|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 13, 2024 20:40:21 GMT
Labour lead actually up by 1% since last Opinium poll. Sunak on -30% approval rating!!
Fieldwork conducted Wed-Fri last week(Jan 10-12). This is all after the Government announcements on their proposed remedial action to address the Post Office scandal. Some of it completed too after Sunak's announcement of military action in Yemen.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 13, 2024 20:44:59 GMT
Some more granular detail in the latest Opinium poll:-
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 13, 2024 21:01:29 GMT
Looks like we continue to have polldrums as we go into the New Year
Davey will be worried about signs that he's taken a hit personally as a result of being implicated in the Post Office scandal, but it doesn't appear to have had any detrimental effect on his party so far. That will calm some nerves
From a Labour point of view, Starmer might be pleased to see that Sunak and the Tories appear to be getting no immediate credit for either their Post Office announcements or the air strikes on Houhti bases in Yemen.
As for the Tories, Sunak just can't seem to find anything that moves the needle at the moment. Kiev visits, Ukraine arm supply announcements, military action, righting wronged sub postmasters, reduced inflation, return to growth, tax cuts, Saints surging to the top of the Championship, Lee Anderson videos.... ...
😫🤣
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 13, 2024 21:53:51 GMT
I wonder whether Opinium is adjusting the extent of 'swingback' it expects given the time now remaining to a GE. A greater allowance for'Swingback' 18 months before Polling Day would seem reasonable compared with 9 months - on the basis that some of it should already have happened by this point.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 13, 2024 23:08:06 GMT
crossbat11 "What disappoints me a little with Starmer's current position is that he is in a great position to move on this. He's miles ahead and looking on course to win under the existing system.... What a position he's in right now to give Electoral and constitutional reform traction. I'm sad that he's declining to do so." Starmer's strength is that he doesn't make many mistakes - much harder than it looks. To discuss reform now would be a mistake: it would give the Tories an opening they are so desperate to find, as you point out in another post. Besides he doesn't support reform & the Tories would quote the various statements he has made that show that. Polls show that more people are in favour of changing the voting system than retaining the present one: but you can be in favour of something & not consider it a priority. He should say Labour would repeal Voter ID, an obvious piece of gerrymandering -- I quote Mogg -- on the grounds that without the National ID system standard in Euro countries which use this system it's obviously discriminatory. But the polls show that people are broadly in favour. Lower the voting age to 16: it's tinkering, but it might garner cross-party suppport as it benefits most parties but not Tories. You could have vague proposals on reform in a manifesto which would cover the "it wasn't in the manifesto" line. pjw1961 . "the only way we are going to get PR is to have a minority Labour government dependent on the support of smaller, pro-PR parties who demand electoral reform as the price of their support. Unfortunately under FPTP there is no way to vote for that outcome, it can only happen by accident. 2029 perhaps?" Agreed & shevii makes the same point. The problem is as graham says in the end would a Ref endorse reform after voters so decisively rejected AV.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,273
|
Post by steve on Jan 13, 2024 23:33:48 GMT
The only reason that Ed Davey is the single government minister targeted over horizon.
Several Tory MPs in seats where they are being challenged by the Lib Dems have already been highlighting Davey’s role on social media, in the wake of huge public interest in the scandal that saw the Post Office prosecute hundreds of subpostmasters based on evidence from a faulty computer system. Davey was also the first minister to meet with Bates in October 2010. He has said he was lied to “on an industrial scale” by the Post Office.
Conservative MPs Maria Caulfield, Bim Afolami, Steve Brine and John Redwood - all of whom face a Lib Dem threat - are among those to have highlighted the stories about Davey. Daisy Cooper, the Lib Dem deputy leader, said they were using a “historic miscarriage of justice as a political football”.
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Jan 13, 2024 23:53:56 GMT
I wonder whether Opinium is adjusting the extent of 'swingback' it expects given the time now remaining to a GE. A greater allowance for'Swingback' 18 months before Polling Day would seem reasonable compared with 9 months - on the basis that some of it should already have happened by this point. In fact since Christmas the Lab lead has increased slightly. I suspect as more info comes out re the Post Office then the Con vote share will decrease. I firmly believe that it usually takes a couple of weeks for any issue to be fully reflected in the polls.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,399
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 13, 2024 23:58:00 GMT
robbiealive - the short answer to your long post is that the only way we are going to get PR is to have a minority Labour government dependent on the support of smaller, pro-PR parties who demand electoral reform as the price of their support. Unfortunately under FPTP there is no way to vote for that outcome, it can only happen by accident. 2029 perhaps? I doubt very much that PR would gain support at a Referendum - regardless of what polls might say now.Once the complexity of PR became apparent in the course of such a campaign, people would turn away. AV - which I support - was a far simpler concept than PR , yet was heavily defeated. The electorate would be reminded of the paralysis of Hung Parliaments - most recently 2017 - 2019 - and the prospect of that being a permanent ongoing feature of our system would be unlikely to appeal. There is absolutely no need to have a referendum on a voting system. Simply legislate and introduce it. P.s. PR systems are not complex for the voter - slower to count perhaps, but that doesn't affect the public.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Jan 14, 2024 0:20:06 GMT
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Jan 14, 2024 0:31:34 GMT
robbiealive - the short answer to your long post is that the only way we are going to get PR is to have a minority Labour government dependent on the support of smaller, pro-PR parties who demand electoral reform as the price of their support. Unfortunately under FPTP there is no way to vote for that outcome, it can only happen by accident. 2029 perhaps? I doubt very much that PR would gain support at a Referendum - regardless of what polls might say now.Once the complexity of PR became apparent in the course of such a campaign, people would turn away. AV - which I support - was a far simpler concept than PR , yet was heavily defeated. The electorate would be reminded of the paralysis of Hung Parliaments - most recently 2017 - 2019 - and the prospect of that being a permanent ongoing feature of our system would be unlikely to appeal. Agreed on your last full sentence. But they can also be reminded by PR supporters of more recent times - 2019 to now - and how an 80 seat majority can look like equal paralysis.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 14, 2024 0:45:16 GMT
I doubt very much that PR would gain support at a Referendum - regardless of what polls might say now.Once the complexity of PR became apparent in the course of such a campaign, people would turn away. AV - which I support - was a far simpler concept than PR , yet was heavily defeated. The electorate would be reminded of the paralysis of Hung Parliaments - most recently 2017 - 2019 - and the prospect of that being a permanent ongoing feature of our system would be unlikely to appeal. There is absolutely no need to have a referendum on a voting system. Simply legislate and introduce it. P.s. PR systems are not complex for the voter - slower to count perhaps, but that doesn't affect the public. I disagree. When voters are told they have to express preferences for candidates, it will disconcert very many - particularly in the context of multi- member constituencies. AV was difficult to sell - PR will be much more so. As for no referendum being needed, AV has set a precedent which will be difficult to avoid - particularly if PR was not a firm committment at the previous GE.
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on Jan 14, 2024 1:02:24 GMT
I doubt very much that PR would gain support at a Referendum - regardless of what polls might say now.Once the complexity of PR became apparent in the course of such a campaign, people would turn away. AV - which I support - was a far simpler concept than PR , yet was heavily defeated. The electorate would be reminded of the paralysis of Hung Parliaments - most recently 2017 - 2019 - and the prospect of that being a permanent ongoing feature of our system would be unlikely to appeal. There is absolutely no need to have a referendum on a voting system. Simply legislate and introduce it. P.s. PR systems are not complex for the voter - slower to count perhaps, but that doesn't affect the public. They have just changed the system in London or as far as I can recall no reason expressed or discussed. I presume they think their astonishingly lame candidate (and the local candidate for the local GLA member) is given a better chance!
|
|
|
Post by eor on Jan 14, 2024 2:52:43 GMT
Meanwhile, across the pond, the voting starts on Monday night. The early part of the Primary schedule is a bit strange this year, even by US standards. It starts normally enough;
15th Jan - Iowa Caucuses** (both parties) 23rd Jan - New Hampshire Primary (both parties)
but then it gets a bit weird, due to a series of different organisational conflicts***.
3rd Feb - South Carolina Primary (Democrats only) 6th Feb - Nevada Primary (both parties - except the Republicans are boycotting this Primary that is being run by the State and holding Caucuses of their own organisation a couple of days later, which will do the consequential voting for the Presidential candidates) 8th Feb - Nevada Caucuses (Republican only) 24th Feb - South Carolina Primary (Republicans only) 27th Feb - Michigan Primary (both parties - except that whilst the Republicans are taking part in this one they are only allowing it 20% of their voting for Presidential candidates, with the rest happening via Caucuses the following week) 2nd-4th Mar - Republican Caucuses in Michigan, Idaho, Missouri and North Dakota, and a Republican Primary in Washington DC (whether both the Republican voters in DC will turn out remains to be seen) 5th Mar - SUPER TUESDAY - things go back to relative normality with Primaries for both parties in a big swathe of the population including California, Texas, Virginia, Massachusetts, Tennessee and North Carolina
** Caucuses basically being more like selection meetings where people discuss and debate the merits of candidates, albeit happening in many locations across the State simultaneously and the support for each of the various candidates at the conclusion of each meeting being aggregated. Whereas a Primary is a standard secret ballot election. *** States want to be early because it means more relevance and generates a lot more money in advertising, accommodation, hospitality, events etc than merely conducting a vote later on in the process does, especially if the winner is already known by the time their State votes. So the parties have rules to stop States constantly scheduling earlier and earlier votes in a race to be among the first to vote, and this year the Democrats changed their rules (to bring certain States likely to vote heavily for Joe Biden to the front of the queue) whilst the Republicans did not. And specifically in Nevada the Republicans did not accept the State request that they change their method from Caucuses to a Primary.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Jan 14, 2024 3:27:17 GMT
And just to emphasise the extent to which Americans often live in different worlds to each other, in ways well beyond the political - Miami are currently playing Kansas City in the American Football playoffs. Because of inferior regular season results, the game is not being played in Miami (currently 19^C) but in Kansas City (-20^C with a windchill taking it in excess of -30^C).
A Hawaiian-born Miami player was asked what he'd done to prepare himself for tonight's game - he responded that as he'd never in his life even seen -10^C from within a heated building, what could he possibly do to prepare for playing outside in this?
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,031
|
Post by neilj on Jan 14, 2024 5:40:47 GMT
I wonder whether Opinium is adjusting the extent of 'swingback' it expects given the time now remaining to a GE. A greater allowance for'Swingback' 18 months before Polling Day would seem reasonable compared with 9 months - on the basis that some of it should already have happened by this point. They changed their methodology in 2022 and exclude don't knows, in addition they say "Our new methodology ... weights up the 2019 Conservative voters who do give a voting intention to account for the fact that others are undecided. This is the main reason our Labour lead is smaller than it otherwise would have been' It's a reasonable assumption that as we get nearer an election there are less undecided, so their new methodology would have less house effect and start to come back in line with pollsters using more traditional methods. Of course some people don't make up their minds until very near polling day,if not on it, so we can still expect lower labour leads with Opinium
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,273
|
Post by steve on Jan 14, 2024 5:50:59 GMT
eorThe Dolphins lost 26-7 Tua Tagovailoa is still being chipped off the touch line.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,273
|
Post by steve on Jan 14, 2024 5:59:00 GMT
Interesting polling from the U.S., In the UK we are used to older voters backing the Tories and right wing nationalist nonsense like Brexit. On the face of it the wannabe fascist dictator rapist traitor would appear to be the more likely candidate to receive most of his backing amongst the old. But that's not the case in the latest polling the over 65 cohort breaks 65:35 for president Biden. In common with the UK this is the most likely age cohort to vote and is hopeful news in the battle to sustain the U.S. as a functioning democracy. youtu.be/ru4Gejd2O80?si=AMF3Hz2-2GXbbIXP
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,031
|
Post by neilj on Jan 14, 2024 6:00:57 GMT
eorThe Dolphins lost 26-7 In fairness having no hands and legs is a disadvantage...I'll get my coat
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,273
|
Post by steve on Jan 14, 2024 6:25:22 GMT
One last trans Atlantic comment with the expulsion of Santos and Kevin Macarthy resigning with another GOP representative resigning in February the GOP lead will be down to 1 the Santos special election is likely to flip his district blue so tied by March.
However the house ethics committee, who recommended Santos's expulsion is currently investigating slime ball Matt Gaetz basically on sex trafficking allegations, Gaetz is without a doubt the most hated man in congress on both sides of the aisle.
If he goes and it's a real possibility the GOP are the minority party by March. In practical terms what that means is all the ludicrous groundless investigations by the GOP into non existent corruption by Biden cease and because the democrats are actually capable of unified voting the legislation stalled by republican incompetence can get moved.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 14, 2024 8:16:30 GMT
eorThe Dolphins lost 26-7 In fairness having no hands and legs is a disadvantage...I'll get my coat I was trying to work in a reference to Shane Warne's unplayable flipper, but in the end I thought better of it.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 14, 2024 8:29:27 GMT
I doubt very much that PR would gain support at a Referendum - regardless of what polls might say now.Once the complexity of PR became apparent in the course of such a campaign, people would turn away. AV - which I support - was a far simpler concept than PR , yet was heavily defeated. The electorate would be reminded of the paralysis of Hung Parliaments - most recently 2017 - 2019 - and the prospect of that being a permanent ongoing feature of our system would be unlikely to appeal. There is absolutely no need to have a referendum on a voting system. Simply legislate and introduce it. P.s. PR systems are not complex for the voter - slower to count perhaps, but that doesn't affect the public. You're right, but I think it's worth recalling too how the 2011 Referendum on AV was quasi-rigged by Cameron who'd promised Clegg that he would not campaign on either side of the debate yet reneged at the 11th hour (who'd have thought of it of him, hey??) and brought the weight of his PM role to bear on the anti-AV side. The turnout was only 42% and the arguments put were trite, partial and party political. Clegg's supposed ballot box Midas touch deserted him too I expect another referendum on the issue, if we were to have one, to be conducted not only, inevitably, in different circumstances altogether, but in a far more serious and mature way than the unloved farce of 2011. We won't have plonkers and dinosaurs like John Reid and David Blunkett talking cobblers on the subject either, I hope. Progressive politicians? You're having a laugh.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,399
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 14, 2024 8:29:30 GMT
There is absolutely no need to have a referendum on a voting system. Simply legislate and introduce it. P.s. PR systems are not complex for the voter - slower to count perhaps, but that doesn't affect the public. They have just changed the system in London or as far as I can recall no reason expressed or discussed. I presume they think their astonishingly lame candidate (and the local candidate for the local GLA member) is given a better chance! Exactly - all sorts of amendments to electoral systems have been made in the UK without referendums. There is no need to one whatever.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,399
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 14, 2024 8:33:10 GMT
There is absolutely no need to have a referendum on a voting system. Simply legislate and introduce it. P.s. PR systems are not complex for the voter - slower to count perhaps, but that doesn't affect the public. I disagree. When voters are told they have to express preferences for candidates, it will disconcert very many - particularly in the context of multi- member constituencies. AV was difficult to sell - PR will be much more so. As for no referendum being needed, AV has set a precedent which will be difficult to avoid - particularly if PR was not a firm committment at the previous GE. So presumably you think people in Northern Ireland who have no trouble voting under STV are much cleverer than people in England then? Possibly true, although the DUP doesn't provide convincing evidence.
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Jan 14, 2024 8:45:39 GMT
"When voters are told they have to express preferences for candidates, it will disconcert very many - particularly in the context of multi- member constituencies. "
Strange how voters throughout the world and in parts of the UK manage to give preferences when voting without any problems.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,273
|
Post by steve on Jan 14, 2024 9:50:49 GMT
pjw1961 Indeed the largest electorate held under a fair voting system in the UK including the Scottish parliament election is that for the London mayor and assembly The Tories deemed it highly unlikely that they could achieve the 50%+ necessary to win ( Spaffer managed it just) and thought their chances were better under fptp so scrapped it. No referendum no mandate from the electorate in London but done without any significant fuss from Labour incidentally. On the subject of politics trumping best choices Starmer's b.s. Make Brexit work is another example, it's blindingly obvious it's an unachievable aim and not being idiots it's one the Labour government will promptly break. However these types of pointless unachievable promises just make adopting more effective alternatives harder. youtu.be/hSsfzeE_Cro?si=GCj_LYo3Z3P0d7_O
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 14, 2024 10:11:39 GMT
There is absolutely no need to have a referendum on a voting system. Simply legislate and introduce it. P.s. PR systems are not complex for the voter - slower to count perhaps, but that doesn't affect the public. You're right, but I think it's worth recalling too how the 2011 Referendum on AV was quasi-rigged by Cameron who'd promised Clegg that he would not campaign on either side of the debate yet reneged at the 11th hour (who'd have thought of it of him, hey??) and brought the weight of his PM role to bear on the anti-AV side. The turnout was only 42% and the arguments put were trite, partial and party political. Clegg's supposed ballot box Midas touch deserted him too I expect another referendum on the issue, if we were to have one, to be conducted not only, inevitably, in different circumstances altogether, but in a far more serious and mature way than the unloved farce of 2011. We won't have plonkers and dinosaurs like John Reid and David Blunkett talking cobblers on the subject either, I hope. Progressive politicians? You're having a laugh. Wallace Stevens, Sunday Morning "Complacencies of the peignoir, Late Coffee & Oranges in a Sunny Chair."
Not like that on UK Polling Wallace. 1. There was also a strong bit of "stuff the Lib-Dems Ref." In Manchester support for them did not so much collapse as disappear immediately after the 2010 GE. I voted for it but I didnt want to. 2. You talk of dinosaurs, but Labour not overwhelming in their support in 2011! Is Starmer any different. Bit of a disconnect between the membership and the Parl Party. A No-Ref-PR is academic anyway as the Parl Party would never buy it. Would some, most MPs want a No vote, I've no idea. On the other hands things do sometimes happen in a rush in the end, like Brexit.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,031
|
Post by neilj on Jan 14, 2024 10:35:36 GMT
Good to see
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Jan 14, 2024 10:58:25 GMT
LL: "Roy Jenkins' AV+ may be the best compromise, as long as the list component is made up from the losing candidates from each party who polled the highest percentage votes, rather than pre-selected party lists."I heartily agree. For me, retaining the single member constituency is essential if voters are to be able to relate at all to 'their' MP. Hi somerjohn, personally I think single member constituencies have little/negative value. A system based on them is far more prone to Gerrymandering, and in many cases does not produce a representative, even with AV, that all voters can relate to. I've always favoured STV. Part of the the issue with reform, is that while many of us can agree that FPTP is flawed, getting consensus on what to replace it with is incredibly challenging.
|
|
shevii
Member
Posts: 2,148
Member is Online
|
Post by shevii on Jan 14, 2024 11:00:22 GMT
I wonder whether Opinium is adjusting the extent of 'swingback' it expects given the time now remaining to a GE. A greater allowance for'Swingback' 18 months before Polling Day would seem reasonable compared with 9 months - on the basis that some of it should already have happened by this point. I was wondering whether there was any precedent for when a party is doing so badly whether those don't knows swing back in a different way to when a party is doing well- ie no fixed percentage of don't knows moving back to the party they voted for last time. We'd have to go back some way because of the brexit motivations 2015-2019 and both Con and Lab had very bad ratings at one time or another in the brexit period (especially around the Euro Elections where the roof seemed to be falling in and we'd have needed an LD/BXP coalition!) but the logic would be that in a traditional sort of parliament, not had one of those for a while, you'd expect a similar proportion of don't knows to revert back but where one party's vote is collapsing then maybe the don't knows are not so malleable and simply don't know what to do and more likely to skip the vote. We never seem to see much analysis on the don't knows by pollsters drilling down and asking supplementary questions to judge their mood. I know this is difficult and subject to interpretation and if you give them a question like who might you vote for then as likely or not they will still add in the party they voted for last time as a possibility but even so, on a one to one conversation basis, I can pretty much judge who someone will end up voting for.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 14, 2024 11:01:20 GMT
I disagree. When voters are told they have to express preferences for candidates, it will disconcert very many - particularly in the context of multi- member constituencies. AV was difficult to sell - PR will be much more so. As for no referendum being needed, AV has set a precedent which will be difficult to avoid - particularly if PR was not a firm committment at the previous GE. So presumably you think people in Northern Ireland who have no trouble voting under STV are much cleverer than people in England then? Possibly true, although the DUP doesn't provide convincing evidence. There was clear evidence of confusion in Northern Ireland when the system was first introduced. Many voters thought that the numbers placed on ballot papers represented the number of votes awarded to each candidate - rather than a preference. Some people emerged from polling stations saying to party representatives 'I gave you most votes - I gave you 8!' I don't see Labour MPs supporting PR without a Referendum - particularly if it had not been a manifesto committment.
|
|