24-April 2023 : LAB 44% / CON 29% / LDEM 11% / GRN 5%

[Rafwan]

May 3, 2023 9:23:19 GMT James E said:

Re Corbyn and the voters who deserted Labour in 2019.

These were the YouGov findings at the time:

yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/23/their-own-words-why-voters-abandoned-labour

The largest reason for not voting Labour again was 'Leadership/Corbyn' with 35%. 19% cited Brexit, two-thirds of them Leavers, and one-third Remainers. 16% cited 'economic competence'.

To some extent, these were constant issues when Corbyn was Labour leader: in 5 years as leader, he never led either May or Johnson in a 'Best PM' poll; and Labour never had a lead on 'which party do you trust on the economy?' or similar questions.

Apparently, only 3% said it was because of 'extremism'. So it was not because Labour was too 'left-wing'?

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

May 3, 2023 12:00:25 GMT James E said:

May 3, 2023 11:24:33 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Yeah by 2019 there had been lots more time for the Blairite and media assault and for Tories, realising they were still behind despite the assault on Corbyn, to switch to BJ and position themselves more to the left. 2017 was the better chance since it caught some by surprise, to see left wing policies do better than expected, and they did wind up polling more than Tories for a while after the election

All Leaders of the Opposition in living memory have leads in some polls - even the likes of William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith (link below) and Michael Foot.

d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-pol-dTel-JulyTracker-030729.pdf

My point was that Corbyn never achieved any lead in the kind of polls that suggest an enderlying lead - such as those on economic trust or 'Best PM'. The same was true for Ed Milliband. 

This was a sustained lead right after the election though*, not mid-term blues when government might be pushing through unpopular policies. And in your particular example, doing the Iraq war as well!! (And Labour were ahead again as the 2019 election approached despite the attacks, seeing the Tories changing leader and tacking left).

And of course, that’s a lead DESPITE the Blairite attacks, resigning en masse etc… hard to have a sustained lead when your own team are shooting you in the back. 

*Indeed as AW pointed out in the data, if it weren’t for the events leading to the pauses in the campaign in 2017, Corbyn was set to do a bit better still.

[shevii]

May 3, 2023 11:24:33 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

May 3, 2023 9:23:19 GMT James E said:

Yeah by 2019 there had been lots more time for the Blairite and media assault and for Tories to switch to BJ and position themselves more to the left. 2017 was the better chance since it caught some by surprise, to see left wing policies do better than expected, and they did wind up polling more than Tories for a while after the election

I think you have made a good comment about the way analysing election results is often done very lazily and made to justify a political viewpoint.  We're all guilty of that to some degree and I try to not overplay the unprecedented 10% vote share Corbyn put on in just 2 years for that reason.

I do find that a lot of the talk of Labour can only win from the centre is just based on one event which was Blair winning in 1997 where Kinnock had lost in 1992.   Not much thought as to whether someone further left leading Labour would also have won after the Tory sell by date had passed (difficult to say as Kinnock was left enough). Also very little attention paid to the motivations of voters for the minor parties like LD & UKIP and where they could end up. I'd be the first to admit that the "political baggage" (including criticisms from within his own party) of having Corbyn made it a more difficult task.  Equally he did enthuse a lot of people back into the Labour fold who felt there was something worth voting for, but on the downside scared the old breed of soft Tories (many remainers in there) to carry on voting Tory which prevented 40% being a winning majority percentage that would have been enough in most elections in the past post 2 party system.

In general there are multiple reasons for a General Election to turn out the way it does, probably the most important being the state of the economy but multiple other factors and especially so during the brexit period.  Corbyn doing so well in 2017 compared to just two years earlier under Miliband perhaps tells us that he was an effective leader up to this point, equally it might just mean that remainers were desperate to try and prevent brexit. 2019, once the pile on against Corbyn was in full flow and especially the pure remain stance from some either going LD or creating an atmosphere that scared Labour brexit voters to not have their brexit taken away from them, became a "disaster" but to say it was the worst election result in 100 years for Labour is a bit simplistic given the other factors (including losing Scotland pre Corbyn and the Red Wall having weakened significantly 1997-2010.

I don't think any Labour leader could have played a hand that could have prevented the result in 2019. Possibly a full on remain stance but I suspect a lot more Red Wall places might have fallen and long term a serious problem for Labour in those areas had this actually stopped brexit.

As you also point out (I think) that obviously if right wingers within the Labour Party are always going to be critical of left wing policies then by default a divided party isn't going to win from the left.  I think this was also true with Miliband that he wanted to be more radical and more anti austerity but was up against a group of Labour MPs who simply did not accept this positioning- less obvious than with Corbyn but still present.

Starmer will probably win in 18 months and to some extent his positioning to not worry Tory voters could be seen as sensible, but equally I can imagine someone further left achieving the same, or a better, victory.  What will be indefensible is if he loses given everything that has happened during this parliament and when there are no mitigating factors like brexit in play.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

May 3, 2023 12:00:25 GMT James E said:

May 3, 2023 11:24:33 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Yeah by 2019 there had been lots more time for the Blairite and media assault and for Tories, realising they were still behind despite the assault on Corbyn, to switch to BJ and position themselves more to the left. 2017 was the better chance since it caught some by surprise, to see left wing policies do better than expected, and they did wind up polling more than Tories for a while after the election

My point was that Corbyn never achieved any lead in the kind of polls that suggest an enderlying lead - such as those on economic trust or 'Best PM'. The same was true for Ed Milliband. 

To say a bit more on this, it’s hard for the opposition to establish big sustained leads of the kind enjoyed by Labour now, or indeed by Labour in the Nineties, unless the government seriously screws up or is hit by something calamitous. 

Blair got lucky with Black Weds, Starmer with partygate and then Truss. Without that, then an opposition leader can really only hope to get more marginal gains, perform better in campaigns etc., whereupon if some on your own team seem to prefer Tories that’s not going to help.

When the left are in with a shout, the right will act against. As with Corbyn, and Foot in the early Eighties. And as Roger Mexico predicted on the old board. 

[steve]

Rafwan
Thanks for your kind words.
Yes it will be our first grandchild as sadly a previous pregnancy didn't work out.
It's a surprise after nearly twenty five years to find the house featuring a nursery again.

[shevii]

Electoral calculus prediction. unfortunately I can't see this on their website (and there's a note inviting you to pay for the information) so I'm not sure where SFL have got the info from. Another one at the lower end of expectations and if the Tories do end anywhere close to this then they will have played a blinder getting the 1,000 seat losses into the news expectations:

[pjw1961]

May 3, 2023 2:02:24 GMT mercian said:

May 3, 2023 1:17:37 GMT pjw1961 said:

No. I would be happy to pay more tax. 

Nothing to stop you making a voluntary donation. Thought not.

You are entirely wrong on that. Revenue and Customs do not take voluntary contributions. If you tried to give them one they would, at most, deduct it off your future tax liability - more likely they would just return it. Their task is to make sure people pay the correct tax. 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

May 3, 2023 12:27:17 GMT shevii said:

May 3, 2023 11:24:33 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Yeah by 2019 there had been lots more time for the Blairite and media assault and for Tories to switch to BJ and position themselves more to the left. 2017 was the better chance since it caught some by surprise, to see left wing policies do better than expected, and they did wind up polling more than Tories for a while after the election

I think you have made a good comment about the way analysing election results is often done very lazily and made to justify a political viewpoint.  We're all guilty of that to some degree and I try to not overplay the unprecedented 10% vote share Corbyn put on in just 2 years for that reason.

I do find that a lot of the talk of Labour can only win from the centre is just based on one event which was Blair winning in 1997 where Kinnock had lost in 1992.   Not much thought as to whether someone further left leading Labour would also have won after the Tory sell by date had passed (difficult to say as Kinnock was left enough). Also very little attention paid to the motivations of voters for the minor parties like LD & UKIP and where they could end up. I'd be the first to admit that the "political baggage" (including criticisms from within his own party) of having Corbyn made it a more difficult task.  Equally he did enthuse a lot of people back into the Labour fold who felt there was something worth voting for, but on the downside scared the old breed of soft Tories (many remainers in there) to carry on voting Tory which prevented 40% being a winning majority percentage that would have been enough in most elections in the past post 2 party system.

In general there are multiple reasons for a General Election to turn out the way it does, probably the most important being the state of the economy but multiple other factors and especially so during the brexit period.  Corbyn doing so well in 2017 compared to just two years earlier under Miliband perhaps tells us that he was an effective leader up to this point, equally it might just mean that remainers were desperate to try and prevent brexit. 2019, once the pile on against Corbyn was in full flow and especially the pure remain stance from some either going LD or creating an atmosphere that scared Labour brexit voters to not have their brexit taken away from them, became a "disaster" but to say it was the worst election result in 100 years for Labour is a bit simplistic given the other factors (including losing Scotland pre Corbyn and the Red Wall having weakened significantly 1997-2010.

I don't think any Labour leader could have played a hand that could have prevented the result in 2019. Possibly a full on remain stance but I suspect a lot more Red Wall places might have fallen and long term a serious problem for Labour in those areas had this actually stopped brexit.

As you also point out (I think) that obviously if right wingers within the Labour Party are always going to be critical of left wing policies then by default a divided party isn't going to win from the left.  I think this was also true with Miliband that he wanted to be more radical and more anti austerity but was up against a group of Labour MPs who simply did not accept this positioning- less obvious than with Corbyn but still present.

Starmer will probably win in 18 months and to some extent his positioning to not worry Tory voters could be seen as sensible, but equally I can imagine someone further left achieving the same, or a better, victory.  What will be indefensible is if he loses given everything that has happened during this parliament and when there are no mitigating factors like brexit in play.

Yes, to try and be fair it’s a case of trying to take everything relevant into account. Thus, people have a point when they say in 2017 Corbyn benefitted from the EU/ Brexit issue dominating, and perhaps that some voters weren’t entirely clear where Labour stood on the matter, unlike in 2019. 

But it tends to be the case oppositions might need some luck to win. Tories had the banking crash in 2008 for example. 

A fair number of Leftie policies poll quite well, but of course it can be different with swing voters in the marginals. Even if we accept the idea that Labour might need to position a bit more to the right to win, then that doesn’t mean they have to be even more right-wing when they get in though. People say Blair was timid, and he might have been about left-wing stuff but he was a lot less timid when it came to doing more right wing stuff he didn't need to do. 

How many were clamouring to privatise more of the NHS, or for an independent central bank, for more workfare, for tuition fees etc.?

[pjw1961]

May 3, 2023 12:36:25 GMT shevii said:

Electoral calculus prediction. unfortunately I can't see this on their website (and there's a note inviting you to pay for the information) so I'm not sure where SFL have got the info from. Another one at the lower end of expectations and if the Tories do end anywhere close to this then they will have played a blinder getting the 1,000 seat losses into the news expectations:

C400 gains for Labour looks reasonable but I think the Conservatives will also lose seats to the Lib Dems, Greens Independents, etc. so I think a higher number of Tory loses than c250. The "1,000 Tory loses" was always spin, given they lost 1,300 last time these seats were contested. 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

May 3, 2023 11:52:51 GMT James E said:

c-a-r-f-r-e-w

"There was indeed, though interestingly the Tories had made about half their gains, and on a steeply rising trend, before the war (which kinda matches with the fall in inflation)"

The graph you have linked suggests that, but the polls from that time do not.

Looking at the polling averages from the time, the Con VI rose by about 4 points in the 4 months before the Faulklands war and by about 14 points in the aftermath.

ConVI Nov/Dec 1981 Av 28%
ConVI Late Feb/Mar 1982 Av 32%
ConVI July/Aug 1982 Av 46%

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1983_United_Kingdom_general_election

Fair enough, I shall have another look James!

EDIT: the only poll just before the war started was the Telegraph on 35%. You have to go back two weeks for one before that, which is a bit lower, and then another two weeks before that for a poll on 34%, which is perhaps why the graph is as it is. 

And the important thing is the gradient. There was a rising gradient in step with the inflation improvement, before Falklands kicked in. Though Falklands may well have contributed subsequently of course. 

[pjw1961]

May 3, 2023 1:38:51 GMT mercian said:

May 2, 2023 20:44:56 GMT pjw1961 said:

I'm staggered that you can identify supporters. I never tell any canvasser who I'm going to vote for and indeed don't always make my mind up until I'm in the polling booth.  I had assumed that most people did the same. Obviously wrong.

Obviously lots of people do the same as you but - shocking as it will be to our RoC, left wing and Scottish nationalist contributors - you do meet people who are happy, enthusiastic even, to tell you they are voting Labour!

Incidentally - and anecdotal only - but while I have met plenty of people this year who were willing to express hostility to Labour and who are very likely Tory voters, I haven't met a single one who was prepared to openly state they were voting Conservative. That is unusual. 

[steve]

pjw1961
I've met a reasonable number happy to say they are supporting lib dems , some Labour and virtually no Tories happy or otherwise.

I suspect given that the predicted order in our ward is Labour Tory then Lib Dems it might have something to do with who you're canvassing for.

[johntel]

The usual obviously garbage prediction from Electoral Calculus!

[neilj]

Good point

[James E]

May 3, 2023 13:04:16 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

May 3, 2023 11:52:51 GMT James E said:

c-a-r-f-r-e-w

"There was indeed, though interestingly the Tories had made about half their gains, and on a steeply rising trend, before the war (which kinda matches with the fall in inflation)"

The graph you have linked suggests that, but the polls from that time do not.

Looking at the polling averages from the time, the Con VI rose by about 4 points in the 4 months before the Faulklands war and by about 14 points in the aftermath.

ConVI Nov/Dec 1981 Av 28%
ConVI Late Feb/Mar 1982 Av 32%
ConVI July/Aug 1982 Av 46%

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1983_United_Kingdom_general_election

Fair enough, I shall have another look James!

EDIT: the only poll just before the war started was the Telegraph on 35%. You have to go back two weeks for one before that, which is a bit lower, and then another two weeks before that for a poll on 34%, which is perhaps why the graph is as it is. 

And the important thing is the gradient. There was a rising gradient in step with the inflation improvement, before Falklands kicked in. Though Falklands may well have contributed of course. 

The polls at the time don't support this idea of a 'steep gradient' at the time when the war started. The Conservative VI in polls around the start of the Fulklands War was:
Five polls in Jan-mid Feb average Con 31%
28 Feb 1982 (Gallup) 34%
15 Mar 1982 (Mori) 31.5%
31 Mar 1982 (Gallup) 35% (+1)
2 Apr War begins
12 Apr 1982 (Mori) 31.5% (0)
14 Apr 1982 (Gallup) 33% (-2)

It is from 21 Apr onwards, with a 36% with Mori, and then 44% on 30 Apr 1982 that there was a steep rise in the Tories' VI. 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

May 3, 2023 13:35:20 GMT James E said:

May 3, 2023 13:04:16 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Fair enough, I shall have another look James!

EDIT: the only poll just before the war started was the Telegraph on 35%. You have to go back two weeks for one before that, which is a bit lower, and then another two weeks before that for a poll on 34%, which is perhaps why the graph is as it is. 

And the important thing is the gradient. There was a rising gradient in step with the inflation improvement, before Falklands kicked in. Though Falklands may well have contributed of course. 

The polls at the time don't support this idea of a 'steep gradient' at the time when the war started. The Conservative VI in polls around the start of the Fulklands War was:
28 Feb 1982 (Gallup) 34%
15 Mar 1982 (Mori) 31.5%
31 Mar 1982 (Gallup) 35% (+1)
2 Apr War begins
12 Apr 1982 (Mori) 31.5% (0)
14 Apr 1982 (Gallup) 33% (-2)

It is from 21 Apr onwards, with a 36% with Mori, and then 44% on 30 Apr 1982 that there was a steep rise in the Tories' VI. 

Jeez James, yes you don’t see much effect over the course of a few weeks, esp. given polling variation. But if you take it from the trough the previous year, with polling in the twenties, then it’s a lot clearer. 

Incidentally, Looking at monthly inflation in the period, it seems to plateau a bit around the time of the war, so the Falklands effect may have filled in.

[James E]

May 3, 2023 13:42:57 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

May 3, 2023 13:35:20 GMT James E said:

( re "the Tories had made about half their gains, and on a steeply rising trend, before the war")

The polls at the time don't support this idea of a 'steep gradient' at the time when the war started. The Conservative VI in polls around the start of the Fulklands War was:
28 Feb 1982 (Gallup) 34%
15 Mar 1982 (Mori) 31.5%
31 Mar 1982 (Gallup) 35% (+1)
2 Apr War begins
12 Apr 1982 (Mori) 31.5% (0)
14 Apr 1982 (Gallup) 33% (-2)

It is from 21 Apr onwards, with a 36% with Mori, and then 44% on 30 Apr 1982 that there was a steep rise in the Tories' VI. 

Jeez James, yes you don’t see much effect over the course of a few weeks, esp. given polling variation. But if you take it from the trough the previous year, with polling in the twenties, then it’s a lot clearer. 

These polls cover 6 weeks and, as I say, look static.If you then look forward 6 weeks to May 1982 the Con VI really did rise steeply in a short time, to an average of 46%.

[leftieliberal]

May 3, 2023 12:36:25 GMT shevii said:

Electoral calculus prediction. unfortunately I can't see this on their website (and there's a note inviting you to pay for the information) so I'm not sure where SFL have got the info from. Another one at the lower end of expectations and if the Tories do end anywhere close to this then they will have played a blinder getting the 1,000 seat losses into the news expectations:

It's here on their web site www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_lepred_20230418.html No payment required.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

May 3, 2023 13:49:10 GMT James E said:

May 3, 2023 13:42:57 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Jeez James, yes you don’t see much effect over the course of a few weeks, esp. given polling variation. But if you take it from the trough the previous year, with polling in the twenties, then it’s a lot clearer. 

These polls cover 6 weeks and, as I say, look static.If you then look forward 6 weeks to May 1982 the Con VI really did rise steeply in a short time, to an average of 46%.

James, you know margin of error can mess with the effect over a shorter period. The longer term trend starting from the previous year is clearer. But anyway, I just posted data showing that the fall in inflation did plateau as the war started before resuming a bit later. So even if it isn’t natural variation it still fits the inflation pattern.

[pjw1961]

May 3, 2023 13:53:16 GMT leftieliberal said:

May 3, 2023 12:36:25 GMT shevii said:

Electoral calculus prediction. unfortunately I can't see this on their website (and there's a note inviting you to pay for the information) so I'm not sure where SFL have got the info from. Another one at the lower end of expectations and if the Tories do end anywhere close to this then they will have played a blinder getting the 1,000 seat losses into the news expectations:

It's here on their web site www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_lepred_20230418.html No payment required.

That is distinctly odd. The 2019 position they quote is different to the one everyone else seems to be working on which has Labour rather than Tories slightly ahead (or at least level). And their figure is a 4% swing to Labour, which would give more than 258 Tory loses by most reckonings. 

[neilj]

Survation local election poll

Seems a tad optimistic to me, but here's hoping

[neilj]

steve will be happy 😊

[shevii]

Also a Survation national poll unless we already had this one?


Green Elects
@green_Elects
·
37m
🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 45% (-1)
CON: 28% (-1)
LDEM: 12% (+4)
GRN: 4% (+1) 🟢
REF: 3% (-2)
SNP: 3% (-1)

via Survation / 24 - 28 April
Chgs w/ 29 March - 2 April.

[shevii]

May 3, 2023 12:59:55 GMT pjw1961 said:

May 3, 2023 12:36:25 GMT shevii said:

C400 gains for Labour looks reasonable but I think the Conservatives will also lose seats to the Lib Dems, Greens Independents, etc. so I think a higher number of Tory loses than c250. The "1,000 Tory loses" was always spin, given they lost 1,300 last time these seats were contested. 

Difficult to be sure as there were a lot of "protest votes" related to brexit last time but I too would expect the smaller parties to do well against the Tories.  I think there is a lot of churn going on comparing 2019 to 2023 even if on paper you would expect swings to be swings wherever they come from.  Labour being higher might lose some Lab remain/anti Corbyn votes that were in the lD or Green columns back in 2019 regardless of the two horse race... maybe.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

May 3, 2023 7:42:13 GMT Danny said:

May 3, 2023 4:53:28 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

And in another example of not taking all variables into account, some liked to credit Thatcher policies for the fall in inflation, but the collapse in oil price that occurred at the same time and which saw inflation fall elsewhere, ushering in a world boom, was global, not down to Thatcher:

Whats worrying about that is that all the claims of policies imposed to end inflation working...were false. So the hike in interest rates now supposedly to end inflation...is rather unlikely to do so.

It seems more likely high interest policy is designed to force poorly paid workers to accept even worse wages, so that well paid workers can continue to get further rises. So the trend of more to the already rich and less to the poor can continue.

This is something I used to try and mention on the old board, though it could get me modded.* The idea that the Thatcherite policies weren’t really about curtailing inflation but about hammering the unions and using unemployment to bear down on wages.

Not my idea, but the idea of Thatcher’s chief economist of the era, Alan Budd:

Budd: “The nightmare I sometimes have, about this whole experience, runs as follows. I was involved in making a number of proposals which were partly at least adopted by the government and put in play by the government. Now, my worry is as follows – that there may have been people making the actual policy decisions, or people behind them or people behind them, who never believed for a moment that this was the correct way to bring down inflation.

They did, however, see that it would be a very, very good way to raise unemployment, and raising unemployment was an extremely desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes — if you like, that what was engineered there in Marxist terms was a crisis of capitalism which re-created a reserve army of labour and has allowed the capitalists to make high profits ever since.

Now again, I would not say I believe that story, but when I really worry about all this, I worry whether that indeed was really what was going on.”


* one of the benefits of this new board being it’s easier to express left wing views.**

** it’s possible not everyone sees this as a benefit!

[Deleted]

May 3, 2023 14:14:57 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

May 3, 2023 7:42:13 GMT Danny said:

* one of the benefits of this new board being it’s easier to express left wing views.**

** it’s possible not everyone sees this as a benefit!

[neilj]

Culture wars may not be the silver bullet the tories think it is...

[pjw1961]

May 3, 2023 14:12:01 GMT shevii said:

May 3, 2023 12:59:55 GMT pjw1961 said:

C400 gains for Labour looks reasonable but I think the Conservatives will also lose seats to the Lib Dems, Greens Independents, etc. so I think a higher number of Tory loses than c250. The "1,000 Tory loses" was always spin, given they lost 1,300 last time these seats were contested. 

Difficult to be sure as there were a lot of "protest votes" related to brexit last time but I too would expect the smaller parties to do well against the Tories.  I think there is a lot of churn going on comparing 2019 to 2023 even if on paper you would expect swings to be swings wherever they come from.  Labour being higher might lose some Lab remain/anti Corbyn votes that were in the lD or Green columns back in 2019 regardless of the two horse race... maybe.

To be honest trying to predict local elections is a mug's game - local factors, differential turnout, weather. Anyone's guess really! 

[pjw1961]

May 3, 2023 14:43:46 GMT neilj said:

Culture wars may not be the silver bullet the tories think it is...

Sunak claimed at PMQs today that you have fewer potholes under a Conservative council - that would get a hollow laugh in these parts. My journey to work consists of dodging craters. 

[steve]

More damage to the economy caused by the brexitanian luddites.


youtu.be/LHHcpf0pM7M