|
Post by thylacine on Jan 19, 2024 16:25:15 GMT
As ever, UKPR alights on "where it's at" in terms of salient political issues that effect the lives of millions, both here and across the world. I was waiting for ill mannered Yummy Mummy car parkers in their armoured 4x4 monstrosities to finally arrive here for discussion, and thankfully it duly has. What took us so long to identify this increasingly Labour leaning voting demographic to come into our tabloidesque sights, I wonder? Schools and not Golf Club car parks too, I see. Titter, titter, ho hum, tee hee..... Well as you well know, us middle class Yummy Mummy types are a curse on this country. Needlessly terrorising the god fearing older folk, who fought so hard to make our lives better through the sacrifices they made to give us Brexit, we are just downright evil - especially those of us who choose to vote Labour. We make Cruella de Vil look like mother Teresa.Won't be long till some of the esteemed menfolk of UKPR2 arrive to suggest that you remain chained to your kitchen aga ! Where's Jen when you need her.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,063
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jan 19, 2024 16:51:09 GMT
We Think poll, showing an increase in the Labour lead that the large majority of polls have shown since Christmas
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 48% (+3) CON: 23% (=) RFM: 10% (-1) LDM: 9% (-2) GRN: 5% (=) SNP: 3% (=)
Via @wethinkpolling ,
Best PM
🔴 Sir Keir Starmer: 44% (+4) 🔵 Rishi Sunak: 26% (NC) ⚪ Don’t Know: 31% (-3 18-19 Jan. Changes w/ 11-12 Jan.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,063
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jan 19, 2024 16:58:48 GMT
Interesting supplementary question from We Think
We also asked people who said they’d vote Labour in a general election if, on balance, their vote was for Labour’s policies or a vote against the current Tory government...
🔴 59% - a vote for Labour policies 🔵 41% - a vote against Tory Gov
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by steve on Jan 19, 2024 17:23:48 GMT
grahamMy party will be voting against the Rwanda Bill in the lords.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,417
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 19, 2024 17:25:41 GMT
Labour has already shown itself to be spineless by declaring openly that it will not seek to block the Ruanda Bill in the Lords. The Pariament Act has had to be used on several occasions in recent years when the Lords defied the Commons - - the War Crimes Act 1991 - the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 - the Sexual Offences ( Amendment) Act 2000 - the Hunting Act 2004. Why cannot this Rwanda Bill be treated in the same way? I note that three of the four are by the HoL against a Labour government. I read that when Blair took power in 1997 his initial inclination was to leave Lords reform alone completely and he was only persuaded to make the limited reforms he did (such as removing most of the hereditary peers) when shown a chart that demonstrated that the HoL consistently blocked far more laws under Labour governments than Conservative ones.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 19, 2024 17:46:13 GMT
Labour has already shown itself to be spineless by declaring openly that it will not seek to block the Ruanda Bill in the Lords. The Pariament Act has had to be used on several occasions in recent years when the Lords defied the Commons - - the War Crimes Act 1991 - the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 - the Sexual Offences ( Amendment) Act 2000 - the Hunting Act 2004. Why cannot this Rwanda Bill be treated in the same way? I note that three of the four are by the HoL against a Labour government. I read that when Blair took power in 1997 his initial inclination was to leave Lords reform alone completely and he was only persuaded to make the limited reforms he did (such as removing most of the hereditary peers) when shown a chart that demonstrated that the HoL consistently blocked far more laws under Labour governments than Conservative ones. What was it that Oscar Wilde said about fox hunting? "The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable". A pity that Blair did not reform the HoL properly, but to the Upper House's credit they did introduce the House of Lords Appointments Commission as an amendment. Too bad that this has not stopped Blair and the Prime Ministers who followed him from packing the Lords with their cronies to the extent that even the Lords are complaining about the numbers.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 19, 2024 17:54:30 GMT
Interesting supplementary question from We Think We also asked people who said they’d vote Labour in a general election if, on balance, their vote was for Labour’s policies or a vote against the current Tory government... 🔴 59% - a vote for Labour policies 🔵 41% - a vote against Tory Gov I'd be very surprised if that sort of breakdown didn't apply in anticipation of any change of government, whichever party was the incumbent. It's called time for a change and kick the scoundrels out. EDIT : The idea that wild enthusiasm for the opposition is the prime cause of any change of governing party is fantasy. Unpopular incumbents can sometimes get away with it if fear of the alternative trumps the dislike of them. If that fear dissipates, it's time to pack your bags and be gone. You're dead in the water. EDIT +: I don't know if this sort of polling existed in 2010, the last time we had a change of governing party, but I'd be staggered if 59% were voting in favour of, or out of enthusiasm for, Cameron's policy platform. In fact, I'm a little surprised that as many as 59% are voting for Starmer's policies and only 41% are voting on an anti-Tory basis. If you pushed me, I'd have said that the figure would be far more than that.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 19, 2024 18:03:47 GMT
We Think poll, showing an increase in the Labour lead that the large majority of polls have shown since Christmas Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 48% (+3) CON: 23% (=) RFM: 10% (-1) LDM: 9% (-2) GRN: 5% (=) SNP: 3% (=) Via @wethinkpolling , Best PM 🔴 Sir Keir Starmer: 44% (+4) 🔵 Rishi Sunak: 26% (NC) ⚪ Don’t Know: 31% (-3 18-19 Jan. Changes w/ 11-12 Jan. Are they thinking what we're thinking??
|
|
|
Post by James E on Jan 19, 2024 18:11:10 GMT
Not entirely. No one should get excited over individual polls, but the trend over a a long period is a very reliable indicator of the GE outcome. Government leads or small opposition leads (averaging under 7 to 8%) indicate that the government will be re-elected. Consistent large opposition leads (in excess of 8%) indicate a 'change of government' election is coming, although they don't tell you anything about the size of majority. That's what my 'average monthly opposition leads exercise is about. That model predicts the supposedly 'surprise' results in 1970 and 1992 correctly as well as all the more obvious ones. Having a bit of a slow day at work, so did something I've been thinking of doing for a while, looking at Lab and Con positions 9 months prior to a GE and at the start of the campaign proper. My politics professor always used to say people started to make their minds up around 9 months before polling day, primarily based on their own personal economic outlook. pjw1961 , I've used your table, and then taking historical polling data from wikipedia, from the '83 GE onwards. I think these are more relevant as the demographics of the electorates are closer to the one that will vote this year, and it covers a period of relative fluidity in voting patters. For each GE I took an average of 5 polls from around the time of the dissolution, and an average of three polls from 9 months prior to polling day. I've restricted it to Lab and Con, as the key factor in determining who wins/forms the gvt, is the difference in vote share between the two main parties. Average Subsequent 9 months prior to election When election called Final % share Lead election Lab Con Lab Con Lab Con 1992-97 25.8 Opposition 49.6 30.3 51.2 31 43.2 30.7 2019- 14.8 TBC! 44.0 26.0 2005-10 10.0 Opposition 25.6 42.0 30.6 37.8 29.7 36.91987-92 8.8 Govt 42.6 38.3 40.2 38.8 35.2 42.82010-15 6.1 Govt 36.6 34.2 34.2 35.2 31.2 37.8 1979-83 6.0 Govt 29.0 43.5 31.4 48.4 27.6 42.41983-87 5.4 Govt 38.0 33.8 31.6 42.0 30.8 42.21997-01 5.0 Govt 46.0 31.3 49.4 30.6 40.7 31.7 2001-05 2.7 Govt 34.3 31.6 37.6 34.0 36.2 33.2 2017-19 2.4 Govt 33.3 38.0 27.6 37.6 32.1 43.62015-17 0.0 Govt 30.6 39.6 24.6 45.6 41.0 43.5Overall, in 7 out of 10 cases , the Party that has led 9 months prior to polling day has gone on to win. Rather depressingly for Labour, 9 months out they have led 6 times, but only won 3. 4 times they have led at the time of dissolution, but once went on too lose. Whenever the Tories have led six months out or at the start of the campaign, they have won/formed the gvt. What should be of concern for Sunak and the Tories, is that in general there is less variation between their VI % both six months out and at the start of the campaign than that for Labour. The polls seem to be a more accurate indicator of level of Tory support - with the exception of '87, they rarely add more than a couple of % points to where they are 9 months prior to polling day. With the exception of '97, the best they tend to do is gain 4-6%, which would put them in the low 30's come polling day.
The most dramatic gain in VI during a campaign, is the insurgency one run by Corbyn, no one else gets close. But it is likely a total outlier, and unlikely to be repeated. 9 out of 10 times, the party that has led when the election is called, has gone on to win. There is also only one case where a party seems to have actually turned it round during the campaign, and that was '92. If Sunak is to stand a chance, he really needs to close the gap in the next couple of months, but there appears little evidence of this happening.
I genuinely think, given the information we have, its about 90% certain Labour will win with an OM, 9% chance of Labour being the largest party in a hung parliament, and 1% chance of the Tories being the largest party.
Many thanks for this, and apologies for a quibble over your findings, but this is an important point: to evaluate the effect of the campaign period, we need to look at the polls before against the final polls - not the result. So for example in 1992 the polls moved just a little during the campaign period, so it is reasonale to conclude that the Conservatives were really 6-7 points ahead at the start, and had already 'turned around' the Labour leads from earlier in the parliament, which were in any case probably several points lower than the polls were showing.
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Jan 19, 2024 18:14:06 GMT
59% of 48 is 28.32% - pretty much Labours core vote for a long time now.
Even in 1983 they got 28% and 29% in 2010 when time for a change ushered in the Coalition.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,417
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 19, 2024 18:22:30 GMT
I note that three of the four are by the HoL against a Labour government. I read that when Blair took power in 1997 his initial inclination was to leave Lords reform alone completely and he was only persuaded to make the limited reforms he did (such as removing most of the hereditary peers) when shown a chart that demonstrated that the HoL consistently blocked far more laws under Labour governments than Conservative ones. What was it that Oscar Wilde said about fox hunting? "The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable". A pity that Blair did not reform the HoL properly, but to the Upper House's credit they did introduce the House of Lords Appointments Commission as an amendment. Too bad that this has not stopped Blair and the Prime Ministers who followed him from packing the Lords with their cronies to the extent that even the Lords are complaining about the numbers. Blair (357 life peers in 10 years) and Cameron (243 in 6 years) were enthusiastic creators of unelected legislators but Liz Truss deserves some sort of prize for shamelessness. On the back of her 49 days in office she nominated 30 new members of the HoL. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_peer
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 19, 2024 18:37:42 GMT
@fecklessmiser - "Oversized vehicles are an unnecessary* irritant on the majority of other road users.."
I'm waiting for our Danny to explain that it's the roads that are too small.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2024 18:45:40 GMT
@fecklessmiser - "Oversized vehicles are an unnecessary* irritant on the majority of other road users.." I'm waiting for our Danny to explain that it's the roads that are too small. YOUR Danny…
|
|
|
Post by bedknobsandboomstick on Jan 19, 2024 18:59:56 GMT
So it appears that rather than laughing madly in the face of a concerned ex-nurse and then walking off leaving her standing, Sunak laughed mafly at a weak joke someone else made and then walked off leaving her tailing after him as they continued talking.
But this is still a problem for him because this sort of thing has happened before. And i think that's because, regardless of the facts, Sunak is naturally awkward with terrible vibes. People look at him and assume that yes, there is a man who can't even use a hammer properly, or that he could laugh in someone's face. So its going to keep happening.
|
|
graham
Member
Posts: 3,712
Member is Online
|
Post by graham on Jan 19, 2024 19:19:49 GMT
Labour has already shown itself to be spineless by declaring openly that it will not seek to block the Ruanda Bill in the Lords. The Pariament Act has had to be used on several occasions in recent years when the Lords defied the Commons - - the War Crimes Act 1991 - the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 - the Sexual Offences ( Amendment) Act 2000 - the Hunting Act 2004. Why cannot this Rwanda Bill be treated in the same way? I note that three of the four are by the HoL against a Labour government. I read that when Blair took power in 1997 his initial inclination was to leave Lords reform alone completely and he was only persuaded to make the limited reforms he did (such as removing most of the hereditary peers) when shown a chart that demonstrated that the HoL consistently blocked far more laws under Labour governments than Conservative ones. Indeed so. It is not clear why Labour would not follow those precedents given the issue at stake.
|
|
graham
Member
Posts: 3,712
Member is Online
|
Post by graham on Jan 19, 2024 19:24:49 GMT
graham My party will be voting against the Rwanda Bill in the lords. Good for them - I hope that many Labour peers will join them in the lobbies. Frankly I don't understand the 'politics' of Labour's stance here. If a clash between the two Houses prompts Sunak to call the election for May , why would Labour not welcome that?
|
|
|
Post by jen on Jan 19, 2024 19:37:06 GMT
Well as you well know, us middle class Yummy Mummy types are a curse on this country. Needlessly terrorising the god fearing older folk, who fought so hard to make our lives better through the sacrifices they made to give us Brexit, we are just downright evil - especially those of us who choose to vote Labour. We make Cruella de Vil look like mother Teresa. Won't be long till some of the esteemed menfolk of UKPR2 arrive to suggest that you remain chained to your kitchen aga ! Where's Jen when you need her. I can't be arsed. The arguments are fruitless and... they're over... demographics, dear boy, demographics... We just need enough of the bigots and traitors to croak (and we are well on the way) and we can build a happy, prosperous nation. In the meantime Putin's poodles can peddle their fascist shite all they want for all I care (for indeed, it will make the court cases far easier when we come to seize their assets from their heirs).
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Jan 19, 2024 20:34:44 GMT
@fecklessmiser - "Oversized vehicles are an unnecessary* irritant on the majority of other road users.." I'm waiting for our Danny to explain that it's the roads that are too small. And that the first Tesla was seen in Hastings in 1973.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 19, 2024 20:41:40 GMT
We Think poll, showing an increase in the Labour lead that the large majority of polls have shown since Christmas Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 48% (+3) CON: 23% (=) RFM: 10% (-1) LDM: 9% (-2) GRN: 5% (=) SNP: 3% (=) Via @wethinkpolling , Best PM 🔴 Sir Keir Starmer: 44% (+4) 🔵 Rishi Sunak: 26% (NC) ⚪ Don’t Know: 31% (-3 18-19 Jan. Changes w/ 11-12 Jan. Oh dear. Looks like the polls have taken a turn for the worse for some.
|
|
|
Post by jen on Jan 19, 2024 21:19:27 GMT
We Think poll, showing an increase in the Labour lead that the large majority of polls have shown since Christmas Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 48% (+3) CON: 23% (=) RFM: 10% (-1) LDM: 9% (-2) GRN: 5% (=) SNP: 3% (=) Via @wethinkpolling , Best PM 🔴 Sir Keir Starmer: 44% (+4) 🔵 Rishi Sunak: 26% (NC) ⚪ Don’t Know: 31% (-3 18-19 Jan. Changes w/ 11-12 Jan. Oh dear. Looks like the polls have taken a turn for the worse for some. You can deflect all you like. We all know what YOU did. (European superstate? a total joke and yet you double down on it...) And we will never forget and never forgive.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 19, 2024 21:25:21 GMT
]You can deflect all you like. We all know what YOU did. (European superstate? a total joke and yet you double down on it...) And we will never forget and never forgive. Ermmm? I voted in a referendum?
|
|
|
Post by isa on Jan 19, 2024 22:37:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jen on Jan 19, 2024 22:40:23 GMT
]You can deflect all you like. We all know what YOU did. (European superstate? a total joke and yet you double down on it...) And we will never forget and never forgive. Ermmm? I voted in a referendum? You helped spread the lies. You are complicit in Johnson's, Gove's, and Farage's treason. And you still spread the same lies. And you try to deflect from this with your tedious attacks on Steve. It is so obvious. It's almost as if you know you were wrong but can't bring yourself to admit it...
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 19, 2024 22:45:33 GMT
In fact, I'm a little surprised that as many as 59% are voting for Starmer's policies and only 41% are voting on an anti-Tory basis. If you pushed me, I'd have said that the figure would be far more than that. I suspect it must be based on a general feel about what Labour historically stands for in many people's minds - stuff like looking after the poor and the NHS etc.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 19, 2024 22:51:34 GMT
🤣
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by steve on Jan 19, 2024 23:09:11 GMT
All recent polling suggests the Labour party are in deep trouble.
I give it until day three of an incoming Labour government before the Tory client media start blaming them for the disasters of the last 14 years.
Incidentally because of the bizarre nature of first past the post the polls showing the Lib dems on around 9-11% hide the fact that with predictable tactical voting they get to be the official opposition!
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by steve on Jan 19, 2024 23:14:40 GMT
Look over there it's a scapegoat!
|
|
|
Post by isa on Jan 19, 2024 23:15:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 19, 2024 23:23:47 GMT
isaSorry to be enigmatic. It was a comment on some recent weird rants.
|
|
|
Post by jen on Jan 19, 2024 23:35:40 GMT
Demographics, dear boy, demographics...
(had hoped to see interesting information on polling, but hey...)
|
|