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

[lululemonmustdobetter]

May 4, 2023 7:38:57 GMT pete said:

I never received a polling card. Can I still vote?

Yes - you never needed the polling card - its the photo id that's now required.

[crossbat11]

The two Lib Dem candidates standing in the Wychavon District Council Sedgeberrow ward have just received my qualified vote and endorsement. I have no idea who they are, what they look like or what sort of policy platform they espouse, but they had the compelling quality of being the only non-Tory candidates on the ballot paper. Well, there was a Reform UK person standing, who might take a few Tory votes with him, but no Labour candidates. Last time I voted Lib Dem was in the 2019 Euro elections. And look where that got me.

Fascinatingly, as voter photo ID, I took with me my late father's bus pass. The photo pays a passing resemblance and did the trick. The polling station officials were half asleep through inactivity. So, Dad, I've cast a proxy vote for you. Sorry it was Lib Dem, but there you go.

And we struck a blow for democracy too. My old man didn't fight in the war for Tory governments to take away...................... (cont on page 94)

[neilj]

May 4, 2023 9:09:01 GMT crossbat11 said:

The two Lib Dem candidates standing in the Wychavon District Council Sedgeberrow ward have just received my qualified vote and endorsement. I have no idea who they are, what they look like or what sort of policy platform they espouse, but they had the compelling quality of being the only non-Tory candidates on the ballot paper. Well, there was a Reform UK person standing, who might take a few Tory votes with him, but no Labour candidates. Last time I voted Lib Dem was in the 2019 Euro elections. And look where that got me.

Fascinatingly, as voter photo ID, I took with me my late father's bus pass. The photo pays a passing resemblance and did the trick. The polling station officials were half asleep through inactivity. So, Dad, I've cast a proxy vote for you. Sorry it was Lib Dem, but there you go.

And we struck a blow for democracy too. My old man didn't fight in the war for Tory governments to take away...................... (cont on page 94)

😀

[James E]

May 4, 2023 8:34:37 GMT graham said:

I suspect that in 2015 Labour picked up supprt from 2010 LDs whilst losing former supporters to UKIP. Cameron stemmed the likely flow of 2010 Tory votes to UKIP with his Brexit Referendum promise - and also picked up quite a few 2010 LD votes.

There is a wealth of polling evidence from 2015 as to how voters moved - so rather than guessing or 'suspecting' it's best to refer to that.

As I have mentioned before, Tory voters from 2010 were far more likely to switch to UKIP at GE2015 (15% of them) than the 6% of Lab 2010 voters who were found to have done so. It is impossible to tell how voters moved from their position in mid parliament, but generally the Con2010 cross beaks show high levels of switching to UKIP and a lot to 'Don't Know'. Lab made most of their gains from the LDs - and also from having lower levels of their 2010 supporters answering 'Don't Know'.

I don't think that Cameron 'stemmed the likely flow' of Con>UKIP switching. The Con>UKIP crossbreaks were around 12% at Labour's polling peak in mid 2012, but were somewhat higher (15%) in May 2015. 

As for the 2010 LD voters, YouGov record these as splitting in all directions: 29% stuck with the LDs, 29% to Lab, 16% to Con and 10% to UKIP.

[domjg]

May 4, 2023 9:10:52 GMT neilj said:

May 4, 2023 9:09:01 GMT crossbat11 said:

The two Lib Dem candidates standing in the Wychavon District Council Sedgeberrow ward have just received my qualified vote and endorsement. I have no idea who they are, what they look like or what sort of policy platform they espouse, but they had the compelling quality of being the only non-Tory candidates on the ballot paper. Well, there was a Reform UK person standing, who might take a few Tory votes with him, but no Labour candidates. Last time I voted Lib Dem was in the 2019 Euro elections. And look where that got me.

Fascinatingly, as voter photo ID, I took with me my late father's bus pass. The photo pays a passing resemblance and did the trick. The polling station officials were half asleep through inactivity. So, Dad, I've cast a proxy vote for you. Sorry it was Lib Dem, but there you go.

And we struck a blow for democracy too. My old man didn't fight in the war for Tory governments to take away...................... (cont on page 94)

😀

I'm going to use my driving licence which has a photo so badly shot and so old that if I was shown it I wouldn't recognise it.. A tiny act of resistance. I do intend (nicely) to let them know exactly what I think of this requirement however and will initially refuse to show it (for about 10 seconds..) Good to see you again Mr Crossbat btw

[johntel]

I voted for 2 Lib Dem and 1 Labour.

This one-off opportunity to vote for multiple candidates may highlight how much hidden support there could be for Labour in a Lib Dem/Tory area where normally a Labour vote would be wasted and hence show how similar Surrey areas could go at the GE.

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

May 4, 2023 9:18:44 GMT James E said:

May 4, 2023 8:34:37 GMT graham said:

I suspect that in 2015 Labour picked up supprt from 2010 LDs whilst losing former supporters to UKIP. Cameron stemmed the likely flow of 2010 Tory votes to UKIP with his Brexit Referendum promise - and also picked up quite a few 2010 LD votes.

There is a wealth of polling evidence from 2015 as to how voters moved - so rather than guessing or 'suspecting' it's best to refer to that.

As I have mentioned before, Tory voters from 2010 were far more likely to switch to UKIP at GE2015 (15% of them) than the 6% of Lab 2010 voters who were found to have done so. It is impossible to tell how voters moved from their position in mid parliament…

No James, if something is possible, but you don’t currently have enough evidence to gauge whether it’s happening or not, it’s not necessarily rational to dismiss the possibility just because you can’t currently prove it one way or another. 

You might not necessarily be able to prove up front that someone would definitely get run over the next time they walked across a road blindfolded, but that doesn’t mean it’s rational for them to ignore the possibility.

comsidering possibilities you can’t currently prove is a survival trait. (But that’s enough about Covid…)

[alec]

Danny - "I checked zoe for you, and they are on about 50,000 new cases a day."

Ah - you must have looked at the other Zoe. The real Zoe has latest cases at 70,000 a day and rising. I think you've got confused with the denialist Zoe.

I've been looking at the 2,300 excess deaths for the latest available week. As with the rest of the world, the death toll steadily mounts, and we're now down to 'the parrot ate my homework' level of excuses in terms of those claiming that covid can't be having any bad effects because it's actually good for you to be always sick. If you want to call us realists doomsters, go ahead - it's water off a duck's back, but it will be fun reading all this back when the penny finnaly drops.

Daft as a brush Danny, but I suspect you always will be on this.

[steve]

pjw1961
Dacorum commence the count at 10pm tonight.

[James E]

May 4, 2023 9:31:39 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

May 4, 2023 9:18:44 GMT James E said:

There is a wealth of polling evidence from 2015 as to how voters moved - so rather than guessing or 'suspecting' it's best to refer to that.

As I have mentioned before, Tory voters from 2010 were far more likely to switch to UKIP at GE2015 (15% of them) than the 6% of Lab 2010 voters who were found to have done so. It is impossible to tell how voters moved from their position in mid parliament…

No James, if something is possible, but you don’t currently have enough evidence to gauge whether it’s happening or not, it’s not necessarily rational to dismiss the possibility just because you can’t currently prove it one way or another. 

You might not necessarily be able to prove up front that someone would definitely get run over the next time they walked across a road blindfolded, but that doesn’t mean it’s rational for them to ignore the possibility.

comsidering possibilities you can’t currently prove is a survival trait. (But that’s enough about Covid…)

I'm not 'dismissing' your theory, but I am saying that it is not evidenced. And as polling organisations do not have a record of their respondents' individual VI from the middle of the 2010-15 parliament, there is little-to-no likelyhood of that evidence ever becoming available to test your Con>Lab>UKIP theory. 

My approach is always to start by looking at the available polling evidence and to see what fits with the evidence, rather than speculating as to where the bounds of possibility lie.

[steve]

alec
"I have been quite surprised that it's been the tabloid press that has covered covid more in recent months"
Why
Clickbait is their modus operandi.

[wb61]

May 4, 2023 10:06:14 GMT steve said:

pjw1961
Dacorum commence the count at 10pm tonight.

Are you going to publish the transcript of your winner's speech? 

[domjg]

The polling station staff appeared delighted when I expressed my opposition to voter id and gave me a piece of paper (of which they had a pile) with details on how to express those concerns, to the dept for 'levelling up' of all things. The guy said he shared my concerns and said many people had (this is a small Oxfordshire village).

[steve]

Lib dems come in all shapes and sizes

I have to say I've lost about three stone and grown back some hair since the photo was taken and I'm off the meds!

[shevii]

May 4, 2023 9:18:44 GMT James E said:

May 4, 2023 8:34:37 GMT graham said:

There is a wealth of polling evidence from 2015 as to how voters moved - so rather than guessing or 'suspecting' it's best to refer to that.

As I have mentioned before, Tory voters from 2010 were far more likely to switch to UKIP at GE2015 (15% of them) than the 6% of Lab 2010 voters who were found to have done so. It is impossible to tell how voters moved from their position in mid parliament, but generally the Con2010 cross beaks show high levels of switching to UKIP and a lot to 'Don't Know'. Lab made most of their gains from the LDs - and also from having lower levels of their 2010 supporters answering 'Don't Know'.

I don't think that Cameron 'stemmed the likely flow' of Con>UKIP switching. The Con>UKIP crossbreaks were around 12% at Labour's polling peak in mid 2012, but were somewhat higher (15%) in May 2015. 

As for the 2010 LD voters, YouGov record these as splitting in all directions: 29% stuck with the LDs, 29% to Lab, 16% to Con and 10% to UKIP.

Appreciate this analysis. I think expectations were that with the 23% LD vote in 2010, Lab didn't have to pick that much of it up to form a government, but as it turned out the advantages of the LD collapse were not as high as expected.

One thing worth adding is that the relative turnouts would have an impact as well rather than just the movements between parties.  If Lab or Con voters didn't bother to vote then this changes the importance of who switched votes between parties.  You mentioned that in your first paragraph a little bit but that's probably the biggest threat to both Tories and Labour at the next election that some of their traditional supporters don't vote.

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

May 4, 2023 10:09:45 GMT James E said:

May 4, 2023 9:31:39 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

No James, if something is possible, but you don’t currently have enough evidence to gauge whether it’s happening or not, it’s not necessarily rational to dismiss the possibility just because you can’t currently prove it one way or another. 

You might not necessarily be able to prove up front that someone would definitely get run over the next time they walked across a road blindfolded, but that doesn’t mean it’s rational for them to ignore the possibility.

comsidering possibilities you can’t currently prove is a survival trait. (But that’s enough about Covid…)

I'm not 'dismissing' your theory, but I am saying that it is not evidenced. And as polling organisations do not have a record of their respondents' individual VI from the middle of the 2010-15 parliament, there is little-to-no likelyhood of that evidence ever becoming available to test your Con>Lab>UKIP theory. 

My approach is always to start by looking at the available polling evidence and to see what fits with the evidence, rather than speculating as to where the bounds of possibility lie.

There isn’t a problem with starting with what you have, I just pointed out the limitations of it. Once you have exhausted the evidence, you are then left with considering what there isn’t as much evidence for. Just as we do with much else. (Including Covid…)

And it’s not like I was proposing something preposterous. It would be quite something to assume that none of the Labour lead went to UKIP post-2012. 

Doesn’t seem like you are really challenging my point or denying the possibility. For some reason you seem to have issues with me expressing it. 

[wb61]

Last time I was a candidate (1995) I seem to remember I did not stop all day and slept until about 12 the following day.

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

May 4, 2023 10:41:30 GMT wb61 said:

Last time I was a candidate (1995) I seem to remember I did not stop all day and slept until about 12 the following day.

Did you win?

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

May 4, 2023 10:10:32 GMT steve said:

alec
"I have been quite surprised that it's been the tabloid press that has covered covid more in recent months"
Why
Clickbait is their modus operandi.

I click on a lot of Alec’s links…

😮

[John Chanin]

May 4, 2023 8:48:39 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

May 4, 2023 7:38:57 GMT pete said:

I never received a polling card. Can I still vote?

Yes - you never needed the polling card - its the photo id that's now required.

However are you sure you are on the register? That's often the reason why you don't get a polling card.

[wb61]

May 4, 2023 10:43:10 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

May 4, 2023 10:41:30 GMT wb61 said:

Last time I was a candidate (1995) I seem to remember I did not stop all day and slept until about 12 the following day.

Did you win?

Not even close (mind you with FPTP that doesn't really matter).

[Deleted]

May 4, 2023 8:48:03 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Sorry to burst the bubble but there are "RoC" alternatives in this LE (and all previous LEs).

RoC is the wrong label but "ABCON who are not LAB, LDEM or Green" and noting that few RUK, UKIP, etc candidates are standing in most places leaves the Arch-NIMBY options of various Inds and RAs who fish from a similar pond to the kind of people who vote CON in GEs. IE some CON for GE will vote Arch-NIMBY in an LE (and some will vote Green (also Arch-NIMBY but with tree+flower planting plans) as well). Also obviously a lot of people who don't bother with LEs as we can see in turnout %s, although that does likely hurt LAB% (and in %s help LDEM)

As per various folks 'forecasts' the CON might actually win back some council wards from the Arch-NIMBYs - complex reasoning explained before. Simples version being that Arch-NIMBY promises can mean powers are taken away from councils and LAs end up getting more of the "wrong houses" built in their area. So having tried Arch-NIMBY some folks might well revert to CON.

Of course everyone will over analyse the results and try to make a prediction for a GE still probably 18mths away but the LoC dominance on this board does lean towards some very simplistic assumptions. 

* EG Uttlesford District Council:
www.bishopsstortfordindependent.co.uk/news/government-confirms-special-measures-for-uttlesford-planners-9266940/

Spoilsport-they are so excited in their bubble.

Interesting point about Indys. Our  Parish Council Leader is standing in the DC election as an Indy against a Con. He is a millionaire-dont know how he votes in a GE. When we lived in Cornwall a great friend who was a long time LD councillor always referred to his Independents  as "ConDependendents"

Yes-turnout is a big difference with GEs. My wife hasnt got her Driving Licence just now and I know nothing of local politics so we won't vote today.

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

May 4, 2023 10:48:17 GMT wb61 said:

May 4, 2023 10:43:10 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Did you win?

Not even close (mind you with FPTP that doesn't really matter).

Glad you did it? I imagine one might learn quite a lot for starters…

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

May 4, 2023 10:18:55 GMT steve said:

Lib dems come in all shapes and sizes

I have to say I've lost about three stone and grown back some hair since the photo was taken and I'm off the meds!


View Attachment

Did any of them vote Lib Dem in 2010? 

[alec]

steve - to be fair, for the most part the tabloid coverage has been rather sensible. The Express was a bit OTT regarding the latest variant (as ever, these are unlikely at present to cause huge waves, but instead just provide a bit of an uptick and maintain the permanent high baseline) but the Mirror and Sun coverage of various covid related topics has actually been quite sober and sensible of late, as far as I've seen. They have simply detailed some of the serious impacts being felt, without suggesting the world is about to end, which is pretty much what the rest of us realists have been saying too.

It's a weapon used by the denialists to claim anyone pointing out the problems in our current pandemic situation is somehow a doom-monger or an extremist. I've found it odd, being labeled as such for merely suggesting that getting repeatedly sick isn't the brightest of approaches, for individuals or for society. Whereas those who claim we need repeated illness in order to be well seem to be described as moderates.

We've gone wrong somewhere.

[James E]

RE General Election 2015.

Here's a couple of YouGov polls from Feb 2013 and Dec 2012 with the Labour lead at 14/15 point - so the peak of what Labour achieved under Ed Milliband.

cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/amy2lnthes/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-040213-Trackers-EU.pdf
cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/f9ncl9h13g/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-041212.pdf

The 2010Con VI (after DKs) divides:

Con 74% / 77%
UKIP 15% / 16%
Lab 9% / 5%
LD 2% / 2%

So it must be clear that Milliband never achieved a great deal of Con>Lab movement. The high Lab VI rested on gains from the LDs, as well as Con losses to UKIP. And of course there are more ConDKs than Lab DKs. An ICM (or Opinium style) reversion of these would knock about 3 points off that 15% Lab lead.

But in any case, the average labour lead was never 15% - but more like 11%. Once you allow for the reversion of the DKs and the large scale of the GE2015 polling error (a 3% Lab>Con swing), it's valid to ask how far ahead Labour really were at the time - as opposed to what the polling headline figures said. I would suggest that is was probably only really by 4-5%.

[wb61]

May 4, 2023 10:57:31 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

May 4, 2023 10:48:17 GMT wb61 said:

Not even close (mind you with FPTP that doesn't really matter).

Glad you did it? I imagine one might learn quite a lot for starters…

Yes: before this I wanted to be an MP I learnt a number of things, mostly about me, and it made it clear to me that there was no prospect of me becoming an MP: (1) I am not able to dissemble my views and therefore unable to nuance responses to fit an audience (2) Whilst I can change my views based on evidence and changed circumstances I am not able to do so to fit with party stances as they change (3) I am unable to avoid giving a straight answer to a straight question, which led to me having to retreat up a garden path at speed on one occasion (4) I spent far too long on doorsteps attempting to convert the unconvertible with evidence, I might have already explained I now believe that evidence doesn't affect these stances its mostly a matter of aesthetics.  

[graham]

May 4, 2023 11:04:06 GMT James E said:

RE General Election 2015.

Here's a couple of YouGov polls from Feb 2013 and Dec 2012 with the Labour lead at 14/15 point - so the peak of what Labour achieved under Ed Milliband.

cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/amy2lnthes/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-040213-Trackers-EU.pdf
cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/f9ncl9h13g/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-041212.pdf

The 2010Con VI (after DKs) divides:

Con 74% / 77%
UKIP 15% / 16%
Lab 9% / 5%
LD 2% / 2%

So it must be clear that Milliband never achieved a great deal of Con>Lab movement. The high Lab VI rested on gains from the LDs, as well as Con losses to UKIP. And of course there are more ConDKs than Lab DKs. An ICM (or Opinium style) reversion of these would knock about 3 points off that 15% Lab lead.

But in any case, the average labour lead was never 15% - but more like 11%. Once you allow for the reversion of the DKs and the large scale of the GE2015 polling error (a 3% Lab>Con swing), it's valid to ask how far ahead Labour really were at the time - as opposed to what the polling headline figures said. I would suggest that is was probably only really by 4-5%.

But a fair chunk of the 2010 Labour vote deserted the party in 2015 - and not just in Scotland. Where did those votes go?

[patrickbrian]

Just voted

I was struck by how archaic the process is - pencil and a list then shove it in a box to be counted by hand! I don't have much problem with photo id myself, but what would be the problem about voting (in a booth) digitally, then we'd know the result as soon as polling closed. Is there some reason I'm not aware of?

Down here we have something called "The Heritage Party". They sent me a leaflet, which made Mussolini seem like a lib dem. Main appeal seems to be the conspiracy theory vote (esp 5G).  No Reform  or other right wing grouplets though.

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

May 4, 2023 11:04:06 GMT James E said:

RE General Election 2015.

Here's a couple of YouGov polls from Feb 2013 and Dec 2012 with the Labour lead at 14/15 point - so the peak of what Labour achieved under Ed Milliband.

cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/amy2lnthes/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-040213-Trackers-EU.pdf
cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/f9ncl9h13g/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-041212.pdf

The 2010Con VI (after DKs) divides:

Con 74% / 77%
UKIP 15% / 16%
Lab 9% / 5%
LD 2% / 2%

So it must be clear that Milliband never achieved a great deal of Con>Lab movement. The high Lab VI rested on gains from the LDs, as well as Con losses to UKIP. And of course there are more ConDKs than Lab DKs. An ICM (or Opinium style) reversion of these would knock about 3 points off that 15% Lab lead.

But in any case, the average labour lead was never 15% - but more like 11%. Once you allow for the reversion of the DKs and the large scale of the GE2015 polling error (a 3% Lab>Con swing), it's valid to ask how far ahead Labour really were at the time - as opposed to what the polling headline figures said. I would suggest that is was probably only really by 4-5%.

So given how in the last couple of years Labour’s polling fell while UKUP’s rose, and Tories and Lib Dem’s stayed relatively flat, where do you think UKIP votes came from in that period?