Categories
Pondering turnout – politicalbetting.com
Pondering turnout – politicalbetting.com
We are now less than 2 weeks to go to the election and postal ballots have already gone out. It is an unusual election, but surely it is the case that every election has unique aspects. When speculating on results, voter turnout may be a key issue. I see this as two issues really. The first is the overall turnout, and second is the turnout by different demographic groups. Will it be the young or the old? C2DE or ABC1? The right or the left parties that stay at home?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I agree entirely that often laws are passed in order to generate a headline or to pretend something is being done. Often they are vague and it’s entirely intended for the courts to sort out the consequences because Parliament can’t be bothered to do its job properly.
Vagueness in an agreement can often be beneficial to one party but I think most people can agree that vagueness in law only benefits lawyers. “Say what you mean.”
I haven't detected value in the turnout bands, which I think is gambling in its purest sense, so have stayed clear.
I did have a couple of graphs in the text, but they seem to have dropped out.
This is the one on turnout over the years:
And this on turnout by age referred to in the text:
I hope this can be regarded as editing rather than breaching the one picture rule.
I’d expect the best turnout will be in those planning to vote for Reform . The worst in those voting Labour or Tory . Labour will be a bit nervous of the media calling the election for them already . I doubt we’ll see any major change to the normal demographic splits in turnout .
The only recent European parliamentary election where turnout in younger people rose dramatically was in Poland.
I think the "foregone conclusion" factor will outweigh the Faragasm factor so 62.5%- 64.99% is the most likely landing zone, but mostly a guess.
Who turns out and who stays home is even harder to guess.
I am pleases to see the age differences in likelihood to turnout diminishing in recent years. It is good for the health of our democracy.
South Korea may reconsider position regarding Ukraine: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ee8x221lno
One factor which might add to a higher turnout is the >1m voters who registered in the last week of voter registration (c. 2% of the total registered voters?). I think it's safe to assume those people who bothered to register are very likely to vote.
If I had to put a finger in the air I would put turnout at about 66%. I think some Tories will sit on their hands, but others will be motivated to vote - for Reform. But among the centre and left I detect enthusiasm for giving the Tories a good kicking. That will boost turnout with the young.
Labour must be a little concerned that with such massive poll leads, the urgency of their vote to get out is reduced. Plus this is not Tony Blair - there is no feeling this time of being part of something exciting. It's Starmer after all. Enthusiasm Factor 0.2....
It's an excellent decision. There was huge resistance from locals for extremely good reasons.
Fuck off @Luckyguy1983 with your business-rimming planet-wrecking bullshit
https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4325273/watershed-moment-battle-surrey-oil-project-wins-landmark-supreme-court-victory
https://www.cpre.org.uk/news/supreme-court-decision-on-oil-drilling-is-major-win-for-the-countryside/
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/our-reports-and-data-past-elections-and-referendums/report-overview-2019-uk-parliamentary-general-election/depth-delivering-2019-uk-parliamentary-general-election
On one hand I know tories who say they will sit on their hands or spoil ballots
On other I know loads people itching to get to the polling booth to kick the tories in the knackers
My reasoning is.
1. Low turnout seems to correlate with how badly the Tories do in recent decades, and this election may break records in that regard.
2. In general FPTP depresses the vote of other parties, because they're perceived not to have a chance of winning, so I suspect Reform voters will be less likely to turn out.
3. Starmer's safety-first strategy is unlikely to enthuse anyone to make a special effort to vote.
'97 was both vengeance AND enthusiasm
Has there ever been a more HATED Government in British history than the one now? Reckon some of you are totally missing this. Plus throw Reform into the mix. The post below that Reform voters less likely to vote seems whacko. They will stir people to GOTV both for and against.
If turnout nipped over 70% I wouldn't fall off my chair
: “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
Voting by party has always been different between the older and younger voters, but it is very noticeable how this divide has increased in recent years... ought also to note that the gap has widened, and then narrowed substantially in recent years.
I've a couple of bets on turnout at the top end, at very long odds, but I've no real feel for likely turnout in this election.
Is there any good recent polling indication ?
But I wouldn't.
Opinion polls have such difficulty finding a sample of people, the non-response rate is very high, meaning that the people who respond to polls are much more likely to be politically-engaged. And this is a problem that has worsened with time, so I don't even think you can use the polls before 2019 to calibrate.
Equally I can see future me congratulating myself for successfully predicting lower turnout as it’s a dead rubber.
I’m staying clear…
Just about every single 18-30 yr old always has ID cos they need it for booze, clubbing.
"Younger people were more likely than the general population to hold a form of photo ID. Ninety-nine per cent of those aged 18-29 held a form of photo ID"
From the UK Govt's own data
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/609a5105d3bf7f2886e29f44/Photographic_ID_research-_headline_findings_report.pdf
Usually around 60%. The only difference this time is it will be 70%.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
Off topic: we cover this periodically but a listicle to warm the heart. Worth tge minor faff of the 12 foot ladder if you don't have a Telegraph subscription:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/best-comedy-shows-all-time/
To drill or not to drill is really a matter for the voters and those they elect. And those who are pro drilling are likely to lose at the ballot box quite soon.
Which probably explains @Luckyguy1983 's pique.
The election came up a lot (pretty much every conversation) and my overall impression is there are a lot of bemused Tories out there, wondering where and how did it all go so spectacularly wrong.
Unanimous acceptance that the Tories have lost, of course, 'but what will replace them?'. I had people complaining about benefit scroungers, and asking me what I thought about National Service (some who clearly like the idea).
I'd guess quite a few will vote Reform, with the rest largely split Tory / LibDem.
(b) We import only tiny amounts of oil from Saudi Arabia.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
I see both the Telegraph and the Mail are incredulous that Starmer has suggested Corbyn might have been a better Prime Minister than the worst Prime Minister in modern history. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Corbyn, but nonetheless an accurate analysis of Johnson.
I agree with Keir.
Worth noting too that dual registration by students and others with two residences distort the figures. Foxjr2 is registered both in Greenwich and Leics for example. He is in Autralia travelling but seems to have arranged a postal vote for Leics. In any case, his vote turnout cannot exceed 50%.
And there's arguably a bit of the same thing going on with LibDems/Greens vs Labour etc looking to secure more seats in the next Parliament, even if the Lab majority outcome looks nailed on.
But, yes. We see reasonably good cases being made for high and low turnout in this thread, so it does look like we're all guessing.
Labour's problem of course is that even their ultra modest agenda is one we all know they can't explain how to pay for.
I would see it thus: this election is between three factions: worthy non populists (Lab, LD); populists (Ref, Green, SNP, Galloway); and the Tories who are presenting as none of these, which is why no-one at all has a good reason to vote for them.
Worthy and populist voters will turn out. they all have a little bit to vote for. I think the young will again stay away - there is no free stuff for them, as will most of the totally unengaged and uncommitted. 64-65%
Footnote: There is nothing this time to bring out either remainers or leavers who are otherwise generally not interested in elections. This won't help turnout.
The law should be that the net difference in emissions is considered. Downstream emissions on a fungible product are moot.
b) You're being ignorant again of the fact that oil is fungible and a global commodities market. It doesn't matter if we get our oil from the UK, Norway or Saudi Arabia, the Saudis and others adjust their production to make the difference and if too much oil is being produced so the price falls then the OPEC cartel are more than willing to cut their own production in order to inflate the price back up for the rest of what they sell.
Cutting our own production just means OPEC can produce more without needing to cut their own production to keep prices inflated. Net change on global CO2 emissions is zero. Anyone advocating that is not serious about the environment and has another agenda, we need to cut consumption of oil more than we need to cut production of it and the two are not directly linked.
Nom-Dom mega rich proprietors starting to panic
Indeed, the fault usually lies with parliament setting vague duties or requirements which opens the door for people to challenge via the courts. So it's blaming the wrong people.
Putting Supreme Court in inverted commas makes me think it's one of those comments that erroneously thinks the court is acting like the US Supreme Court, as I know a chap who is always moaning about that, despite the Court conspicuously not having that power and a case around alleged maladministration not being unusual.
Except our supply isn't significant enough to increase supply globally and OPEC would rather cut an oversupply to keep prices high (and have done since the 1970s) than let prices collapse.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
This election is likely to set the political weather for the next decade, almost as significantly as the Brexit vote did the last.
The campaigns have indeed been lacklustre, but the stakes for the future direction of British politics are pretty high.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
Instead it seems to have excited Reform leaners and further depressed Tories.
(b) If you say we will get oil from Saudi Arabia, then, yes, it matters that we get almost no oil from Saudi Arabia. If I arrive home with some apples and you say I got them from Tesco, and I say, no, I bought them from M&S, then you saying, “But you could’ve bought them from Tesco” doesn’t make you right.
County seat:
LibDem 702
Con 656
Grn 375
Lab 183
District seat:
LibDem 226
Grn 214
Con 182
Lab 50
LibDem hold in both cases.
This is part of the Didcot & Wantage constituency.
Pure comedy gold. One of the funniest things ive ever seen in politics. The gift that keeps on giving.
Did you rip it down? The poster not the tree I mean.
Then people wonder why £250k a head social care is a mandatory obligation on councils.
https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1804036223096258566
"Ukrainian UAVs once again were very active overnight. The Eysk airfield, the Lukoil oil depot in Volgograd and the Illinsky refinery were all attacked. Over 40 explosions were heard.
The Russian ministry of defense said it destroyed over 110 drones in several directions."
What amuses is me is how little money these clowns netted - at such an obvious high risk / morally questionable cost. In the three large BX bets the article covers they reckon netted around £5.6k.
In Macc news we now have recieved Conservative Party literature. One via Royal Mail, one via professional pamphleteer (well that or it was a Conservative volunteer who also wanted to promote his Tree Surgery business at the same time by shoving the two leaflets through the letterbox together).
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uksc/2024/20/press-summary/1
It is an agreed fact that, if the project goes ahead, it is not merely likely but inevitable that the oil produced from the well site will be refined and, as an end product, will eventually undergo combustion, and that that combustion will produce greenhouse gas emissions [45]. It is not disputed that these emissions will have a significant impact on climate. It is agreed that the amount of these emissions can be estimated using an established methodology; indeed, the council has provided such an estimate as part of its evidence in this case [81]. The issue is whether the combustion emissions constitute “direct or indirect … effects of the project” within the meaning of the EIA Directive and 2017 Regulations. If they are, they must be assessed as part of the EIA.
The Supreme Court is unanimous in rejecting the view of the Court of Appeal that this question requires an evaluative judgment about whether there is a sufficient causal connection between the extraction of the oil and its eventual combustion, on which different planning authorities could reasonably take opposite views. It is unreasonable to interpret the EIA Directive in a way that treats inconsistent answers to the question whether the combustion emissions are “effects of the project” as equally valid [59]–[60], [321]–[325].
b) No you're categorically wrong on this one because the point was that oil is fungible and we [humanity, globally, since emissions are globally] get our global oil production from nations such as OPEC.
You're ignoring the fungibility of oil which is uneconomic and unscientific.
In this the central importance is that the state at every level is not allowed to break its own laws. This is one of handful of differences which marks us out from Russia, China, North Korea, Saudi, Iran. In this case if there is a problem, it is because the regulations the SC are seeking to apply will have a degree of unclarity.
I like living in a country where the state cannot break its own laws and is regularly caught out. Even if I sometimes don't agree with the SC, I like it that way.
Sutton Courtenay (Vale of White Horse) Council By-Election Result:
🔶 LDM: 33.6% (-24.9)
🌍 GRN: 31.8% (+18.3)
🌳 CON: 27.1% (-0.9)
🌹 LAB: 7.4% (New)
Sutton Courtenay & Marcham (Oxfordshire) Council By-Election Result:
🔶 LDM: 36.6% (-12.1)
🌳 CON: 34.2% (-5.7)
🌍 GRN: 19.6% (New)
🌹 LAB: 9.6% (-1.7)
Greens doing well, nobody else setting the Vale alight
It's another thing entirely to suggest court intervention is inherently outrageous on an issue, as though the concept of challenge itself is some fresh innovation, and ignoring that it's usually parliament which in effect requires it by introducing rules, processes, and standards to which bodies must adhere.
If rules are set for others to follow, but no one can object to a body's own interpretation of if they have been followed, then the rules would be meaningless.
🌹 LAB: 78.2% (-0.4)
🌳 CON: 6.3% (+0.1)
👨🔧 TUSC: 5.4% (-2.5)
🌍 GRN: 5.2% (-2.2)
🔶 LDM: 3.0% (New)
⚙️ WPB: 1.9% (New)
Labour HOLD.
Changes w/ 2024.
Tories pushing Labour HARD in Sefton
It takes sometime for the habit to wear off is my interpretation of the top chart.
The young may not be enthused by Starmerism (who is?) but do seem to be very against National Service even if they won't be called up themselves, and also by Gaza. This may drive up the Green, Independent and WPB vote, even those will get few seats.
It is a guessing game, but I think 62.5%-64.99% is the landing zone.
I just think the court should be taking into account the fungibility of oil, and if the law permits it to then it was wrong not to, and if the law does not permit it to, then the law is in the wrong.
IANAL but IMHO its either a bad interpretation of the law, or a bad law, one or the other.
But it's the principle of it isn't it? Whether or not it counts as "insider trading" it still stinks of sleaze and corruption.
The Greens aren't bothering in Didcot & Wantage at the General so I'd expect that vote to stick with the LibDems.
I have spent the past weeks doing lots of doorknocking (for Labour) and that is what I am picking up.
We need to transition more on consumption and taxing imports etc, not forbidding production.
Does that make a criminal charge more likely, as they could be said effectively to be offering odds themselves by participating in that market ?
Perhaps @viewcode can weigh in.
Not that it matters nowof course. We dodged that bullet.
LD gain. Sorry Nick.
That it came down to 3-2 does suggest it was basically random chance on the outcome, has the selection of justices been different.
What you're objecting to is ill thought out legislation. Not the same thing at all.
*a lot of Tories won't vote as per 1992
*Motivation is weak amongst Labour supporters because (a) its a forgone conclusion and (b) the offering from Labour is a lot more conservative than the Tories. Expect very low turnout in very safe Labour seats (which seems to be about 400).
* The Lib Dems are, correctly focusing their efforts to the seats where they have a chance.
*Reform have no ground game and a lot of voters who might just not make it out of the pub.
*The SNP are being threatened with a similar, if less severe, vote strike than the Tories.
* Election campaigns are never as much fun as we hope but this one is reaching new peaks of boredom. This is likely to be a particular issue for the young who have a lower inclination to vote anyway.
All of these indicate to me that turnout may be significantly down from 2019, the trickier question is now much lower. The key number is 60. I think it will be very close on one side or the other. Unless the media manage to generate some horserace excitement I am inclined to the lower side.
Some older voters who voted Tory in 2019 but are disillusioned with the government may refuse to turn out rather than switch to another party