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

[Danny]

May 26, 2024 13:13:44 GMT nickpoole said:

May 26, 2024 13:02:06 GMT steve said:

It's tiresome that Labour supporters lack any ambition for what their government might be capable of.

Maybe they could offer a real socialist alternative if the Liberals/Lib Dems/SDP hadn't split the progressive anti-tory vote since the 70s.

Didn't labour split the anti tory vote around 1900?

[James E]

May 25, 2024 21:45:27 GMT steve said:

leftieliberal
If those tactical voting figures were any where near right given the fall in Tory vote share a staggering 70+ Tory held seats would be in play as lib dem gains.

To give an example
Chichester 103rd on the liberal democrat list with the current fall in Tory support of around 20% and a rise of 8% for the lib dems would be too close to call.

Chichester is a good example of a seat which seems to be hard to predict under current polling and with tactical voting.

In 2019, it was Con 58%, LD 21%, Lab 16%.

The conventional wisdom is simply to look at the previous election, or at notional result for changed seats. And the LDs were second, albeit a very distant second. However, it is worth remembering that there have been big movements in Voting Intention since 2019, and polls typically show 30-40% of 2019 LDs switching to Labour and only around 3-4% of 2019 Lab switching to the LDs. So Labour may well be better placed of the two challengers. 

This is reflected in two of the three Models or MRPs that I have looked at . YouGov's is the most promising for the LDs as it shows:
Con 32% (-26), LD 28% (+7), Lab 21% (0).

However, Survation and EC both have the LDs in a distant third. Survation shows:
Con 36% (-22), Lab 31% (+15), LD 18% (-3)

And EC's nowcast is:
Con 27% (-31), Lab 38% (+17), LD 15% (-6).

Of these three, I think Survation is likely to be the most accurate, though their Con VI is a bit higher than I would guess, even in the context of the Tories reviving to around 28-29% nationally. However, as a rider to that, I think Survation's March MRP badly understates the LDs in those seats where they are in close contention. 

One of the reasons for this is the EC finding for the LDs overall performance in their 'Top 63' and their 'next 44' seats. We've discussed this before, but the simple point is that the LDs have an overall polling lead in their 'Top 63' seats, but trail in the 'next 44' where EC found overall shares of Lab 30%, Con 28%, LD 21%.

www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_lib2seats_20240226.html

But to me, the bigger reason to expect that Labour will fare the better of the two challenging parties is the precedent of GE1997. The LDs fared well in seat gains in 1997, but the seats where they improved their overall share of the vote were those where they were in 2nd place from 1992, AND were within 20% of the Conservatives from the previous election, so as to seem the clear challenger. In seats (such as this) where the LDs were in second place, but more than 20% behind, their vote actually fell a little, while Labour's rose by 9 points, much in line with their overall GB performance. 

I've looked into how seats such as this behaved in 1997 - that is seats with a large (20%+) Con majority, LDs in second and Lab 3rd. It looks to me like there is a clear pattern:

Where the LDs were 14 or more points ahead of Labour from the previous election, they generally stayed ahead of Labour (so would have been the better tactical choice). The only major exception to this I have seen was Hastings where Labour moved up from 19 points behind the LDs to 7 ahead, winning the seat in the process. The other exception was Cambs NE, but that seat was seeing a large unwinding of the LDs previous tactical vote as they had held the seat up to 1987. 

However, wherever Labour started out less than 14 points behind the LDs from 1992, they finished ahead of them in every single example I have seen. This is why I think YouGov's modelling of such seats may prove to be wrong: the tactical benefit for the LDs came into play where they were seen as really being in contention, but not in seats where they started in a distant second place. And I think that the '14-point LD/Lab Gap' may provide a useful rule-of-thumb now, given that the overall polling movements seem set to be very similar to 1997 : the Conservatives falling back sharply, Labour up by about 10 points, and the LDs down fractionally. Incidentally, while I have not checked the 1997 results exhaustively, in those which I have analysed of this type ( Con more than 20% ahead, LD 2nd, Lab 3rd), the average 'net improvement' for Lab in relation to the LDs was 15 points, with most being in a range from 10 to 18. 

If similar dynamics can be applied now, it means that the LDs are the better tactical choice in places such as Wimbledon (18% gap to Lab), South Cambridgeshire (26%), Didcot & Wantage (16%), or Woking (just over 14%, but in any case the LDs are less than 20% behind the Tories there, so it isn't 'safe').

On the other hand, Chichester with a 5% 'LD to Lab gap' looks to me likely to now have Labour ahead. And the same is true of seats such as Reigate (3%), St Neots (8%), Chelmsford (8%). 

www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_lib2seats_20240226.html
www.dannydorling.org/wp-content/files/dannydorling_publication_id1318.pdf

[graham]

May 26, 2024 14:18:11 GMT James E said:

May 25, 2024 21:45:27 GMT steve said:

leftieliberal
If those tactical voting figures were any where near right given the fall in Tory vote share a staggering 70+ Tory held seats would be in play as lib dem gains.

To give an example
Chichester 103rd on the liberal democrat list with the current fall in Tory support of around 20% and a rise of 8% for the lib dems would be too close to call.

Chichester is a good example of a seat which seems to be hard to predict under current polling and with tactical voting.

In 2019, it was Con 58%, LD 21%, Lab 16%.

The conventional wisdom is simply to look at the previous election, or at notional result for changed seats. And the LDs were second, albeit a very distant second. However, it is worth remembering that there have been big movements in Voting Intention since 2019, and polls typically show 3-40% of 2019LDs switching to Labour and only around 3-4% of 2019 Lab switching to the LDs. So Labour may well be better placed of the two challengers. 

This is reflected in two of the three Models or MRPs that I have looked at . YouGov's is the most promising for the LDs as it shows:
Con 32% (-26), LD 28% (+7), Lab 21% (0).

However, Survation and EC both have the LDs in a distant third. Survation shows:
Con 36% (-22), Lab 31% (+15), LD 18% (-3)

And EC's nowcast is:
Con 27% (-31), Lab 38% (+17), LD 15% (-6).

Of these three, I think Survation is likely to be the most accurate, though their Con VI is a bit higher than I would guess, even in the context of the Tories reviving to around 28-29% nationally. However, as a rider to that, I think Survation's March MRP badly understates the LDs in those seats where they are in close contention. 

One of the reasons for this is the EC finding for the LDs overall performance in their 'Top 63' and their 'next 44' seats. We've discussed this before, but the simple point is that the LDs have an overall polling lead in their 'Top 63' seats, but trail in the 'next 44' where EC found overall shares of Lab 30%, Con 28%, LD 21%.

www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_lib2seats_20240226.html

But to me, the bigger reason to expect that Labour will fare the better of the two challenging parties is the precedent of GE1997. The LDs fared well in seat gains in 1997, but the seats where they improved their overall share of the vote were those where they were in 2nd place from 1992, AND were within 20% of the Conservatives from the previous election, so as to seem the clear challenger. In seats (such as this) where the LDs were in second place, but more than 20% behind, their vote actually fell a little, while Labour's rose by 9 points, much in line with their overall GB performance. 

I've looked into how seats such as this behaved in 1997 - that is seats with a large (20%+) Con majority, LDs in second and Lab 3rd. It looks to me like there is a clear pattern:

Where the LDs were 14 or more points ahead of Labour from the previous election, they generally stayed ahead of Labour (so would have been the better tactical choice). the only major exception to this I have seen was Hastings where Labour moved up from 19 points behind the LDs to 7 ahead, winning the seat in the process. 

However, wherever Labour started out less than 14 points behind the LDs from 1992, they finished ahead of them. This is why I think YouGov's modelling of such seats may prove to be wrong: the tactical benefit for the LDs came into play where they were seen as really being in contention, but not in seats where they started in a distant second place. And I think that the '14-point LD/Lab Gap' may provide a useful rule-of-thumb now, given that the overall polling movements seem set to be very similar to 1997, with the Conservatives falling back sharply, Labour up by about 10 points, and the LDs down fractionally. Incidentally, while I have not checked the 1997 results exhaustively, in those which I have analysed of this type ( Con more than 20% ahead, LD 2nd, Lab 3rd), the average 'net improvement' for Lab in relation to the LDs was 15 points, with most being in a range from 10 to 18. 

If similar dynamics can be applied now, it means that the LDs are the better tactical choice in places such as Wimbledon (18% gap to Lab), South Cambridgeshire (26%), Didcot & Wantage (16%), or Woking (just over 14%, but in any case the LDs are less than 20% behind the Tories there, so it isn't 'safe').

On the other hand, Chichester with a 5% 'LD to Lab gap' looks to me likely to now have Labour ahead. And the same is true of seats such as Reigate (3%), St Neots (8%), Chelmsford (8%). 

www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_lib2seats_20240226.html
www.dannydorling.org/wp-content/files/dannydorling_publication_id1318.pdf

I disagree re- Wimbledon where Labour was a very clear second  place in 2017 having held the seat 1997 - 2005. Good reason to think the 2019 result was an aberration due to the Brexit and Corbyn factors.Likely to be a three-way contest.

[oldnat]

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

"Jeremy Corbyn wanted to offer up a state bank in his manifesto, but was hard to know if it would get past EU rules. The Scots bank was inaugurated as we left the EU".

Perhaps, he didn't do too much checking? The Scots model was developed by a panel chaired by Anton Muscatelli, which commissioned expert research into state investment banks across the world - including 5 within the EU.

www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/strategy-plan/2018/02/scottish-national-investment-bank-implementation-plan/documents/00532121-pdf/00532121-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/00532121.pdf

[steve]

James E
Thanks for the thoughtful reply I chose Chichester because it was around the 100th on the target list , highly unlikely to be on the lib dem list of gains if it was we'd be in uncharted territory with a 130+ lib dem mps.

The fact that it's now competitive shows the parlous state the Tories find themselves in.

[crossbat11]

What are the non-voting abstainistas making of the policies being advocated by the parties during this election?

On a non-voting basis, which are the ones they are most likely least not to vote for?

[leftieliberal]

May 26, 2024 12:57:44 GMT graham said:

May 26, 2024 12:44:02 GMT leftieliberal said:

Or even to John Major on his soapbox in 1992. I suspect that the cause is that now all those who began their political career with PPE at Oxford, then moved on to being a researcher for an MP, then were selected for a safe seat, have had long enough in parliament to forget that there was once a different way of doing politics. Politicians like Angela Rayner are notable by their rarity.

Harold Wilson and Ted Heath both did PPE at Oxford in the late 1930s. As for John Major's soapbox in 1992, that was really a gimmick in that he only used it once - in the open air whilst campaigning in Luton. Even by 1992 the mass campaign meetings formerly held in the big cities across the country had faded away - and when they happened at all were all-ticket affairs to prevent hecklers etc.It's a great shame because some politicians really did benefit from exchanges with hecklers  - though in 1966 Wilson was hit by a stinkbomb thrown by a schoolboy.

You've missed the point I was making; Wilson and Heath didn't go through the route of being researchers for MPs after their degrees. Heath would have become a barrister had the war not intervened, he served in the armed forces, and after the war was a civil servant in the Ministry of Civil Aviation, before winning the seat of Bexley in 1950. Wilson was first a lecturer in Economic History and during the war was a research assistant to William Beveridge and later a statistician and economist at the Ministry of Fuel and Power before winning his parliamentary seat in 1945. Both of them were exposed to real-life problems before they became MPs, unlike most modern MPs whose life has been entirely within the Westminster bubble.

[pjw1961]

May 26, 2024 14:08:29 GMT Danny said:

May 26, 2024 13:13:44 GMT nickpoole said:

Maybe they could offer a real socialist alternative if the Liberals/Lib Dems/SDP hadn't split the progressive anti-tory vote since the 70s.

Didn't labour split the anti tory vote around 1900?

Largely no, since the Liberals and Labour effectively had an electoral pact pre-WW1. Most Labour seats were mining areas and the parties were rarely in direct competition. It was the enfranchisement of all men in 1917, meaning that working class men could finally vote in significant numbers everywhere, that enabled Labour to strike out on their own. 

[EmCat]

May 26, 2024 14:18:11 GMT James E said:

May 25, 2024 21:45:27 GMT steve said:

leftieliberal
If those tactical voting figures were any where near right given the fall in Tory vote share a staggering 70+ Tory held seats would be in play as lib dem gains.

To give an example
Chichester 103rd on the liberal democrat list with the current fall in Tory support of around 20% and a rise of 8% for the lib dems would be too close to call.

Chichester is a good example of a seat which seems to be hard to predict under current polling and with tactical voting.

In 2019, it was Con 58%, LD 21%, Lab 16%.

So Labour may well be better placed of the two challengers. 

This is reflected in two of the three Models or MRPs that I have looked at . YouGov's is the most promising for the LDs as it shows:
Con 32% (-26), LD 28% (+7), Lab 21% (0).

However, Survation and EC both have the LDs in a distant third. Survation shows:
Con 36% (-22), Lab 31% (+15), LD 18% (-3)

And EC's nowcast is:
Con 27% (-31), Lab 38% (+17), LD 15% (-6).

That reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld's "known knowns" quote:

"as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know"

Known knowns will be those seats where, barring some truly black swan event, the next winner is as close to a dead cert as you can get.

Chichester, as well described above, is clearly a "known unknown"- there are multiple plausible projections with different outcomes.

And while the MRP models tend to get the overall number of seats about right, when trying to pin down which particular seat will become [Green / LD / Lab / SNP ] to make up the overall total, that is more into the "unknown unknown" territory. Though a real "unknown unknown" would be something right out of the blue. Like, oh, National Service being proposed. 

[pjw1961]

In response to James E's post above, an anecdote about Chelmsford that illustrates my caution about relying on polling and discounting the ingrained habits of voters.

In Chelmsford the Lib Dems are very strong at local government level and run the Council, with Labour nowhere. At parliamentary level the vote has been more even, which has repeatedly allowed the Conservatives to hold the seat with a minority of the vote.

I am told by someone who was present at the count for the Essex Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner that Roger Hirst (the Tory) was seriously worried he was going to lose to Labour until the result from Chelmsford came in, where there was a hefty vote for the Liberal Democrats rather than Labour. In the end Hirst won with 126,447 votes to Labour's 116,875 and 52,922 for the Lib Dems. If non-Conservative voters in Chelmsford had wanted to beat Hirst they should logically have voted Labour, and likely an MRP analysis would have suggested they would. But for them voting Lib Dem was an ingrained response, based on their local election preference.

I think the Conservatives have a very good chance of holding Chelmsford on an evenly split Labour/Lib Dem vote; quite possibly a Tory vote as low as 34% will be enough to win. I would also expect the Tories to hold Chichester. South Cambridgeshire should go Lib Dem - Ed Davey was campaigning there today.

[leftieliberal]

May 26, 2024 14:18:11 GMT James E said:

May 25, 2024 21:45:27 GMT steve said:

leftieliberal
If those tactical voting figures were any where near right given the fall in Tory vote share a staggering 70+ Tory held seats would be in play as lib dem gains.

To give an example
Chichester 103rd on the liberal democrat list with the current fall in Tory support of around 20% and a rise of 8% for the lib dems would be too close to call.

Chichester is a good example of a seat which seems to be hard to predict under current polling and with tactical voting.

In 2019, it was Con 58%, LD 21%, Lab 16%.

On the other hand, Chichester with a 5% 'LD to Lab gap' looks to me likely to now have Labour ahead. And the same is true of seats such as Reigate (3%), St Neots (8%), Chelmsford (8%). 

Even though EC is predicting a 75% chance of a Labour victory in Chichester, a 22% chance of the Tories holding on, and a 1% chance of the Lib Dems winning (the same as Reform UK!), there are factors against a Labour victory. They have no local councillors in Chichester, which is run by the Lib Dems, and the seat is on their list of non-battleground seats so any of their activists will have been asked to go to other more-winnable seats. If Labour win, it will only be because of the national swing, because I suspect their campaigning in Chichester will be fairly minimal.

I would not be surprised if the combined Lib Dem and Labour vote exceeds significantly the Tory vote, but because it is split nearly evenly the Tories hold on. 

[nickpoole]

May 26, 2024 15:00:20 GMT pjw1961 said:

I think the Conservatives have a very good chance of holding Chelmsford on an evenly split Labour/Lib Dem vote; quite possibly a Tory vote as low as 34% will be enough to win. I would also expect the Tories to hold Chichester. South Cambridgeshire should go Lib Dem - Ed Davey was campaigning there today.

Exactly. Classic splitters.

They are really offering nothing different/better than Labour, just splitting the vote.

Frankly they make me sick.

[moby]

May 26, 2024 12:12:07 GMT steve said:

Sunakered says Sweden has a scheme of national service similar to his nonsense proposals.

The UK has approximately 775000 people aged 18.

All would be required to serve most wouldn't be paid.

Sweden has approximately 100,000 18 year olds only 13,000 of whom were selected as eligible for service and only 4000 were found suitable to serve.
Those found suitable are paid around £450 a week plus free room and board.


Almost a carbon copy ,said nobody ever.

I'd say it's a safe bet Sunak has not thought of the the implications of imposing mandatory national service in NI?

[steve]

Nick
If you fancy asking Labour to endorse the lib dems candidate feel free.

[nickpoole]

Among the list of Lib Dems apart from Coalition

- refusing to let Cornyn lead a Government to head off a hard Brexit

- wore than that giving Johnson the election he wanted to ensure a hard Brexit

I don't think it matters this time - they won't get the vote they are trying to "borrow"

[jib]

May 26, 2024 15:15:51 GMT nickpoole said:

May 26, 2024 15:00:20 GMT pjw1961 said:

I think the Conservatives have a very good chance of holding Chelmsford on an evenly split Labour/Lib Dem vote; quite possibly a Tory vote as low as 34% will be enough to win. I would also expect the Tories to hold Chichester. South Cambridgeshire should go Lib Dem - Ed Davey was campaigning there today.

Exactly. Classic splitters.

They are really offering nothing different/better than Labour, just splitting the vote.

Frankly they make me sick.

If it helps them stop Labour winning an OM and puts them in a position of power can you blame them?

The Mid Beds election told us everything about them. "Winning Here" aka "Win at all costs and f**k the consequences" - or blame the FPTP system!

[nickpoole]

May 26, 2024 15:20:37 GMT steve said:

Nick
If you fancy asking Labour to endorse the lib dems candidate feel free.

You've attached yourself a boat that's going to sink.

[steve]

nickpoole
That's total cobblers in respect of Corbyn, there was zero chance of Corbyn being able to secure cross party support including Tories with him as leader.

Primarily because he had zero interest in doing so.

If Labour hadn't wanted the 2019 general election why did the Labour party vote almost unanimously for triggering it!


Given that I was a Labour party member until 2016 I feel no need to justify the mistake of the coalition as I didn't vote for the parties in it and thought both then and now that it was a mistake.

As the lib dems decided to participate they should have got a lot more in return for their support.

[steve]

"You've attached yourself a boat that's going to sink."

Words in order no particular!

[nickpoole]

May 26, 2024 15:29:24 GMT steve said:

If Labour hadn't wanted the 2019 general election why did three Labour party vote almost unanimously for triggering it!

Given you know the answer to that, your question just about sums up Lib Dem approach to honesty and integrity.

[steve]

"If it helps them stop Labour winning an OM and puts them in a position of power can you blame them?"

No shit Sherlock.

[Deleted]

May 26, 2024 15:00:20 GMT pjw1961 said:

I think the Conservatives have a very good chance of holding Chelmsford on an evenly split Labour/Lib Dem vote; quite possibly a Tory vote as low as 34% will be enough to win. I would also expect the Tories to hold Chichester. South Cambridgeshire should go Lib Dem - Ed Davey was campaigning there today.

The very fact that seats like Chelmsford and Chichester are even being discussed as possible CON losses shows what potentially remarkable electoral times we are living in.

[steve]

nickpoole
They voted for it because they thought they could win, why else , your comments are obtuse.
It might not have sunk in but the liberal democrats, greens, SNP, PC etc aren't just a useful addendum for the Labour party to assisting them in beating the Tories and just because my and the Green party would prefer a Labour government to the Tories doesn't make us somehow a semi detached part of the same party.

Currently there is a lot that we agree on but when it comes to such issues as fair voting and our relationship with Europe while we are generally in line with Labour voters and members the parliamentary leadership isn't at present on the same page.

If you want to engage in a reasoned discussion fine if you just want to whinge about your pet dislikes of other progressive parties maybe you could share it at The Canary you'll find plenty who agree with you

[pjw1961]

James E - putting aside all my reservations for a moment, what are the polling implications for Braintree and Witham constituencies at present? They are both among the safest Conservative seats, but also located in a part of the country seeing the largest collapse in Tory VI.

I would also be interested in Colchester, although I assume this will show as an easy Labour gain. Interestingly, at local level Labour progress in councillors has been static for several cycles in Colchester, with the Lib Dems holding their territory easily, while we have been gaining ground in Braintree and Witham (albeit from a low base).

[nickpoole]

May 26, 2024 15:41:13 GMT steve said:

If you want to engage in a reasoned discussion fine if you just want to whinge about your pet dislikes of other progressive parties maybe you could share it at The Canary you'll find plenty who agree with you

No need to discuss it at all, matey. Just shut the fuck up. There you are, solved.

[Deleted]

Three days ago, a Minister said there no were "no plans" to introduce National Service, and explained why. 

I wonder what the next desperate, random electoral gimmick, sorry, well thought through policy announcement might be?

www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/prime-minister-rishi-sunak-government-labour-uk-parliament-b1160325.html

[moby]

[pjw1961]

May 26, 2024 15:38:16 GMT @isa said:

May 26, 2024 15:00:20 GMT pjw1961 said:

I think the Conservatives have a very good chance of holding Chelmsford on an evenly split Labour/Lib Dem vote; quite possibly a Tory vote as low as 34% will be enough to win. I would also expect the Tories to hold Chichester. South Cambridgeshire should go Lib Dem - Ed Davey was campaigning there today.

The very fact that seats like Chelmsford and Chichester are even being discussed as possible CON losses shows what potentially remarkable electoral times we are living in.

True, but don't forget that Colchester was Lib Dem from 1997-2015. It is a university town (Essex University) among other things. 

Chelmsford is also a Uni town these days (Angiia Ruskin) and is full of middle class London commuter types who are not as Tory as they once were, suffering badly from higher mortgage rates and rail fares. 

If Labour win Colchester, it is the first time since 1945 and for Chelmsford, technically the first time ever (Ernest Millington won it for Commonweath in a 1945 by-election and was not opposed by Labour in the 1945 GE, subsequently joining the Labour party. My maternal grandfather, who was a Labour councillor in Chelmsford for many years, knew him well). 

[steve]

nickpoole

Even better idea try inspecting your own arsehole rather than sharing what comes out of it here.

Job done.

[steve]

Well that was edifying.
Sorry people