|
|
Post by hireton on Jun 16, 2024 7:24:57 GMT
It seems that if Labour win the election with an absolute majority it will be the first time in the UK that a government with an absolute majority has been replaced by an opposition party winning an absolute majority since 1970.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickpoole on Jun 16, 2024 7:31:05 GMT
Might be worth also considering that Labour's upcoming historic victory might well be achieved by a lower vote share than Theresa May receive in 2017, no one accused her of being popular. But a hell of a lot more popular than the LDs. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jun 16, 2024 7:35:01 GMT
"Tories and Labour on course for lowest share of the vote since 1945" Because the Tories are on course for their lowest share ever. Not because Labour are unpopular 🙄 Very good point and so self-evidently true that you wonder why the Guardian made the fatuous point the subject of their headline. I wonder if we're seeing being played out now what one or two of us had already feared may occur. A long slog of a campaign, seemingly having little effect so far on a widely predicted outcome, sending journalists and reporters scurrying around attempting to engender drama where none really exists. A sort of hot air balloon of waffle floating around in the atmosphere, occasionally, and probably accidentally too, coming into contact with reality. There to deflate gently until headline writers and programme editors restart the burners. My prediction for the Laura K show this morning. All to play for. Long way to go. Nobody has made their minds up. Polls are polls and no votes cast yet (alright, a few million postal ones maybe). And, the breathless question too. Which of the politicians on my star-studded show this morning will convince you to vote for them? It ain't over until the Fat Politician Sings his or her last song. X Factor comes to General Elections. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jun 16, 2024 7:40:41 GMT
crossbat11It's not particularly surprising that journalists big up the frankly non existent competition. Reality check this election under fptp is done and dusted all it requires is counting the size of the Labour majority. I doubt anyone other than ultra partisan would really appreciate that take from media commentators.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jun 16, 2024 7:41:28 GMT
In the lack of enthusiasm for Labour and the Tories the polling actually supports this. Labour and the Tories are on course for their lowest combined vote share since the second world war, as the latest Opinium poll for the Observer shows a shift away from the main parties. While there is of course a stonking 17%+ lead for Labour over the Tories nearly 40% of the electorate, who said they intend to vote, don't intend to vote for either of them. It feeds into the debate over fair voting. That’s Guardian-esque level spinning Steve - at least you didn’t make a nice bar chart out of it in the time honoured LibDem way 🙂 To put it another way, the three polls that Mark put up as the first post of this new thread show that respectively, 89%, 89% and 88% wouldn’t at this moment vote for your party. Yet if PR comes in and to be clear, I want it to, the Liberals would very likely be part of a government more often than either Labour or the Tories. Despite their rightfully talking of fairness, it’s easy to see what the real main reason of for wanting PR, not that I expect to hear Ed Davey admit to it any day soon. Not knocking them for it by the way - just seeing through the false piety.
When the LDs forced Labour to introduce STV for local elections, they assumed that they would be the main beneficiaries. As it turned out, they suffered badly, and it's common for councils to have ruling groups composed of the largest party supported by Independents, or an arrangement between Conservative and Labour to exclude the largest party from the Executive. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jun 16, 2024 7:41:36 GMT
Latest from the Muslim vote site recommending candidates: Independent 24 Workers 14 Green 10 LibDem 6 No Party 2 Kubo 1 The site seems to be very volatile. There are now 33 seats with big Muslim population where there is no recommended candidate, and there is clearly no consensus nationwide. Notable that there are no Labour, though 31 of the 33 are Labour seats. I have no idea what Kubo is. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how much effect these recommendations have. Particularly in certain places such as Birmingham Ladywood. According to the site there is 43% Muslim population (49,000) and the Labour majority is 27,000. The recommended Independent candidate is the chap who recently got 70,000 votes in the recent mayoral election. I'd expect Labour to hold the seat but you never know. Did you see and read the latest voting intention poll conducted exclusively amongst the Muslim population in this country? Neilj shared it not long ago. |
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on Jun 16, 2024 7:43:18 GMT
Very good point and so self-evidently true that you wonder why the Guardian made the fatuous point the subject of their headline. I wonder if we're seeing being played out now what one or two of us had already feared may occur. A long slog of a campaign, seemingly having little effect so far on a widely predicted outcome, sending journalists and reporters scurrying around attempting to engender drama where none really exists. A sort of hot air balloon of waffle floating around in the atmosphere, occasionally, and probably accidentally too, coming into contact with reality. There to deflate gently until headline writers and programme editors restart the burners. My prediction for the Laura K show this morning. All to play for. Long way to go. Nobody has made their minds up. Polls are polls and no votes cast yet (alright, a few million postal ones maybe). And, the breathless question too. Which of the politicians on my star-studded show this morning will convince you to vote for them? It ain't over until the Fat Politician Sings his or her last song. X Factor comes to General Elections. I usually can't bear to watch it. You've just saved me the trouble today, so thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jun 16, 2024 7:48:43 GMT
Can I say, having just skimmed through this entire thread ( admittedly only possible because it runs to a mere two and a half pages thus far!) that apart from my post gratuitously defaming Laura Kuennsberg again, that it is a brilliant and uplifting read. UKPR on top form. Informed and enlightening comments about elections and opinion polls.
It's what we do. Or should.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickpoole on Jun 16, 2024 7:54:17 GMT
It could work out that Starmer will end up with the same vote share as Corbyn in 2017 but get twice as many seats.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jun 16, 2024 7:55:55 GMT
Latest from the Muslim vote site recommending candidates: Independent 24 Workers 14 Green 10 LibDem 6 No Party 2 Kubo 1 The site seems to be very volatile. There are now 33 seats with big Muslim population where there is no recommended candidate, and there is clearly no consensus nationwide. Notable that there are no Labour, though 31 of the 33 are Labour seats. I have no idea what Kubo is. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how much effect these recommendations have. Particularly in certain places such as Birmingham Ladywood. According to the site there is 43% Muslim population (49,000) and the Labour majority is 27,000. The recommended Independent candidate is the chap who recently got 70,000 votes in the recent mayoral election. I'd expect Labour to hold the seat but you never know. Did you see and read the latest voting intention poll conducted exclusively amongst the Muslim population in this country? Neilj shared it not long ago. The survey by Savanta for the website Hyphen found 63% of the 1,083 Muslim voters surveyed would back Labour if the election were tomorrow. Only 12% would back the Conservatives, 12% the Lib Dems, 7% the Greens and 5% other candidates. |
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Jun 16, 2024 8:00:50 GMT
Might be worth also considering that Labour's upcoming historic victory might well be achieved by a lower vote share than Theresa May receive in 2017, no one accused her of being popular. But a hell of a lot more popular than the LDs. What seems to be overlooked in all this is how the FPTP system forces people not to vote for their preferred party but to vote against a party they don't like. Polling companies ask the question of who are you going to vote for and many will already know that in their constituency their preference has no chance, so their answer is something else. Do the pollsters ever ask the straight which party they'd like to vote for leaving aside such local issues? I suspect the minor parties would get a much higher vote share on that basis and the two major parties a lot less support than they do in the current system. That would actually be a much better reflection of the population than FPTP provides. The point being that you can't look at the results or polling estimates and. extrapolate a populations preferences from that because the system of FPTP skews the responses from the off. This from an ex LD member in a constituency where they garner about 4% of the vote. I'm a Labour voter but an LD outside a GE. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jun 16, 2024 8:21:26 GMT
Labour lead at 24pts Westminster voting intention The Labour lead at 24 points is now greater than the number of days left to go... Much more considering postal votes. We discussed how this was an extra long campaign compared to historical ones. But if you consider the start of postal voting as the deadline instead of actual polling day, maybe it isnt extra long? |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jun 16, 2024 8:33:36 GMT
It could work out that Starmer will end up with the same vote share as Corbyn in 2017 but get twice as many seats. Might be something to do with the Tories getting a 42% vote share in 2017 (2.5% more than Labour) and, according to current polls, getting barely half that vote share this time and maybe trailing Labour by 15-20%. |
|
soph
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by soph on Jun 16, 2024 8:35:47 GMT
Hello! I'm a serial lurker that enjoys reading these posts in election times. I posted a little under another username back in Brexit ref/2017 elec times; but as a programmer and general techie the AI mention got me itching to say something again! 1) I wonder whether anyone's tried to predict the election result using AI? Even if they haven't, as AI improves will it make pollsters redundant? There's two major types of AI that are being researched at the moment. The ChatGPT, Copilot, Bard, etc. type are called "large language models", and these ones are designed almost exclusively as knowledge resources. So they're really good at, for examples, filtering down essays into key points, collecting headlines into an overview, and sharing information that exists from the vast vast collection of data they've been trained on. What they're NOT any good at is 'thinking' - they can't play games, solve maths problems, make science hypotheses or, importantly, make election predictions. It's very unlikely that this type of AI on its own could predict elections, though it could form a part of a larger construction. The other type is broader in scope but more specific in task, usually referred to as "deep learning models". This includes AI like AlphaGo and AlphaZero - very specifically designed to learn Go, and Chess respectively. But nightmarishly good at them. So in principle, this type of AI could be built specifically for the purpose of predicting elections, and be good at it, the main roadblock is figuring out what data to use to train the AI. For example, if you wanted to use historical polls vs actual results, making sure to feed in all understanding we have of the methodology and biases of those polls, then you'd have maybe still less than 100 data points. Compared to the billions of games of Go that AlphaGo was trained on, it's essentially not anywhere near enough to get accurate predictive results from. Another idea could be to use the news and social media that existed in the run up to historical elections. There's a lot more of this data available, but only really useful for elections since 2010; which my hunch would be isn't varied enough to be able to predict an election that is different from the ones we've seen since 2010. It's possible that you can't predict elections with this type of data anyway, e.g. social media is flooded with bots who don't have any votes but might imply to an AI that there's a deluge of support for the party the bots are touting. In either case, because the LLMs can't be used and we'd instead need specialised models, I would expect the pollsters to adopt an accurate AI method (if it ever exists) themselves and continue to develop it, rather than that they'd be made obsolete by AI.  |
|
soph
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by soph on Jun 16, 2024 8:38:54 GMT
Though speaking more broadly about pollsters, politics is a bit of an advert for their real business which is market research, and so any hyper-specific election predicting AI would be useless for that and largely a waste of money!
|
|
|
|
Post by nickpoole on Jun 16, 2024 8:39:25 GMT
It could work out that Starmer will end up with the same vote share as Corbyn in 2017 but get twice as many seats. Might be something to do with the Tories getting a 42% vote share in 2017 (2.5% more than Labour) and, according to current polls, getting barely half that vote share this time and maybe trailing Labour by 15-20%. Thank you for explaining that. What a useful site this is. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jun 16, 2024 8:41:14 GMT
soph
Thanks for the info, and welcome to posting!
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jun 16, 2024 8:44:42 GMT
I've always liked the idea of AV as an electoral system (and voted for it in 2011). Under AV, candidates have to gain at least 50% of the vote (be they first, second preferences etc.) to win the seat. This strikes me as a system much better suited to our multi-party landscape - people could put their favourite candidate first and a more pragmatic choice second, knowing that they were unlikely to let [insert least favourite party] in. It also maintains the constituency-MP link. It is not proportional though. In fact it could easily be less proportional than FPTP! I'm an STV man myself, as it weakens the power of the party machines. The voters choose which candidates from each party they wish to prefer rather than the party under a list based system. There is only one real downside to STV and that is the size of the constituencies. For reasonably good proportionality you need constituencies that return around 5-7 MPs (because the quota to win a seat is 1/6+1 (just under 17%) to 1/8+1 (just over 12.5%)). For big cities like London this is about the size of London Assembly constituencies. But in rural areas the constituencies would become very big, say Cornwall as a single constituency, and it is even worse in Scotland. As we already allow four island constituencies to be excluded from the population rules for defining constituency boundaries, I think any STV constituencies should include a few AV (single-member constituencies with preferential voting) in the Scottish Highlands. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jun 16, 2024 8:46:10 GMT
So, after over three weeks of much noise and clamour, supposed dramatic polls, gaffes, disasters, won and lost TV debates, manifesto launches, Farage breakthroughs,various meltdowns, breathless news of tax bombshells to come and much else, well, nothing much has changed. In effect, we are where we were three weeks ago. In fact the difference in the poll ratings for each party is so little that they are all within margin of error. I know this goes against the understandable need for drama, cliff hangers and game changers, but isn't this thing all over bar the canvassing? Dare I say you're doing a bit of Andrew Neil cherrypicking here and anyone who upticked this post (as self styled polling experts) should hang their heads in shame and undo their ticks (smiley). I'm sure other people can provide poll averages but the Wiki page shows a definite decline in Lab and Con since the election was called. There is a tick box below the graph where you can tick a box to get the graph since the election was called: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_electionReform, LD and Green all up, Lab and Con down. I still agree with your central point- some of this drop in Lab support was perhaps a statistical probability, especially with yougov who don't allocate don't knows. It's very possible the Reform buzz ends up the same way as Cleggmania as it seems unlikely they have any sort of a ground campaign so that's a good test of national news headlines vs work on the ground. There's also a tendency for wobbles during a campaign that are amplified by people looking for an angle. An awful number of unlikely things have to happen for Labour not to get a stonking majority, and even then only a comfortable majority. I also think it's swings and roundabouts for Labour in that if the race did narrow (and it hasn't between Lab and Con which is the key factor) then they have more chance of squeezing the LOC vote- at the moment with those poll leads you can vote for who you like or not bother voting, but if it gets closer then the get rid of the Tories would be more of a motivator to vote Labour. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jun 16, 2024 8:50:02 GMT
The statistical study of the MRP models that was linked to on here a day or two back (Focaldata?) pointed to the YouGov as appearing to be the most reliable. It will be interesting to compare the final predictions of each MRP model to the actual results. Having comprehensively denounced the reliability of Survation's individual seat forecasts, I still can't resist quoting the Braintree one: Labour 37.1%, Conservative 34.4%  Surely you should be mildly upbeat about Braintree? I looked at the candidates and only one independent, so unless that person has some local factor which will attract voters then Braintree is one of the least complicated ones as a straight Lab v Con fight and exactly the type of seat the polls are saying will go Labour? |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jun 16, 2024 8:52:06 GMT
Sushi Sunakered is using the ancestry card today saying that no one become a national leader whose parents weren't both born in the same country before him and that it couldn't happen any where else.
Cough( Barak Obama)
Actually
With the exception of Martin Van Buren and perhaps Dwight D. Eisenhower,[every president has ancestors from the British Isles and the first seven presidents had British parents or grandparents.As did numerous others including Abraham Lincoln,Theodore Roosevelt,Harry Truman and the disgraced former president criminal Donald Trump.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
Member is Online
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jun 16, 2024 8:54:51 GMT
It is not proportional though. In fact it could easily be less proportional than FPTP! I'm an STV man myself, as it weakens the power of the party machines. The voters choose which candidates from each party they wish to prefer rather than the party under a list based system. Well that depends. STV can only work in multi member constituencies and each party will have a slate of candidates for that constituency equivalent to the seats available. So whilst you can rank the candidates you wish to select in order of preference, if you want to cast all three of your votes for a single party you will have to vote for the candidates the party has chosen to contest the seats. I guess you could have an open list/STV hybrid which would allow you to rank your three candidates from a wider party slate (of say 10 candidates). No, its simpler than that. The voter ranks all candidates on the ballot paper (at least those they choose to vote for at all) in order of preference. At the count the candidate with the fewest first preferences (i.e. marked as "1") is eliminated and their second preferences redistributed until eventually you are reduced to the correct number of finally elected people. Parties cannot control how voters rank their offering and the favoured party HQ 'parachute' candidate may well end up eliminated by some popular local one that the party just allowed on as a makeweight. The only downside I can see is that there are going to be some very long ballot papers. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
Member is Online
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jun 16, 2024 8:58:51 GMT
It is not proportional though. In fact it could easily be less proportional than FPTP! I'm an STV man myself, as it weakens the power of the party machines. The voters choose which candidates from each party they wish to prefer rather than the party under a list based system. The only issue I have with proportionality is the increased likelihood of coalitions, which I feel muddy the waters when it comes to accountability. Roy Jenkins et al. suggested AV+ (or AV top-up), a more proportional version of AV, but not sure I like the idea of two different types of MP. With STV you don't get two types of MP. And every multi-member constituency is likely to elect at least one MP that an individual voter is comfortable with, in contrast to the current scenario where I am represented only by an MP hostile to my views. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jun 16, 2024 9:03:30 GMT
|
|
wb61
Member
Posts: 1,124
Member is Online
|
Post by wb61 on Jun 16, 2024 9:04:47 GMT
Re: PR
whatever system is used, after parties and voters become accustomed to it and its vagaries, they will adjust their approach. The Scotland and Wales Parliament elections are examples of how predicted outcomes are not always fulfilled e.g. the prediction that Scotland will never have a majority government under the system chosen.
|
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on Jun 16, 2024 9:04:59 GMT
Hello! I'm a serial lurker that enjoys reading these posts in election times. I posted a little under another username back in Brexit ref/2017 elec times; but as a programmer and general techie the AI mention got me itching to say something again! There's two major types of AI that are being researched at the moment. The ChatGPT, Copilot, Bard, etc. type are called "large language models", and these ones are designed almost exclusively as knowledge resources. So they're really good at, for examples, filtering down essays into key points, collecting headlines into an overview, and sharing information that exists from the vast vast collection of data they've been trained on. What they're NOT any good at is 'thinking' - they can't play games, solve maths problems, make science hypotheses or, importantly, make election predictions. It's very unlikely that this type of AI on its own could predict elections, though it could form a part of a larger construction. The other type is broader in scope but more specific in task, usually referred to as "deep learning models". This includes AI like AlphaGo and AlphaZero - very specifically designed to learn Go, and Chess respectively. But nightmarishly good at them. So in principle, this type of AI could be built specifically for the purpose of predicting elections, and be good at it, the main roadblock is figuring out what data to use to train the AI. For example, if you wanted to use historical polls vs actual results, making sure to feed in all understanding we have of the methodology and biases of those polls, then you'd have maybe still less than 100 data points. Compared to the billions of games of Go that AlphaGo was trained on, it's essentially not anywhere near enough to get accurate predictive results from. Another idea could be to use the news and social media that existed in the run up to historical elections. There's a lot more of this data available, but only really useful for elections since 2010; which my hunch would be isn't varied enough to be able to predict an election that is different from the ones we've seen since 2010. It's possible that you can't predict elections with this type of data anyway, e.g. social media is flooded with bots who don't have any votes but might imply to an AI that there's a deluge of support for the party the bots are touting. In either case, because the LLMs can't be used and we'd instead need specialised models, I would expect the pollsters to adopt an accurate AI method (if it ever exists) themselves and continue to develop it, rather than that they'd be made obsolete by AI. Thank you for that very clear explanation. Very interesting. I have discussed this with my son who is a Data Analyst for the BBC, and I recognise what you are saying about Chess and Go (I took part in a very early experimiment on cybernetics and chesss at Edinburgh University with Professor David Levy who headed up their cybernetics department.) You have explained it much more clearly than my son! |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jun 16, 2024 9:05:51 GMT
Wes Streeting asked on Kuenssberg about plans for NHS. He talked about merging NHS and social care budgets, because bed blocking where patients cannot be discharged to council care is an enormous cost to the NHS. Have to say news for him, this has been going on for ten years or more. The NHS has already taken over various expenses which used to fall to councils. The legal background to this is that councils have certain obligations to provide care, which often only mean they do their best. No money, therefore they cut services. Whereas the NHS has an overall duty of care which can encompass pretty much anything necessary. So if councils are withdrawing home care, the NHS as a decision how best to spent its money has been automatically taking over traditional council services. Which somewhat makes a nonsense of Con claims to have preserved NHS funding while cutting council services, because NHS fnding has just transferred to former council funding.
Mark harper for con asked why con just announced lots of tax cuts in their manifesto but this has made no difference to polls. He three times dodged the question and instead sought to talk about labour secret plans to raise taxes. Then asked him why con candidates seem to be doing all they can to distance themselves from the national con campaign. He replied con are going to cut immigration.
He then said lab had secret plans to revalue council tax and increase the taxe. Kuennsberg said council tax had risen 51% since con came to power, and is planned to increas much more over the next 5 years. he replied that con councils offered better value than lab ones, Kuennsberg countered that they didnt, he demurred citing a specific stat for band D, she that her view was overall.
Brian Cox (actor not physicist presenter), the independentish SNPish celebrity panelist raised the issue of Brexit with some numbers suggesting it has cost the UK 5% growth, lots of handy dosh. But not a word from either party about this, or how to correct the problems caused by Brexit. Very interesting its the celebrity independent raising this. Shades of Farage from a different direction. Cox seems to want a new federal United Kingdom with properly defined status for Scotland rather than complete independence for Scotland.
Ed Davies of course asked about his involvement in the PO scandal. An irony since most of the decisions about this were made during labour period of office, and then con government while he had nothing to do with it. Cant help thinking cameron gave responsibility for the post office to a liberal deliberately.
I mentioned the UK seems to be under taxed compared to other developed coutries, which would unsurprisingly result in poorer state services. Its very curious con are still pushing this idea they will deliver lower taxes. This seems quite likely to prove false were they to win, taxes have risen sharply in the last couple of years and that isnt ideological desire to improve services, but because of mounting voter fury at service failings. It seems likely if re-elected con would be forced to raise taxes much more than they have stated. But as Kuennsberg opened by asking, how come promising tax cuts has not boosted their poll ratings? The implication would seem to be raising taxes more than con are proposing, is actually a vote winner. Corbyn found the same. The problem seems to be that both lab and con believe not raising taxes has strong appeal to those who might most be affected by this (hint: not the poor) and this demographic is one lab are still trying to capture and con still trying to hold on to.
Although its totally not their public message, you have to wonder whether lab have been running a secret plan to try to annihilate con, not just win. That would explain their obsession to capture every possible right wing demographic.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jun 16, 2024 9:07:38 GMT
I thought they might start dipping into their accumulated smear box at about this stage. Expect one a day between now and July 4th. Call it the "DPP" file. Jimmy Saville to be disinterred on about July 3rd I'm guessing. |
|
|
|
Post by James E on Jun 16, 2024 9:10:47 GMT
shevii "I'm sure other people can provide poll averages but the Wiki page shows a definite decline in Lab and Con since the election was called. There is a tick box below the graph where you can tick a box to get the graph since the election was called:" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election The problem with this is that the graph simply reflects the headline figures which are affected by changes in methodology. Some pollsters such as YouGov and MiC have moved to re-weighting the DKs, which has reduced Labour's lead by around 6 and 4 points respectively. Others such as Survation have changed to prompting according to declared candidates. This tends to boost Ref and Green, the latter at the expense of Labour. So if you look at the average Lab VI per the most recent 10 polls, it's now 41.2%, down by 3.9 points from 45.1% in the last 10 polls before the election was called. But by my preferred like-with-like comparison to the longer-term average of the first 20 weeks of 2024, the Labour VI has fallen by far less. Per the most recent polls we have from Opinium, Techne, Savanta, YG, R&W, WeThink, Survation, BMG and MIC, Labour are down by an average of just 1.2 points from where they stood in the pre-election period (from 1 Jan to 22 May). [Incidentally, I've found that Savanta are not the only pollster to show an increased Lab VI. MiC's 'unadjusted' figure is up by 0.5%, too, though their headline figure is down by 1.5%]
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
Member is Online
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jun 16, 2024 9:14:05 GMT
I tend to trust YouGov's model more because they published the predicted outcome using their MRP model before both 2017 and 2019 elections. Survation have a statement "Survation used MRP during the 2019 General Election to correctly predict a large Conservative majority and call 94.3% of seats correctly. For more information, you can read this blog post by our partner Professor Chris Hanretty here." That isn't as impressive as it sounds. Anyone with a bit of psephological knowledge could have likely forecast 94% of the seats in 2019 correctly without needing the aid of any complex modelling. Loads of safe Tory and Labour seats to start with, plus assume the polls were correct and the SNP were going to sweep Scotland and you are most of the way there. |
|
