Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 27, 2020, 12:45:46 am
News: 2020 U.S. Senate Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: Gustaf, Hash, The Chad Pygmy Marmosets)
  United Kingdom General Elections: December 12th, 2019
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 70 Print
Author Topic: United Kingdom General Elections: December 12th, 2019  (Read 78965 times)
Oryxslayer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,572


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #900 on: November 25, 2019, 10:55:28 am »

I think it is right to say that the worlds where the Lib-Dems make huge gains in the 'slice' of West London and the world where the Lib-Dems remain in the teens are mutually exclusive. I have already mentioned before how the Lib-Dems seat totals are hard to predict because of 'activation' and how if their voters are not activated by a targeted Lib-Dem campaign then they scatter. With this in mind, I m going to say that right now my personal model/prediction has the Lib-Dems in the mid-30s, which is far higher than anyone else. This however is all because of that wealthy slice  of London I keep going on about. Outside of London the Lib-Dems aren't doing that much better than the usual models, and all their gains are coming from the usual suspects like Winchester, Colchester, Sheff-Hallam, and St. Albans. Perhaps it's closer to their 'high-end' outside of London, but this is more to square with what is going on inside the city. Currently I am saying that the Lib-Dems walk away with more than 10 seats from London, mostly from the Tories but some from Labour. Together, the Lib-Dems and Labour push the conservatives to their 'bleed-over' seats along the edges of the city that hold more similarities to the SE/E than the city.

Now, there is a reason why I always perk up at the mention of this 'slice,' why I never shirk from discussions concerning it's vote, why I keep posting the constituency polls from the region, and why I have it all going Orange. In my eyes, wealthy West London is going to not only determine the Lib-Dems future as a party, it's the key to this entire election. So lets tackle each of those:

Lib Dems Future: Since the demise of the coalition the Lib-Dems have lacked any seats they can truly call their 'base.' Old strongholds in the celtic fringe isn't coming back in the numbers it did before. The Lib-Dems, both locally and nationally have therefore been a party of locals and targeted issues. This isn't sustainable, especially if polarizing culture wars issues are to dominate the entire island. Leafy West London offers the Lib-Dems a launchpad towards a future base and a future niche. The area is too wealthy for Corbyn's populism, but too Remain for BoJo's Leave. This all seems like a natural fit for the Lib-Dems, and it can grow into a base if the Tories keep taking this nationalistic approach to politics in the future.

Key to the Election: Right now, constituency polls from the region are exactly what the Lib-Dems are hoping for. Throwing aside the uncertain topline, we see that a majority of voters, nearly all Llib-Dems and Labourites, along with some Tories, are primed to vote tactically. Fairly understandable considering the demographics of the region match with those demographics more attuned to the political winds. This means that once the Lib-Dems seriously get in there we may see voters get activated and seats start flipping. If you think West London is going to have a lot of Orange, than Boris's path gets that much harder. He loses 5-8 seats right there. If Corbyn ends up turning this thing around (a harder question to answer) than BoJo cannot afford to just write these off. If he is on track for a small majority, which is more likely right now, than losing these seats mean replacements need to be found in Wales and the N/NE. If you think the Lib-Dems have the ability to swipe a bunch of seats off the board for both parties than the other parties will need to work harder to get to a dominant position. Therefore, a vote in the 'Slice'  is likely to be the most powerful vote in the country, ahead of the Scottish seats and the universal-swing seats between Labour and the Conservatives.
Logged
Ishan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,500
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #901 on: November 25, 2019, 11:11:46 am »

Swinson is being attacked by everyone, and people have been saying sexist remarks about her, I think Clegg accepting being Deputy Leader was the worst thing to happen to the Lib Dems, because of the conservatives being conservatives and the Lib Dems voting for the measures.
Logged
Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,041
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #902 on: November 25, 2019, 11:49:33 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.

This is an FPTP election; the more bottled up in specific communities support is, the more seats you get out of it.

More broadly, if they've doubled their support (they've gone from 7% in 2017 to an average of 14.6% in the last 5 polls) they should be at least doubling their seat count. In general in the FPTP system votes become more efficient the more of them you have, and more efficient the more concentrated they are; the Lib Dem vote is expected to both double and become more concentrated to parts of London. So you should conservatively expect them to win double as many seats as they did last time around (which would be 24), unless you're assuming that their gains are concentrated in places they did poorly in 2017. Unlikely; it doesn't sound like anyone's ramping Thurrock.

Based on constituency polling (which I know is terrible, but comparing like with like here), their surge in West London might be very seat-specific, with them within striking distance in certain seats (C of L&W, Kensington, Wimbledon), but very far from winning others, like Chelsea.

Starting with the formation of the Alliance, here's how extrapolating from what percentage it took to win a seat last time around do for the Lib Dems:
1983: Toy model predicts every 1.25% wins a seat --> 20 seats. Alliance wins 23.
1987: Toy model predicts every 1.10% wins a seat --> 21 seats. Alliance wins 22.
1992: Toy model predicts every 1.03% wins a seat --> 17 seats. Lib Dems win 20.
1997: Toy model predicts every 0.89% wins a seat --> 19 seats. Lib Dems win 46 (!).
2001: Toy model predicts every 0.37% wins a seat --> 49 seats. Lib Dems win 52.
2005: Toy model predicts every 0.35% wins a seat --> 63 seats. Lib Dems win 62.
2010: Toy model predicts every 0.35% wins a seat --> 66 seats. Lib Dems win 57.
2015: Toy model predicts every 0.40% wins a seat --> 20 seats. Lib Dems win 8.
2017: Toy model predicts every 0.99% wins a seat --> 7 seats. Lib Dems win 12.

Broadly this basically always works except in 1997, when there was a large amount of pro-Lib Dem tactical voting, and in 2015, when there was a large amount of anti-Lib Dem tactical voting. (Clegg's 2010 campaign does not seem all that great by this metric either; by contrast Farron seems like he exercised a successful refocus on their heartlands at a time when the party should have lost seats and was facing extinction).

This model shows that Lib Dems won a seat for every 0.62% of the vote they won in 2017, so unless they become less efficient -- and winning more support almost always makes you more efficient -- you're going to forecast, on present polling numbers, 14.6%/0.62% --> 23.5 seats as a prediction you expect them to slightly outdo.
Logged
Oryxslayer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,572


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #903 on: November 25, 2019, 12:12:39 pm »
« Edited: November 25, 2019, 12:45:08 pm by Oryxslayer »



New welsh barometer poll from YouGov/ITV.

This is a gain of nine for Labour since early November, a gain of four for the Tories, down one for PC, down three for Lib Dems, down two for Greens, and down seven for Brexit. last time Labour led the barometer by 1 overall.

Now time for the downside for Labour: wales is one of the places where the Tories are far more vote efficient at the outset. Losing 11 points from 2017 will disproportionately effect those seats outside of the southern valley, so the combined opposition probably gains more than universal swing suggests. The welsh barometer from the same time period (two weeks out) of the 2017 campaign is presented below, subsequent barometers had Labour gain a tiny bit more:



The barometer was very accurate in 2017.
Logged
SANDSLIDE 2020🌹
wolfentoad66
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,345
Northern Mariana Islands



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #904 on: November 25, 2019, 12:40:03 pm »

hahahahahahahaha

Logged
afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 25,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #905 on: November 25, 2019, 12:52:59 pm »

hahahahahahahaha



Maybe if they didn't have student loans to pay...
Logged
DaWN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,080
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #906 on: November 25, 2019, 12:58:41 pm »

I genuinely cannot tell what is supposed to be funny about that.
Logged
Walmart_shopper
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,067
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: 3.13


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #907 on: November 25, 2019, 01:09:07 pm »

I genuinely cannot tell what is supposed to be funny about that.

Loans to rent? That is absolutely the worst idea ever. And it's so LibDem. Let's help people by further burying them under our Thatcherite delusion. Have any LibDems, like, ever met a poor person before?
Logged
Tintrlvr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,241
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #908 on: November 25, 2019, 01:13:30 pm »

I genuinely cannot tell what is supposed to be funny about that.

Loans to rent? That is absolutely the worst idea ever. And it's so LibDem. Let's help people by further burying them under our Thatcherite delusion. Have any LibDems, like, ever met a poor person before?

Having difficulty coming up with a security deposit and various other upfront costs to renting because it's a large chunk of money to pay at once for people who have little or no savings is a regular poor-person problem, at least here in (an expensive city in) the U.S. Maybe it's different in the U.K., but the idea doesn't seem crazy or humorous. Certainly you *could* have a bad program with high interest rates and whatnot, but it doesn't seem presumptively bad.
Logged
DaWN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,080
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #909 on: November 25, 2019, 01:16:41 pm »

I genuinely cannot tell what is supposed to be funny about that.

Loans to rent? That is absolutely the worst idea ever. And it's so LibDem. Let's help people by further burying them under our Thatcherite delusion. Have any LibDems, like, ever met a poor person before?

I wasn't aware bad policies automatically created comedy. The Labour manifesto would be in line for a comedy award if that were the case. And there's a chance of that actually being implemented, unlike this, which is a dumb, vague soundbite and nothing more.
Logged
Oryxslayer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,572


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #910 on: November 25, 2019, 01:20:36 pm »



FTR, that fact that we are arguing about Labour and Lib-Dem proposals probably means that 2017 won't be repeated as far as 'dementia tax' and 'police cuts' are concerned. This unfortunately means the Tories likely win this media cycle, since May set the bar incredibly low manifesto-wise.
Logged
DaWN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,080
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #911 on: November 25, 2019, 01:22:17 pm »



FTR, that fact that we are arguing about Labour and Lib-Dem proposals probably means that 2017 won't be repeated as far as 'dementia tax' and 'police cuts' are concerned. This unfortunately means the Tories likely win this media cycle, since May set the bar incredibly low manifesto-wise.

It was always unlikely. They might be idiots over at the Tory Party HQ but nobody is quite that stupid. It's been fairly clear it was going to be relatively uncontroversial this time. Relatively being the operative word of course, its still dreck from cover to cover.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Full Member
***
Posts: 158


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #912 on: November 25, 2019, 03:29:54 pm »

I genuinely cannot tell what is supposed to be funny about that.

Loans to rent? That is absolutely the worst idea ever. And it's so LibDem. Let's help people by further burying them under our Thatcherite delusion. Have any LibDems, like, ever met a poor person before?

In particular, it is very easy for unscrupulous landlords to withhold security deposits, so effectively their flagship offer to renters is actually a subsidy to landlords.
Logged
DaWN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,080
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #913 on: November 25, 2019, 04:12:17 pm »



Ouch. Someone needs to make an emergency delivery of ointment to Edinburgh.
Logged
cp
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,145
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #914 on: November 25, 2019, 04:21:54 pm »

FYI, Dominic Raab is having another wretched night at the hustings in Esher & Walton. Follow Lewis Goodall for a play by play.
Logged
Oryxslayer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,572


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #915 on: November 25, 2019, 04:24:56 pm »

I saw the hype rise up on twitter. Everyone needs to watch Neil eviscerate Sturgeon over the entire interview. Unfortunately, the SNP will survive because they got partisan loyalists these days who will stand firm with their identity of Scottish nationalism.
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,019
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #916 on: November 25, 2019, 04:46:19 pm »

I am surprised the Alex Salmond scandals are not hurting SNP that much.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 25,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #917 on: November 25, 2019, 05:25:47 pm »

I saw the hype rise up on twitter. Everyone needs to watch Neil eviscerate Sturgeon over the entire interview. Unfortunately, the SNP will survive because they got partisan loyalists these days who will stand firm with their identity of Scottish nationalism.

It's Andrew Neil. I wouldn't expect anything different. Also colour me shocked that partisan loyalty exists in politics.
Logged
Oryxslayer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,572


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #918 on: November 25, 2019, 06:18:06 pm »
« Edited: November 25, 2019, 07:46:33 pm by Oryxslayer »

YouGov's releasing a similar model to their 2017 one supposedly on Wednesday. Last time their model came out a week out from the poll, this time  it will be two weeks. Therefore, there will likely be less certainty around the results and we should expect some change similar to a 538 live model, whereas the YouGov model from last time always had a 4% Tory lead.

Now, the model wasn't as perfect as hyped to be, but it was good. I have their last editions data downloaded for an GIS analysis when this 2019 version drops. One thing that does seem to be a consistency in their previous model though is that they missed the LD (and some unionist in Scotland) tactical voting effect that we have discussed at length here.
Logged
Justice Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,708
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #919 on: November 25, 2019, 06:30:12 pm »

Some thoughts on the Lib Dems.

1.) Expectation Management- The Lib Dems were loudly boasting about how they were going to win 50-100 seats in this election, and how the polling was showing seats in London that are on paper safe labour as being Lib-Dem picks up. This is the reason why Chukka is running in Cities and Westminster rather than Twickenham (as the party was confident both him & Berger would win) The whole 'Jo for PM' and the push for an early election meant that the current result (12-18% & 10-20 MPs) looks a lot worse than they briefed and expected.

2.) Revoke A50- The A50 revoke was a poor policy & was ironically done because they thought Labour conference would have a strong remain policy (it didn't) No data to back it up, but I imagine it did a bit of harm to the sort of soft-Liberals they need in the South-West, South and other non-FBPE type seats.

3.) Poor Leader- Why isn't it Layla Moran? Well Lib Dem Party politics for one, but as someone not involved in the coalition she would have been miles better. I actually think Swinson has the worst of  all worlds- she voted for all of it, but wasn't a large enough voice to boast about doing anything (Both Davey & Cable for their faults could point to some things they'd done) Swinson's voting record is much like how a whole crop of Labour MPs got stuck voting for Iraq and got hit for it 5-10 years later (in internal rather than external elections)

4.) Big Two- The big two parties always steal oxygen; and iirc the Liberal Democrats tend to do better with a strong Labour leader because otherwise they lose a large chunk of the voters with a 'stop Corbyn/Miliband etc'. There's a reason the party does extremely well at by-election and locals, rather than the big national elections.
Logged
CumbrianLeftie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,017
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #920 on: November 25, 2019, 07:36:19 pm »

ICM today had the Tories ahead by 41-34 (the latter is the highest Labour score in any poll for quite a while) Together with the Welsh survey, a modest encouragement for them that things could yet move further.
Logged
urutzizu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 700
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #921 on: November 25, 2019, 09:04:10 pm »

I have been reading through the Tory manifesto and there strike me to be some quite severe inconsistencies on immigration policy, perhaps even deliberate ones:

They say the want an "Australian-style points system" where there is no preference on country of origin but rather only on points allocated based of education, english skills, criminal record etc. But they also say that they will bring down overall immigration numbers (p.20). And they state that immigrants entering will need a clear job offer.    

But that is not how the Australian system (or the Canadian one for that matter) work at all. Points-based Systems work on the principle that a job offer is not contingent for immigrating - those with a job offer and sponsored by their employer have already proven that their skills are needed - the Tory plans seem to impose double requirements - that defeats the entire point behind a points-based system.
Also Points-based systems do not decrease the numbers immigrating - quite the opposite - Australia and Canada have far higher immigration per capita then Britain does. Some 30% of Australias population is born abroad.
My hunch is that they are (or they are banking on voters) confusing it with Australias policy of mandatory offshore detention for asylum seekers - but that has nothing to do with a points-based system.

They also want to stop people with criminal records (p.21) entering and also ban people from entering with EU national ID cards that can be forged easier than passports. But this cannot be enforced de facto. Ireland would still be obliged under EU law to accept EU citizens with criminal records and ID cards. Anyone could then freely pass on into NI and then into GB without any Border Checks.

This is not thought out.
Logged
Coastal Elitist
Tea Party Hater
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,272
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.71, S: -1.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #922 on: November 26, 2019, 01:12:55 am »
« Edited: November 26, 2019, 01:19:46 am by Coastal Elitist »

ICM today had the Tories ahead by 41-34 (the latter is the highest Labour score in any poll for quite a while) Together with the Welsh survey, a modest encouragement for them that things could yet move further.
One thing I noticed about that poll is the regional crosstabs show this vote in the South East
Conservative: 44%
Labour: 36%
Lib Dem: 15%

Seems like Labour is way to high there

I also noticed some weird regional crosstabs in other polls. Like the tories were leading in London in one and Scotland in another. Another one had Labour at 66% in the North East. They seem to be all over the place.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Full Member
***
Posts: 158


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #923 on: November 26, 2019, 04:11:19 am »

I have been reading through the Tory manifesto and there strike me to be some quite severe inconsistencies on immigration policy, perhaps even deliberate ones:

They say the want an "Australian-style points system" where there is no preference on country of origin but rather only on points allocated based of education, english skills, criminal record etc. But they also say that they will bring down overall immigration numbers (p.20). And they state that immigrants entering will need a clear job offer.    

But that is not how the Australian system (or the Canadian one for that matter) work at all. Points-based Systems work on the principle that a job offer is not contingent for immigrating - those with a job offer and sponsored by their employer have already proven that their skills are needed - the Tory plans seem to impose double requirements - that defeats the entire point behind a points-based system.
Also Points-based systems do not decrease the numbers immigrating - quite the opposite - Australia and Canada have far higher immigration per capita then Britain does. Some 30% of Australias population is born abroad.
My hunch is that they are (or they are banking on voters) confusing it with Australias policy of mandatory offshore detention for asylum seekers - but that has nothing to do with a points-based system.

They also want to stop people with criminal records (p.21) entering and also ban people from entering with EU national ID cards that can be forged easier than passports. But this cannot be enforced de facto. Ireland would still be obliged under EU law to accept EU citizens with criminal records and ID cards. Anyone could then freely pass on into NI and then into GB without any Border Checks.

This is not thought out.

You're assuming the aim is a coherent policy. That's not the case (and we essentially already have a points-based system.) The aim is to sound tough on immigration. Whether the policy actually works is not a relevant question as far as the Tories are concerned.

ICM today had the Tories ahead by 41-34 (the latter is the highest Labour score in any poll for quite a while) Together with the Welsh survey, a modest encouragement for them that things could yet move further.
One thing I noticed about that poll is the regional crosstabs show this vote in the South East
Conservative: 44%
Labour: 36%
Lib Dem: 15%

Seems like Labour is way to high there

I also noticed some weird regional crosstabs in other polls. Like the tories were leading in London in one and Scotland in another. Another one had Labour at 66% in the North East. They seem to be all over the place.

Regional subsamples aren't demographically balanced, often have pretty tiny sample sizes and shouldn't be taken seriously. It's safest to ignore them.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 25,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #924 on: November 26, 2019, 05:00:12 am »

Here's what concerns me.

The idea that the 'Jewish community' has a disproportionate amount of influence is an anti-semitic trope and not worthy of time or effort. However the focus on anti-semitism in Labour is so intense as to effectively be disproportionate (and not connected to the communit), certainly in relation to Islamophobic comments/views held and expressed by not only by your garden variety gammon, but by increasingly Modi influenced Hindu nationalists. Or some of the continuing attacks on women, such as the deliberate targeting of Stella Creasy by pro-life hardliners.

This isn't a reflection of any perceived collateral the Jewish community has, but is more a reflection of the motivations of politicians and the press who quite frankly don't give a sh!t about dogwhistle anti-semitism (see Ed Miliband's dad 2015)

I'm also increasingly concerned at how 'online' discourse on the right is. Like the use of the term 'Marxist' being used unironically in a lobster daddy way, the celebration of Boris' moral failings and the over arching theme of trying to 'own' the remainers.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 70 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