding Labour quite far back.

What Labour needs is not to become the Red Tory, but to have fresh leadership with better messaging that is straight to the point. They should probably move to the right on issues like immigration to appeal to English voters as well as coming out in favour of English devolved parliament. An important factor that will cost Labour this election is the fact that they have failed to pick up much of the collapsing UKIP vote.

If Blairites get back control of Labour, any chance of a far left split, leading to a small party to the left of Labour? (like say, Linke in Germany). I guess they could get an amount of votes similar to the Greens, and maybe be slightly more competitive than them (I guess they could get 1 or 2 seats with the adecuate candidates and enough effort)

Probably many of the Corbynistas would go to TUSC but I think they would largely stick with Labour to keep the Tories out.

[thumb21]

Chances the Tories break 50%?

I mean they are almost there already and may be underrepresented in the polls because they don't account for the fact that UKIP isn't running in loads of constituencies and those votes will mostly go Conservative.

[thumb21]

The fundamentals seem to be ripe for Labour. NHS hacking, nurse strike,  Brexit job losses, cuts etc. But they are stuck with Corbyn, the events may help them avoid a larger blowout though.

Blaming Corbyn for all of Labour's problems is just cheap. It's definitely true that he and his baggage are extremely bad for Labour. But, you can't pretend that this is not a systemic issue that Labour is facing. If it was any other major Labour politician as the leader, they would also be doing very badly.

[thumb21]

The fundamentals seem to be ripe for Labour. NHS hacking, nurse strike,  Brexit job losses, cuts etc. But they are stuck with Corbyn, the events may help them avoid a larger blowout though.

Blaming Corbyn for all of Labour's problems is just cheap. It's definitely true that he and his baggage are extremely bad for Labour. But, you can't pretend that this is not a systemic issue that Labour is facing. If it was any other major Labour politician as the leader, they would also be doing very badly.

The Tories were in similar amount of trouble in the early 2000s but they didnt tank the party to a worse level after John Major while Corbyn is tanking them to a worse level after Blair/Brown.

Indeed, this is true. However, the idea that Labour could have won if it wasn't Corbyn, as some are saying, is simply false.

[thumb21]

My results from isidewith:

65% Labour
62% PC
60% Lib Dem
59% Green
58% SNP
56% Sinn Fein
56% UKIP
55% DUP
50% Conservative

[thumb21]

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.

[thumb21]

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

I see

[thumb21]

One good thing was that David Cameron seemed humble & with empathy while May with all her tough woman image, comes across as somewhat unrelatable sometimes with ordinary folks !

Just a friendly reminder that David Cameron eats sandwiches with a knife and fork. Case closed.

[thumb21]

Interesting new feature from Electoral Calculus.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/datamap.html

Unsurprised by my postcode area's results.

[thumb21]

I was in St. Albans today and saw an overwhelming number of Lib Dem signs. Probably doesn't mean much. Perhaps it's just that Liberal signs stand out better than Conservative ones which blend in, and probably Liberals are more willing to advertise their political opinions than Conservatives.