25 May 2024 : LAB: 44% / CON: 22% / REF 14% / LDM 9%

[pjw1961]

I read the Rob Hayward article in the Guardian and two things lept out at me - firstly that his criticism was really aimed at pollsters who don't make a significant adjustment to reallocate "don't knows" back to their 2019 vote - so Opinium for example with their 14 point Labour lead are more likely to be right than the 20+ point leads.

Secondly, one of the "polling industry experts" made the point that what is being debated is the difference between a UK 1997 landslide type result or a Canada 1993 wipe-out. I have plumped in my prediction for something close to 1997 rather than the wipe-out, but none of the polling to date is pointing to anything other than a Labour government.

[shevii]

Michael crick via tomorrows mp's twitter account reporting that with the NEC running final Labour selections there will be 5 candidates for safe or very winnable seats coming from... members of the NEC!

[pjw1961]

May 28, 2024 7:12:04 GMT Danny said:

Seems the scandal over Diane Abbot has resurfaced. It seems the investigation into her behaviour was completed last december and she attended an antisemitism awareness course as required. However no decision has been made on whether to return to her the party whip. This is now rather urgent whether she is to be the local labour candidate, or not.

Labour person interviewed on R4 was asked about this, said he was not involved in the process. When asked persistently whether he had an opinion whether Abbot should resume being whipped, he said he had no opinon. Which is of course absurd.

If true rather undermines Starmer's claim not to be involved in the process, given the leader certainly has a say over who gets/loses the whip. 

The BBC has the story here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8vv4ep92y8o

The leadership is acting appallingly over this issue. 

[Danny]

And the conservative newly announced policy of introducing a quadruple lock for pensioners.

The idea is to guarantee an annual uprating of tax threshold for pensioners whatever is happening to others tax thresholds of the greater of 2.5%, inflation rate, or earnings increase rate.

If it happens, this is a lot more generous to pensioners than how it is being described as a hundred pounds or so giveaway, because it would mean pensioner threshold rising ahead of worker thresholds most or even every year. It would of course most benefit those pensioners with the biggest incomes and not benefit pensioners at all who are reliant on the state pension.

There was some talk here before about the desireability of ensuring tax threshold stayed above state pension level to ensure there wasnt a somewhat absurd situation of giving pension just to tax it back. If that was already in the minds of those devising the tax system, then there might be a case for saying that since these terms are the same as the increase in pension under the triple lock, all this is really saying is that the state will not grant an increased triple lock pension, but then immediately claw it back by not increasing threshold. So although it sounds like a giveaway, its actually only a dressed up technical adjustment to the rules to make sure the existing triple lock stays effective.

[crossbat11]

May 28, 2024 7:20:03 GMT pjw1961 said:

I read the Rob Hayward article in the Guardian and two things lept out at me - firstly that his criticism was really aimed at pollsters who don't make a significant adjustment to reallocate "don't knows" back to their 2019 vote - so Opinium for example with their 14 point Labour lead are more likely to be right than the 20+ point leads.

Secondly, one of the "polling industry experts" made the point that what is being debated is the difference between a UK 1997 landslide type result or a Canada 1993 wipe-out. I have plumped in my prediction for something close to 1997 rather than the wipe-out, but none of the polling to date is pointing to anything other than a Labour government.

Anthony Wells, our one-time guardian and in-house mentor, was heavily quoted in the article too. He made a rather good point as well I felt, suggesting that past assumptions and the reliance on timeworn voting patterns relating to polling respondents declaring themselves as "undecided" could be notoriously shaky in this election. Very few now undecided 2019 Tory voters may return to vote that way again in this election.

If I followed his implied logic, I think he may be basing this possible very low break from undecided to Tory come election day on the fact that Johnson's victory five years ago attracted many voters to the Tory cause who had no past Tory voting habit and very little ingrained party loyalty. They'd voted as a one off in unique political circumstances.

In other words, there is no great magnetic pull calling them home again. They visited maybe only once and are quite happy to shop somewhere else, if not at all, this time around.

On that basis, a pollster like Opinium could, ironically, be undercooking the eventual Labour winning margin.

[Danny]

I always thought there must be two kinds of 'undecided' former voters for a party. Those undecided whether they will go back to that party, and those undecided which alternative party they will chose, but definitely not their previous one. I havnt seen any polling which tried to make this distinction.

[domjg]

May 28, 2024 6:04:50 GMT steve said:

View AttachmentThe new constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted is going to be contested between my party and the Tories, it's a likely win for the Lib Dems.

You could be fooled if you looked at the Tory election pamphlets falling through people's letter boxes that we were contesting the seat against the Greens.

It must be great having such confidence in your party affiliation that you don't mention it.
Congratulations  former Kremlin lobbyist and conservative candidate Nigel Gardener . I've included ours for comparison.
View Attachment

Looks very similar to the one we got, especially the 'family' thing. It's as though for the purposes of constituency level campaigning the tory party has ceased to exist. 

[expatr]

May 28, 2024 7:43:44 GMT Danny said:

I always thought there must be two kinds of 'undecided' former voters for a party. Those undecided whether they will go back to that party, and those undecided which alternative party they will chose, but definitely not their previous one. I havnt seen any polling which tried to make this distinction.

Nice point

[Deleted]

May 28, 2024 6:23:04 GMT John Chanin said:

May 27, 2024 22:39:14 GMT mercian said:

You must still be very ill. You don't normally apologise. 

To apologise for making multiple boring posts is more egregious than actually making them, because it shows that you know you are making multiple boring posts, and don't care if you are wasting other people's time.

Don’t bloody well read them.

[crossbat11]

This is entirely speculative from me here, and based on no insider gleaned knowledge at all, but I wonder if Labour's handling of Dianne Abbott's disciplinary case is the wrong thing being done for the sort of right reason. She is being used, rather like Corbyn has been, as a totemic symbol to voters showing how much Labour has changed as a party.

There is no doubt that these two politicians are hate figures on the right and maybe, derived from craven thoughts, the Labour leadership is throwing them both under the bus through fear of the right using Corbyn and Abbott's undoubted voter repellent attributes again.

The Corbyn antipathy amongst members of the public surprises me less, albeit it is unduly excessive, but I am endlessly shocked at how many voters quote Abbott as a reason why they'd never vote Labour. The media have fanned this excessive loathing but it is there and it is unmistakeable. She frightens horses. Don't really understand why but she attracts mockery and contempt like no other politician I know.

I wonder if Labour have focus-grouped this and decided that readmitting Abbott now, in the midst of a general election campaign, just can't be contemplated?

If so, deeply cynical, but somehow understandable as we get into the predictably below the belt hand to hand electioneering wrestle.

[pjw1961]

May 28, 2024 8:07:53 GMT crossbat11 said:

I wonder if Labour have focus-grouped this and decided that readmitting Abbott now, in the midst of a general election campaign, just can't be contemplated?

If so, deeply cynical, but somehow understandable as we get into the predictably below the belt hand to hand electioneering wrestle.

That doesn't work, as it is clear she could have been readmitted, having taken her prescribed punishment, much earlier this year and long before Sunak called his election. In effect the leadership have been lying about the disciplinary process being ongoing. 

[leftieliberal]

May 27, 2024 21:47:26 GMT pjw1961 said:

"The prime minister announced on Monday night that the party would give a new £100-a-year tax break to pensioners by increasing their personal allowance, as part of his continuing drive to win back older former Conservative voters who are saying they intend to vote for Reform."

They couldn't be more blatant as to which age demographic they are going for.

Not really surprising as they have been hammering pensioners who don't qualify for the reductions in NI. Incidentally, if you go back to pre-Coalition days there was a higher personal allowance for over 65s and (IIRC) an even higher allowance for over 75s. When the Personal Allowances for everyone were increased these were swallowed up in the general Personal Allowance. Even now, if you are married (or in a civil partnership) and one of the couple was born before 6th April 1935 you can still claim Married Couples Allowance. It's easier to let it wither on the vine than court the bad publicity from ending it.

[RAF]

crossbat11

Oh, I think we all know why Abbott faces more vitriol than any other MP in the HoC. It's not merely a left/right issue.

[jib]

Abbott, sent her son to a private school. That one? Good riddance.

[jib]

Just not fair!

Japanese robot solves Rubik's Cube in record time

[steve]

RAF

Ms Abbott received an astonishing 30% of all abusive messages directed at MPs between 2017-21
She is of course not alone, the volume of abuse and violence, with tragic consequences , against MPs has risen substantially since the Brexit campaign and has risen again after the Gaza war commenced.

While I'm sure the threats including death threats against her and her family must be extremely distressing for Ms Abbott and should rightly be condemned its primarily been written threats with no subsequent action.
Threats against female mps aren't confined to Westminster.

The Jo Cox Civility Commission highlighted research which found 90% of female members of the Scottish Parliament had feared for their safety, and almost 43% of Welsh MPs and Senedd members had received a death threat.

When it comes to actual physical acts of violence rather than threats there isn't a significant difference in relation to gender or ethnicity.


Racist dicks tend to confine their abuse to the perceived safety of a key board.

[steve]

"Just not fair!

Japanese robot solves Rubik's Cube in record time"

Maybe you could see if it could make Brexit work!

[leftieliberal]

May 28, 2024 8:49:59 GMT jib said:

Abbott, sent her son to a private school. That one? Good riddance.

I don't think that hypocrisy is a good reason for kicking someone out. If we did, the number of MPs surviving would probably be in low double figures. Even though I dislike Abbott personally, if she has really satisfactorily completed her anti-Semitism awareness course and given assurances about her future behaviour I see no reason why she should not be allowed to stand as a Labour candidate in her constituency.

[steve]

"Abbott, sent her son to a private school. That one? Good riddance."


Predictable. Abbott's son is 31, what a shocker that this poster focuses on events that happened decades ago

[crossbat11]

May 28, 2024 8:43:02 GMT RAF said:

crossbat11

Oh, I think we all know why Abbott faces more vitriol than any other MP in the HoC. It's not merely a left/right issue.

Yes, I think I know what you're getting at, and you're no doubt right to detect racist undertones to much of the antipathy she seems to attract.

She is an admirable human being in very many ways, albeit not a politician I've ever particularly admired or rated.

But, of course, I'd like to think in a mature political climate that you can reasonably hold both those views simultaneously. There should be no mutual exclusivity in them.

P S. For what it's worth, I held exactly the same bag of contrary opinions about Corbyn. Saw some personal qualities I quite admired, but didn't much rate him as a politician.

This factor works the other way too. Quite a few Tory politicians who I don't much like personally but whose political gifts I recognise and respect.

[Mark]

re-"shy tories"

I really dont think that this is much of a thing any more.

There may be reluctant tories - those who normally vote conservative, but, are not happy with the government, but, who, when push comes to shove, will vote for them out of habit, or to "stop the other side getting in", despite not being happy.

how many of these there are will likely be the main factor in polls narrowing.

That is separate from "shy tories" - those that fully intend to vote tory but, don't want to admit it.

This was a thing in times past, when you would be approached by a well turned out young lady - or indeed a well turned out young man - in town, where there is human interaction.

Today, will most polls being online, human interaction removed, you are just lookng at a screen, I don't see this as the problem for pollsters it once was.

[Deleted]

Just catching up on 20+ pages of interesting posts after an understandably busy and amazing weekend! 🔴⚪⚽ Apologies for liking any now-ancient posts. No apologies for not liking some of them...

Reflecting on the start of the Tories' campaign with various people over the weekend we seem to agree that they know it is lost and there was even the suggestion that they're trying to do as badly as possible on purpose, at least at the Con central office level. To blame it on Sunak? To enable a right-wing takeover of the party? To be able to blame Labour at the next election for not being able to fix everything with their stonking majority? Who knows.

Agree with CB11 about Abbott. I think she's being used, like Corbyn, to signal to people that the party's changed. He keeps saying it's changed anyway. Edit: he being Starmer.

[steve]

Israel-Gaza war live: Spain to recognise Palestinian state

Bien hecho España, lo correcto.

[Danny]

May 28, 2024 8:07:53 GMT crossbat11 said:

There is no doubt that these two politicians are hate figures on the right and maybe, derived from craven thoughts, the Labour leadership is throwing them both under the bus through fear of the right using Corbyn and Abbott's undoubted voter repellent attributes again.

We recently discussed the likelihood Corbyn will be returned as an independant MP. He evidently has some very voter attractive attributes or this could not be a possibility. This is much more about the labour majority wanting to have a right rather than left inclined party than whether corbyn personally can attract voters, which he undoubtedly can. He became leader because the right tolerated him as a token leftie, the right lost control of the election process and his huge popularity gave him a landslide win as leader. Twice, despite the right making clear they refused to work with him.

I am endlessly shocked at how many voters quote Abbott as a reason why they'd never vote Labour. The media have fanned this excessive loathing but it is there and it is unmistakeable. She frightens horses. Don't really understand why but she attracts mockery and contempt like no other politician I know.

And yet again, if restored as candidate she is likely to have a strong win elected MP, and may also win as an independant. So not quite so loathed as you suggest.

I wonder if Labour have focus-grouped this and decided that readmitting Abbott now, in the midst of a general election campaign, just can't be contemplated?

I wonder if they are trying to wrong foot her, delaying a decision until it is too late for her to stand as an independant?

[athena]

May 28, 2024 9:02:52 GMT leftieliberal said:

May 28, 2024 8:49:59 GMT jib said:

Abbott, sent her son to a private school. That one? Good riddance.

I don't think that hypocrisy is a good reason for kicking someone out.

I'm always slightly puzzled by the accusation that it's hypocritical of leftwing politicians to send their children to private schools. Almost all parents want their child to go to the school that's best for her or him and will do what they reasonably can to make that happen. Most parents don't have the financial means to make much of a choice, but Diane Abbott did and she chose the school she thought would be best for her child.

One could argue that MPs could and should send their children to a local state school and then use their influence to improve that school - all local schools - but I'm not sure that's possible and even if it were, improvement wouldnn't be instantaneous, so the child's happiness and prospects would still be sacrificed to the parent's political ambitions.  Damaging your own child's prospects of happiness to make a political point is despicable and hopefully extremely rare. However politicians do sometimes move address so that their child will qualify for a place in a good school - potentially depriving another child, with parents on a lower income, from benefiting. Save the accusations of hypocrisy for them.

Of course I expect leftie politicians to work to ensure that every child can fulfil his or her potential within the state system, but we're a long way from there and I'm not going to condemn anyone who does the best they can for their own child. I went to my local state school and it was 5 years of hell that I would rather kill myself than go through again, if my parents had had the means to send me elsewhere and declined to do so I would never have forgiven them.

[James E]

May 28, 2024 6:36:49 GMT bardin1 said:

From Numbercruncher politics ( www.ncpolitics.uk/ )

Are the polls exaggerating Labour's lead?  By Matt Singh

Rob Hayward, who called the 1992 polling failure (and whose analyses are always worth paying attention to) has told the Guardian he thinks there is some skew in the polls now, citing the local election results – which were less bad for the Conservatives than might have been expected based on Westminster polls – and the makeup of undecided voters in those polls.
Over the weekend I spoke to Polling UnPacked on precisely this topic, particularly with regard to the local election results, and what I see as the differences between now and 2015 when it comes to potential polling error. The whole post is worth reading, but it quotes the following summary of my thoughts:

I think the key differences [between now and 2015] are that it’s only one thing rather than everything, and in terms of “real votes”, chiefly Westminster by-elections, this looks nothing like 2015 (both Labour and Lib Dems have been getting mid-90s level swings)

I also think there are other explanations for the narrower gap in local elections than you’d expect given the polls. We know for sure that the squeezable votes are much more on the left (or at least, lean Labour over Conservative right now).....

[etc.]

It's interesting to see Rob Heywood and now Matt Singh give their detailed views on which current polls are likely to be closest to the actual result. Both articles say the same as I wrote on 'seats prediction' thread, 4 days ago, albeit in rather fewer words:

"I think that the likely outcome is at the lower end of the current polling range"

As with so much of what is likely to happen in 5 weeks' time, I think that the 1997 precedent is relevant here. While many have been critical of Opinium's adjustment, it seems to have been forgotten that we have had 'adjusted' polls since the early 1990s. ICM adopted a 50% re-allocation of Don't Knows to the party they voted for at the previous election after 1992. And in the Labour landslides it worked well. While the polls generally overstated Labour's lead in 1997 by about 6 points, ICM were broadly accurate as their final 5 polls averaged a 12-point Labour lead.  (leads of 14,17,5,15 and 10)

Opinium's adjustment is actually very similar in effect to what ICM were doing in the 1990s. There is a misconception that all Don't Knows are ALL being re-allocated to the party they voted for in 2019. In fact, the adjustment allocates them according to the VI given by the 'decided' voters of the same party, so that with Con2019 DKs, around 55% go back to Con, 15% to Lab and 20% to Ref (or around those figures). So this adjustment should encompass all types of 'undecided' voter apart from those who end up not voting. I see the latter as the biggest weakness of it: the proportion of 'Don't Knows' who end up not voting is likely to be very much larger than the number who are already telling pollsters that they won't bother voting. because of this, the adjustment may be a bit overdone, but on the other hand the Conservatives are still fairly likely to recover a few points from a falling Reform UK VI. 

[Danny]

May 28, 2024 8:49:59 GMT jib said:

Abbott, sent her son to a private school. That one? Good riddance.

If you know the state schools are bad, if you know your child will do better if attending a private school, if you can afford to send them.. What kind of a terrible parent would you be if you did NOT send them to that private school?

Why would it be right to harm your child just because you are a politician?

[graham]

May 28, 2024 9:40:05 GMT steve said:

Israel-Gaza war live: Spain to recognise Palestinian state

Bien hecho España, lo correcto.

Surely that happened a week ago on the same day Norway and Ireland announced recognition of Palestine.

[graham]

May 28, 2024 9:48:15 GMT James E said:

May 28, 2024 6:36:49 GMT bardin1 said:

From Numbercruncher politics ( www.ncpolitics.uk/ )

Are the polls exaggerating Labour's lead?  By Matt Singh

Rob Hayward, who called the 1992 polling failure (and whose analyses are always worth paying attention to) has told the Guardian he thinks there is some skew in the polls now, citing the local election results – which were less bad for the Conservatives than might have been expected based on Westminster polls – and the makeup of undecided voters in those polls.
Over the weekend I spoke to Polling UnPacked on precisely this topic, particularly with regard to the local election results, and what I see as the differences between now and 2015 when it comes to potential polling error. The whole post is worth reading, but it quotes the following summary of my thoughts:

I think the key differences [between now and 2015] are that it’s only one thing rather than everything, and in terms of “real votes”, chiefly Westminster by-elections, this looks nothing like 2015 (both Labour and Lib Dems have been getting mid-90s level swings)

I also think there are other explanations for the narrower gap in local elections than you’d expect given the polls. We know for sure that the squeezable votes are much more on the left (or at least, lean Labour over Conservative right now).....

[etc.]

It's interesting to see Rob Heywood and now Matt Singh give their detailed views on which current polls are likely to be closest to the actual result. Both articles say the same as I wrote on 'seats prediction' thread, 4 days ago, albeit in rather fewer words:

"I think that the likely outcome is at the lower end of the current polling range"

As with so much of what is likely to happen in 5 weeks' time, I think that the 1997 precedent is relevant here. While many have been critical of Opinium's adjustment, it seems to have been forgotten that we have had 'adjusted' polls since the early 1990s. ICM adopted a 50% re-allocation of Don't Knows to the party they voted for at the previous election after 1992. And in the Labour landslides it worked well. While the polls generally overstated Labour's lead in 1997 by about 6 points, ICM were broadly accurate as their final 4 polls averaged a 12-point Labour lead. 

Opinium's adjustment is actually very similar in effect to what ICM were doing in the 1990s. There is a misconception that all Don't Knows are ALL being re-allocated to the party they voted for in 2019. In fact, the adjustment allocates them according to the VI given by the 'decided' voters of the same party, so that with Con2019 DKs, around 55% go back to Con, 15% to Lab and 20% to Ref (or around those figures). So this adjustment should encompass all types of 'undecided' voter apart from those who end up not voting. I see the latter as the biggest weakness of it: the proportion of 'Don't Knows' who end up not voting is likely to be very much larger than the number who are already telling pollsters that they won't bother voting. because of this, the adjustment may be a bit overdone, but on the other hand the Conservatives are still fairly likely to recover a few points from a falling Reform UK VI. 

ICM was the only pollster to underestimate Labour's lead in 1997. Its final poll recored a 10% lead - compared with the 13% outcome. An outlier from ICM a few days earlier had the Labour lead falling to just 5%.

[Rafwan]

On Corbyn and Abbott, how about this?
In 2019, Labour lost badly because it was so badly split (see my previous post - ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/thread/85/2024-lab-con-ref-ldm?page=7). Corbyn’s inclusive style could not handle the splits - compared with Johnson’s brutal sacking of anyone who got in the way. ‘Strong’ leadership was the order of the day. Recognising this, Starmer decided that the only way Labour could reimpose itself was by acting with similar ‘decisiveness’. The best and most effective way to show this was by sacrificing Corbyn (and anyone else) which he did with a display of ‘ruthlessness’ (which he learned as DPP). Abbott will be allowed back in when, and only when, Starmer is satisfied that his ‘will’ is sufficiently stamped on the party. This is raw politics.

There are clear signs though that Starmer has not jettisoned his own values and commitments - his reassertion of his socialism and Reeves’s unqualified rejection of austerity, for example.

Like all parents, Diane Abbott is free to educate her son in whatever way she sees fit. This deeply personal and family matter is nobody else’s business whatsoever. In her case, the reasons are stark staringly obvious to anyone who cares to own their eyes.