Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 18, 2020, 09:11:23 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (Primary) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: Gustaf, Hash, Stuck with Sanders)
  United Kingdom General Elections: December 12th, 2019
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... 68 Print
Author Topic: United Kingdom General Elections: December 12th, 2019  (Read 69953 times)
Arkansas Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 966
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #875 on: November 24, 2019, 08:49:33 am »
« edited: November 24, 2019, 09:38:10 am by Arkansas Yankee »

We are 18 days from the election.   In 2017 Labour average in the polls was averaging around 33.  It is now 29 now.  When is it going to reach 33?
Logged
CumbrianLeftie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 862
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #876 on: November 24, 2019, 09:12:51 am »

Take out the fraudulent Opinium poll, and this weekend's surveys are very similar to the same point in 2017. Which does not mean history is bound to repeat itself, but maybe worth bearing in mind.
Logged
Arkansas Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 966
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #877 on: November 24, 2019, 09:38:34 am »
« Edited: November 24, 2019, 09:45:10 am by Arkansas Yankee »

Take out the fraudulent Opinium poll, and this weekend's surveys are very similar to the same point in 2017. Which does not mean history is bound to repeat itself, but maybe worth bearing in mind.

In 2017 I pointed out by this weekend Labour was averaging around 33.  Even excluding the Opinium poll this year it is averaging only around 30.   When is it going to reach 33 this year?
It has to make such a move sometime.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,869
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #878 on: November 24, 2019, 09:44:03 am »

Every election is different, but 2017 comparisons are often being distorted by false memory. A lot of people seem to recall that as an election in which the government started far, far ahead and in which its lead cracked and shrunk due to a sustained Labour surge that, bit by bit, took things to just below the wire on polling day. This is not what happened. What actually happened, is that both parties made substantial gains during the early weeks of the campaign as the third parties collapsed, but the Conservative lead remained stubbornly very high. Then, the Conservative manifesto was unveiled and it was a total disaster. Their lead immediately slumped, more than halving almost overnight in many polls. After that, things bounced around a bit during the last few weeks - there was some distinct movement towards Labour picked up after Corbyn's unexpectedly strong response to the terrorist atrocities, for instance, but that didn't all seem to last - and by polling day the general consensus was of a solid but not massive Conservative lead, with more firms giving them leads over 10pts than suggesting that it might be fairly close. This is why the exit poll was such a great shock to everyone.

The curious part is that we still don't know why the polls were so badly wrong in the end. We know what went wrong in 2015: a very tight race was expected, and so the firms all herded, afraid to put out anything that did not fit with that. But 2017 is a mystery: it is not as simple as 'higher than expected youth turnout' even if that must have been a factor. Conclusions to this? None, exactly. Other than to caution against drawing any conclusions from false memory.
Logged
Silent Hunter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,026
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #879 on: November 24, 2019, 09:48:22 am »

Indeed. I distinctly remember walking on the concourse of London Waterloo station on Election Day thinking that the realistic range of possibilities ran from a 100+ majority to a Conservative minority government and thinking a majority of 50 or so was the likely outcome.
Logged
Arkansas Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 966
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #880 on: November 24, 2019, 10:30:58 am »

According to the New Statesman, the Tories are on course for a 48 seat majority according to Datapraxis.  Paul Hilder is CEO of Datapraxis.  He was a candidate for General Secretary of Labour under Corbyn. The article says a similar analysis predicted the hung Parliament in 2017.

This analysis also points out Zac Goldsmith is set to lose his seat, and that even Johnson, Dominic Raab, Iain Duncan Smith, John Redwood, ERG chief Steve Smith could lose their seats to tactical voting.

The New Statesman is certainly not a Tory mouthpiece.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/11/conservatives-course-majority-boris-johnson-could-lose-his-seat


Logged
Oryxslayer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,225


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #881 on: November 24, 2019, 10:48:47 am »

Everyone has a different 'story' from 2017, so paralleling back will likely result in comparisons which should not be. For example, my personal experience of 2017 was a Tory majority prediction that gradually shrank to a very slim one by election day. This is because my family has worked for YouGov's nonpolitical polling division before, and when the other teams put out that model we knew it was the real deal.

In the end, the polling industry is just trying to fight today's battles, but their knowledge, like us, is faulty. Pollsters always need to get it right, so corrections are always made with the knowledge of history. Said corrections often fail because yesterday is not today. In 2010 it was the LDs getting overshot in seats, in 2015 it was the Torys getting underpolled, in 2016 it was Leave, in 2017 it was Labour. Corrections for past mistakes are usually overcorrections. In the US, this leads to House effects swinging with each election, because there are only two camps to poll. In multiparty systems there are multiple pillars and communities making everything that much more uncertain. What weights are applied and how heavy they need to be for accuracy is a question that keeps pollsters up at night.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 80


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #882 on: November 24, 2019, 11:46:44 am »

I spent polling day in Cambridge in 2017. By mid-afternoon I was quietly confident we'd done enough to hang on there, but it's an atypical seat and I still expected heavy losses. When our committee room stood down for the evening, my partner and I went for a quiet half and contemplated a hefty Tory majority. I was driving her home and some other activists home when I heard the exit poll, and everybody burst out laughing when we heard it, because it was so hilariously awful for the Tories. We still didn't believe it for another couple of hours, and when I drove home from the count at about 2AM, the BBC coverage on the radio was still portraying seats Labour ended up holding with majorities of 5,000+ as potential knife-edge marginals.
Logged
Arkansas Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 966
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #883 on: November 24, 2019, 12:25:26 pm »

I am not able to understand why Corbyn went so wild in the economic policy area.  You might have thought an intelligent move would have been an effort no to terrify Conservative Remainers.
Logged
CumbrianLeftie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 862
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #884 on: November 24, 2019, 12:37:19 pm »
« Edited: November 24, 2019, 05:07:44 pm by CumbrianLeftie »

Every election is different, but 2017 comparisons are often being distorted by false memory. A lot of people seem to recall that as an election in which the government started far, far ahead and in which its lead cracked and shrunk due to a sustained Labour surge that, bit by bit, took things to just below the wire on polling day. This is not what happened. What actually happened, is that both parties made substantial gains during the early weeks of the campaign as the third parties collapsed, but the Conservative lead remained stubbornly very high. Then, the Conservative manifesto was unveiled and it was a total disaster. Their lead immediately slumped, more than halving almost overnight in many polls. After that, things bounced around a bit during the last few weeks - there was some distinct movement towards Labour picked up after Corbyn's unexpectedly strong response to the terrorist atrocities, for instance, but that didn't all seem to last - and by polling day the general consensus was of a solid but not massive Conservative lead, with more firms giving them leads over 10pts than suggesting that it might be fairly close. This is why the exit poll was such a great shock to everyone.

The curious part is that we still don't know why the polls were so badly wrong in the end. We know what went wrong in 2015: a very tight race was expected, and so the firms all herded, afraid to put out anything that did not fit with that. But 2017 is a mystery: it is not as simple as 'higher than expected youth turnout' even if that must have been a factor. Conclusions to this? None, exactly. Other than to caution against drawing any conclusions from false memory.

That was something that gave me real hope of an upset, tbh - the media (and Blairite) consensus then was that his speech after that tragic event was electoral suicide, but it didn't turn out that way at all.

Having said that, on polling day I was still expecting a Tory majority somewhat bigger than in 1992....
Logged
Oryxslayer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,225


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #885 on: November 24, 2019, 01:27:19 pm »
« Edited: November 24, 2019, 01:49:35 pm by Oryxslayer »

Anyway, the Tory Manifesto dropped. Like I thought, it's relatively benign as far as right-wing party platforms go. I'm sure the resident Labourite's are going to disagree, but that's my take. Fairly center-right unlike May's red-meat platform for the base. No cuts, some spending (far below labour), and the Key plank of Brexit. They clearly are afraid of what happened in 2017 and wish to capitalize on Corbyn's 'radical' platform. However, it's relative moderation is skewed by the entire thing being held up with the key proposal of "Get Brexit Done." So moderate but harsh on Brexit, just what BoJo wants to win Leave seats.

BBC Analysis.

Regarding Scotland, the Manifesto warns of the  "coalition of chaos" and recommits the party to Unionism.


I guess once the document has settled in with the rest of them we will see if something found it's way through that can become 2019s 'dementia tax.'
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,786


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #886 on: November 24, 2019, 01:32:12 pm »

One random thought’. Supposing SNP gains but also a Tory majority; you’re potentially heading towards a Catalan style constitutional crisis where Johnson refuses to sanction indyref2. I would have thought this was intuitively a likely enough outcome to be worth discussion, but seems to have evaded all commentary so far.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,869
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #887 on: November 24, 2019, 01:46:54 pm »

Survation's poll for Monday morning... Con 41, Lab 30, LDem 15, BP 5, Greens 3. Labour up two, Tories down one, LibDems up one.
Logged
CumbrianLeftie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 862
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #888 on: November 24, 2019, 01:51:20 pm »

So every poll in the last 48 hours gives a Tory lead of 10-13 points. With just one rather glaring exception.
Logged
No war with Iran
Roblox
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 551


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #889 on: November 24, 2019, 01:57:30 pm »

The labour manifesto didn't change much, and I suspect the Tory one won't either. They already seem to have most of the leave vote and are close to maxed out, and I doubt theres anything that will cause people to abandon them like the dementia tax last time.

I guess labour will have to hope Boris Johnson unlocks his closet and lets Rees-Mogg out or something Tongue
Logged
CumbrianLeftie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 862
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #890 on: November 24, 2019, 02:21:00 pm »

The remaining Labour hope is that the current polls are actually a bit out, and tbf they *may* be.

Canvassing accounts from their people on the ground can be described as "mixed", but maybe on the side of doing just a bit better than polls are saying rather than the opposite.

And mostly younger voters continue to register in large numbers, with 2 more days to go.
Logged
Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #891 on: November 24, 2019, 09:30:51 pm »

The New Statesman article is an excellent example of this weird double-thought when it comes to the Lib Dems, who are supposed to simultaneously be treading water compared to 2017 (the article predicts 14 seats, so only +2 nationally) but also be challenging in a bunch of safely Tory Remain seats and be on the verge of throwing out Raab and Johnson. Either of those could be true, but it's really hard to imagine a world where both are. (Like, at that point we have to imagine that Umunna and Chuka and Luciana and whoever they're running in Wimbledon and St. Albans and a few Cambridgeshire candidates have all won, even if it doesn't say much about their odds in St. Ives or Eastbourne.)
Logged
Anomalocaris🌹
wolfentoad66
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,250
Northern Mariana Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #892 on: November 24, 2019, 10:18:59 pm »


Chuka Umunna is a single person, as much as his baffling political transgressions over the past few years might suggest otherwise. Tongue

I agree with the bulk of your argument, though: A LD surge that takes out BoJo is a particularly deranged fantasy. A net loss for the LDs compared to their current total but not their 2017 result is basically guaranteed, as far as I'm concerned.
Logged
Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #893 on: November 24, 2019, 10:40:36 pm »


Chuka Umunna is a single person, as much as his baffling political transgressions over the past few years might suggest otherwise. Tongue

I agree with the bulk of your argument, though: A LD surge that takes out BoJo is a particularly deranged fantasy. A net loss for the LDs compared to their current total but not their 2017 result is basically guaranteed, as far as I'm concerned.

Meant Gyimah, embarrassingly enough Tongue

I find it hard to imagine them not making it to the mid-20s or so on present numbers; if they win 12 seats on 7%, they should win 24 seats on 14% (which is on the lower end of current polling) assuming their vote stays as efficient as it was in 2017; if anything given that their gains are among strong Remainers, who tend to be a pretty geographically concentrated demographic, I'd expect them to get *more* efficient. (I'd bet on ~30 seats or so, I think).

But I can't imagine the world that some Labour supporters/the editors of the New Statesman seem to be suggesting where they're on 14 seats but are taking Esher & Walton, Wokingham, and Chingford & Wood Green. Surely some Lib Dem seats will come in constituencies without prominent Tories running?
Logged
Walmart_shopper
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 867
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #894 on: November 25, 2019, 01:31:40 am »


Chuka Umunna is a single person, as much as his baffling political transgressions over the past few years might suggest otherwise. Tongue

I agree with the bulk of your argument, though: A LD surge that takes out BoJo is a particularly deranged fantasy. A net loss for the LDs compared to their current total but not their 2017 result is basically guaranteed, as far as I'm concerned.

Meant Gyimah, embarrassingly enough Tongue

I find it hard to imagine them not making it to the mid-20s or so on present numbers; if they win 12 seats on 7%, they should win 24 seats on 14% (which is on the lower end of current polling) assuming their vote stays as efficient as it was in 2017; if anything given that their gains are among strong Remainers, who tend to be a pretty geographically concentrated demographic, I'd expect them to get *more* efficient. (I'd bet on ~30 seats or so, I think).

But I can't imagine the world that some Labour supporters/the editors of the New Statesman seem to be suggesting where they're on 14 seats but are taking Esher & Walton, Wokingham, and Chingford & Wood Green. Surely some Lib Dem seats will come in constituencies without prominent Tories running?
 

I'm sure part of it is that the LibDem's support may he almost comically disproportionate, largely bottled up in quaint and insulated remain constituencies in London--the sort of people who can't fathom supporting Jezza the supposed British Hugo Chavez but also can't fathom supporting a Tory party taken over by what they see as xenophobic chavs taking away their remain-y multinational corporate European dream. Obviously, there are only a precious few places like this, but it is entirely possible that the LibDems may do quite well in them even as they do poorly nationally.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 80


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #895 on: November 25, 2019, 04:58:13 am »


Chuka Umunna is a single person, as much as his baffling political transgressions over the past few years might suggest otherwise. Tongue

I agree with the bulk of your argument, though: A LD surge that takes out BoJo is a particularly deranged fantasy. A net loss for the LDs compared to their current total but not their 2017 result is basically guaranteed, as far as I'm concerned.

Meant Gyimah, embarrassingly enough Tongue

I find it hard to imagine them not making it to the mid-20s or so on present numbers; if they win 12 seats on 7%, they should win 24 seats on 14% (which is on the lower end of current polling) assuming their vote stays as efficient as it was in 2017; if anything given that their gains are among strong Remainers, who tend to be a pretty geographically concentrated demographic, I'd expect them to get *more* efficient. (I'd bet on ~30 seats or so, I think).

But I can't imagine the world that some Labour supporters/the editors of the New Statesman seem to be suggesting where they're on 14 seats but are taking Esher & Walton, Wokingham, and Chingford & Wood Green. Surely some Lib Dem seats will come in constituencies without prominent Tories running?

One of the issues here is that you're confusing what seats they're actually targeting - Chingford & Woodford Green is a Tory v. Labour contest, though possibly you're mixing it up with Hornsey & Wood Green?

Another is that the polling doesn't show them winning Esher & Walton, it shows them getting reasonably close and potentially being in reach if they can squeeze the Labour vote more effectively.

And the third reason is that if they're consolidating affluent remainers in southern England so effectively but doing poorly elsewhere, it may mean that they're losing several seats they already hold - several of their MPs have quite small majorities and are in fairly leave-y territory.
Logged
Rep. tack50 (Lab-Lincoln)
tack50
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,773
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #896 on: November 25, 2019, 06:27:24 am »

Speaking of that, what Lib Dem seats are in danger of flipping? Because looking at their 2017 seats I am not sure how many are actually in danger. My extremely uninformed ratings would be something like this, italics for leave seats:

Bath: Safe LD
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross: Safe LD
Carshalton and Wallington: Tossup

East Dunbartonshire: Safe LD
Eastbourne: Tossup
Edinburgh West: Safe LD
Kingston and Surbiton: Safe LD
North Norfolk: Lean Tory
Orkney and Shetland: Safe LD
Oxford West and Abingdon: Safe LD
Twickenham: Safe LD
Westmoreland and Lonsdale: Safe LD

So of their 12 seats in 2017 Lib Dems won 4 Leave seats. Of them the Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross seat should be safe, considering it's an SNP vs Lib Dem battle (or possibly a 3 way with the Tories?) I don't think Brexit will influence much that seat

As for the other 3, 2 of them are pure tossups with only North Norfolk being an unlikely hold. In a worst case scenario they would lose 3 of their seats, which considering they probably make more than 3 pickups elsewhere (NE Fife and Richmond Park are essencially Safe LD now) it would still be a positive for them, even if the result would still be a massive disappointment.
Logged
DaWN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,011
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #897 on: November 25, 2019, 07:09:39 am »

The idea that the Lib Dems are only doing well with affluent Londoners is pretty disingenuous. They are clearly targeting a certain type of voter that fits that mould but they certainly exist across the country (being concentrated more in London and the SE, which is true, is not the same as just existing there) and give them a solid path to a seat total in the low-twenties, which was always the realistic goal (the idea they were going to do better than Clegg in 2010 was always fanciful). The path to 20 seats is probably as follows:

Hold 11 of 12 2017 seats (Aside from North Norfolk, all are varying degrees of safe apart from Eastbourne, which will be tough but Lloyd has a good shot of pulling it off)
Richmond Park
NE Fife
Cheltenham
St Albans
Winchester
Sheffield Hallam
Cheadle
Ceredigion
Hold Brecon & Radnorshire

The secondary targets any one of which can make up for a loss in Eastbourne or will just signify a pretty good night overall (no particular order but in general the easier ones are towards the top):
Hazel Grove
Guildford
Esher & Walton
Cambridge
Leeds NW
St Ives
Wells
Lewes
Cities of L&W
Kensington
Finchley & Golders Green
Ross, Skye & Lochaber
Wokingham
Totnes (?)
Romford (ha just kidding)

So a net gain compared to dissolution is far from impossible, although far from guaranteed either of course. I'd be happy with 20; 10-15 would be very disappointing, 15-20 I'd be content with and 20-25 I'd be pretty ecstatic with. Any higher than that is unrealistic.

Of course, the other main goal the Lib Dems have this election is something they failed miserably at in 2017: to get as many targets as possible for 2024. Even if they don't win Cities of L&W or Kensington or Wokingham or Esher & Walton, getting them close enough to be realistic targets next time is a good way of getting the party back on the road to 2005/2010 levels within three elections or so.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 80


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #898 on: November 25, 2019, 09:16:50 am »

Speaking of that, what Lib Dem seats are in danger of flipping? Because looking at their 2017 seats I am not sure how many are actually in danger. My extremely uninformed ratings would be something like this, italics for leave seats:

Bath: Safe LD
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross: Safe LD
Carshalton and Wallington: Tossup

East Dunbartonshire: Safe LD
Eastbourne: Tossup
Edinburgh West: Safe LD
Kingston and Surbiton: Safe LD
North Norfolk: Lean Tory
Orkney and Shetland: Safe LD
Oxford West and Abingdon: Safe LD
Twickenham: Safe LD
Westmoreland and Lonsdale: Safe LD

So of their 12 seats in 2017 Lib Dems won 4 Leave seats. Of them the Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross seat should be safe, considering it's an SNP vs Lib Dem battle (or possibly a 3 way with the Tories?) I don't think Brexit will influence much that seat

As for the other 3, 2 of them are pure tossups with only North Norfolk being an unlikely hold. In a worst case scenario they would lose 3 of their seats, which considering they probably make more than 3 pickups elsewhere (NE Fife and Richmond Park are essencially Safe LD now) it would still be a positive for them, even if the result would still be a massive disappointment.


I don't think you can realistically say that anybody with a majority under 1000 is safe. I would in particular note that the SNP seems to be doing better than in 2017 (and in the case of Edinburgh West, they also won't have the backlash from Michelle Thomson to deal with this time round.) Farron will probably do better this time, as he will have been able to devote more time to constituent service, but I wouldn't guarantee it. And Moran will probably be OK, but the Tory floor in the seat is pretty high and the poor level of LD-Labour relations may mean she struggles to get the levels of tactical voting she got last time, so it's at risk if the LDs underperform their current polling and the Tories overperform theirs.
Logged
DaWN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,011
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #899 on: November 25, 2019, 09:30:41 am »

I seriously don't see much of a chance of the Lib Dems losing Remainy, middle class seats like Edinburgh West and Oxford West & Abingdon while their national vote share is more than doubled from 2017. That's really not how these things work. Talk of Carshalton baffles me as well - if Brake could survive the last two elections, I really see no reason why he'd lose this time around. With his leadership a distant memory, Farron probably won't struggle either, and people are making a mistake if they're assuming Westmoreland is a typical rural seat.

The vulnerable Lib Dem seats right now are North Norfolk and Eastbourne - any further than that and we're in meltdown territory that polling at the moment isn't backing up.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... 68 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC