Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With so much potential tactical voting the overall national

SystemSystem Posts: 12,217
edited May 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With so much potential tactical voting the overall national party vote shares won’t mean as much

There’s lots of talk at the moment about the electoral “system being bust” and “no longer fit for purpose”. What is being pointed to are possible disparities between national aggregate vote shares and the total of MPs each party ends up with on Friday morning.

Read the full story here


«1345678

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    first?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.

    The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    I take it Mike that the Com Res last night is the one that was in your table for today and it has just come out a few hours early ?

    If so today is about ICM. If the tories are to have any chance of having the most seats it will need to show a lead of at least 5, tactical voting or no.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    surbiton said:

    Good Morning

    Based on the last three opinion polls in England, Wales and Scotland and carrying out separate UNS* calculations, the following are the results:

    Seats:
    Lab 291, Con 261, SNP 54, LD 18, PC 3, UKIP 3, GRN 1, SPK 1. Total = 632

    Sources:

    Survation 04/05 May Sample size 1276 England only
    Lab 34, Con 35, LD 9, UKIP 17, Grn 4

    Seats:
    Lab 259, Con 253, LD 16, UKIP* 3, Grn 1, Spk 1 Total = 533

    Yougov 29Apr/1 May Sample size 1162 Scotland only
    SNP 49, Lab 26, Con 15, LD 7, UKIP 2, Grn 1

    Seats:
    Lab 4, Con 0, LD 1, SNP 54 Total = 59

    Yougov 28/30 Apr Sample size 1146 Wales only
    PC 13, Lab 39, Con 26, LD 6, UKIP 12, Grn 3

    Seats:
    Lab 28, Con 8, LD 1, PC 3, Total = 40

    Apart from the 3 UKIP adjustments no manual adjustments were done. No "feeling" , "gut instinct".

    It is possible that

    the opinion polls are wrong;

    the UNS is not suitable. Whilst I would agree with Scotland and Wales due small numbers involved, in England with 533 seats, the law of averages should work out roughly.


    * 3 UKIP seats were manually adjusted. Clacton, Thanet S and Thurrock. 2 were taken from the Tories and 1 from Labour.

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    surbiton said:

    I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.

    Given up on Scotland then ?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    When the last polls come out tonight, I will do my separate UNS simulations.

    Any poll which will give England [ or E&W ], Scotland separately.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    surbiton said:

    I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.

    Given up on Scotland then ?
    No. Statistically, Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls. It is better to look at it separately.
    The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    I see the Mail are telling people in Middleton and Heywood and Dudley North to vote Ukip.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    tlg86 said:

    I see the Mail are telling people in Middleton and Heywood and Dudley North to vote Ukip.
    makes sense if you want to keep Ed out of No 10, if the Tories had any sense they'd be pushing this line themselves in several other seats where they're no-hopers.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,655
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.

    Given up on Scotland then ?
    No. Statistically, Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls. It is better to look at it separately.
    The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]
    I reckon the best score to use for UKIP will be the highest of the phone pollsters.

    Why? Because at the Euros in 2014 (excepting YouGov), and in all the recent European elections, internet pollsters have tended to overstate insurgent parties, and phone pollsters to understate them. In the UK in 2015 there is a similar pattern emerging, with internet pollsters giving UKIP an average of 3 or 4% more than the phone pollsters.

    That gives us a 13% GB number for UKIP, which is probably 14% in England. And which probably means 4-5 seats for UKIP, unless there is tactical voting against them.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.

    Given up on Scotland then ?
    No. Statistically, Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls. It is better to look at it separately.
    The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]
    Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls

    I think you've just provoked the gods of Nattery Surby.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Does anyone know when the ICM is likely to be published today?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    surbiton said:

    I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.

    Combining England and Wales is best IMHO, as their political cultures are sufficiently similar.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    rcs1000 said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.

    Given up on Scotland then ?
    No. Statistically, Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls. It is better to look at it separately.
    The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]
    I reckon the best score to use for UKIP will be the highest of the phone pollsters.

    Why? Because at the Euros in 2014 (excepting YouGov), and in all the recent European elections, internet pollsters have tended to overstate insurgent parties, and phone pollsters to understate them. In the UK in 2015 there is a similar pattern emerging, with internet pollsters giving UKIP an average of 3 or 4% more than the phone pollsters.

    That gives us a 13% GB number for UKIP, which is probably 14% in England. And which probably means 4-5 seats for UKIP, unless there is tactical voting against them.
    Scores for UKIP seem to be converging across pollsters.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited May 2015

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.

    Given up on Scotland then ?
    No. Statistically, Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls. It is better to look at it separately.
    The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]
    Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls

    I think you've just provoked the gods of Nattery Surby.
    Flippancy aside, if you look at my calculations below, SNP 54 seats would not have come about if I took a GB poll. It would be meaningless.

    The Labour figure may look high ! But remember Labour won 353 seats with 35% in 2005. So, if the polls stay in the 33-35% range and take 35 seats or so away from Labour [ Scotland ], Labour largest party is still likely.

    Having said that, I thought in the England only Survation [ below ], the UKIP percentage is too high, in my opinion. That has hurt the Tory numbers.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    DavidL said:

    I take it Mike that the Com Res last night is the one that was in your table for today and it has just come out a few hours early ?

    If so today is about ICM. If the tories are to have any chance of having the most seats it will need to show a lead of at least 5, tactical voting or no.

    i

    I understand that there might be another final final ComRes and that other firms are trying to squeeze extra surveys

    I've no idea about ICM poll publication time.



  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.

    But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.

    Given up on Scotland then ?
    No. Statistically, Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls. It is better to look at it separately.
    The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]
    I reckon the best score to use for UKIP will be the highest of the phone pollsters.

    Why? Because at the Euros in 2014 (excepting YouGov), and in all the recent European elections, internet pollsters have tended to overstate insurgent parties, and phone pollsters to understate them. In the UK in 2015 there is a similar pattern emerging, with internet pollsters giving UKIP an average of 3 or 4% more than the phone pollsters.

    That gives us a 13% GB number for UKIP, which is probably 14% in England. And which probably means 4-5 seats for UKIP, unless there is tactical voting against them.
    Scores for UKIP seem to be converging across pollsters.
    In the 3 polls I have used below, UKIP [ Eng only ] was 17%. GB wide with the other two included, it became 15.12%. Personally, I think it is too high and some of it belongs to the Tories.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032

    DavidL said:

    I take it Mike that the Com Res last night is the one that was in your table for today and it has just come out a few hours early ?

    If so today is about ICM. If the tories are to have any chance of having the most seats it will need to show a lead of at least 5, tactical voting or no.

    i

    I understand that there might be another final final ComRes and that other firms are trying to squeeze extra surveys

    I've no idea about ICM poll publication time.



    Thanks.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    I'm really starting to wonder about the potential for a Shy Labour "Embarrassed by Ed" vote.

    People who won't admit to being Labour in polite company because it means they are voting for Ed.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    Anthony Wells predicts Con 277, Lab 267, Lib Dem 29, SNP 52, Others 25.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    DavidL said:

    Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.

    The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.

    As we have seen with House of Lords reform the debate over what replaces it can be used to indefinitely postpone reform by those who benefit from the status quo.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Sean_F said:

    Anthony Wells predicts Con 277, Lab 267, Lib Dem 29, SNP 52, Others 25.

    I will wait until the ICM comes out. It would give the "worst" results for Labour.

    But those who did not put in something when Labour most seats was at 6 might regret that.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.

    Given up on Scotland then ?
    No. Statistically, Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls. It is better to look at it separately.
    The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]
    I reckon the best score to use for UKIP will be the highest of the phone pollsters.

    Why? Because at the Euros in 2014 (excepting YouGov), and in all the recent European elections, internet pollsters have tended to overstate insurgent parties, and phone pollsters to understate them. In the UK in 2015 there is a similar pattern emerging, with internet pollsters giving UKIP an average of 3 or 4% more than the phone pollsters.

    That gives us a 13% GB number for UKIP, which is probably 14% in England. And which probably means 4-5 seats for UKIP, unless there is tactical voting against them.
    Scores for UKIP seem to be converging across pollsters.
    In the 3 polls I have used below, UKIP [ Eng only ] was 17%. GB wide with the other two included, it became 15.12%. Personally, I think it is too high and some of it belongs to the Tories.
    I think that hurts the Tories with Panelbase, as well.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    DavidL said:

    Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.

    But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.

    When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546

    DavidL said:

    Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.

    The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.

    As we have seen with House of Lords reform the debate over what replaces it can be used to indefinitely postpone reform by those who benefit from the status quo.
    The only way you'll get electoral reform is if someone with the power to implement it sees advantage. That could only happen if they fear that they'll be hammered under FPTP in a subsequent election.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    DavidL said:

    Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.

    The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.

    You still need to get 500 turkeys to vote for Christmas.

    What we need is a constitutional convention to look at the entire UK-wide settlement, including the voting system. The chances of getting one are close to zero. There are too many interests on all sides only to willing to put party before country. And that could well lead to the break-up of the UK.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.

    But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.

    When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.
    UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    On topic - yes, it's all about individual seats. In E&W Labour will do best in its own marginals, will stand still in its safe seats and will struggle to overcome even small Tory leads in their marginals - particularly in the Midlands. They'll also pock up only a small handful of LD seats. In Scotland it will be carnage.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    On topic, yes, it's all about individual seats, but a lot of what happens in one individual seat is cancelled out in another, which is why UNS is pretty good at predicting Lab vs Con.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.

    But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.

    When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.
    UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.
    Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.

    The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    DavidL said:

    Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.

    The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.

    You still need to get 500 turkeys to vote for Christmas.

    What we need is a constitutional convention to look at the entire UK-wide settlement, including the voting system. The chances of getting one are close to zero. There are too many interests on all sides only to willing to put party before country. And that could well lead to the break-up of the UK.
    While I agree that a Constitutional Convention is needed, I cannot see our current politicians delivering it. If they did convene such a meeting then I would expect a dogs breakfast.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,983
    edited May 2015
    Is it a smart idea for the Mail to push the idea that UKIP and the Tories are interchangable?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    DavidL said:

    Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.

    The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.

    You still need to get 500 turkeys to vote for Christmas.

    What we need is a constitutional convention to look at the entire UK-wide settlement, including the voting system. The chances of getting one are close to zero. There are too many interests on all sides only to willing to put party before country. And that could well lead to the break-up of the UK.
    While I agree that a Constitutional Convention is needed, I cannot see our current politicians delivering it. If they did convene such a meeting then I would expect a dogs breakfast.

    We have a voting system and a constitutional settlement that are both actively accelerating the break-up of the UK. Yet we do not have a political class willing to put aside party advantage to come up with something better. It is very sad.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,769
    @Surbiton, your results don't make sense. You have compared three rather different opinion polls across three different countries. That's not, in my view, the best way to carry out a UNS prediction, even if such a thing exists.

    If done crudely, plugging Comres (figures remarkably close to latest ICM, who got closest last time, again not to say they will this time) I come up with a UNS of Con 304, Lab 300, Lib 16.

    However, because UNS takes no account of the SNP surge, that's clearly not likely to happen. So let's assume that Labour lose 35 seats in Scotland, which is probably at the optimistic end for them. That leaves them on 265, with the SNP on 41. In other words, because of a considerable churn, Labour and the Tories pretty much stand still.

    Now immediately we have a problem. Even assuming Clegg hangs on in Sheffield Hallam, with that result he would surely have to resign. They also have no deputy leader as Malcolm Bruce is leaving. I'm not sure what the rules are for succession - I am guessing that either the senior members would appoint an interim leader (surely Cable) or the Party President (Farron) would take charge. Both would doubtless rule out a formal coalition with the Conservatives.

    However, even if we add up Lib+Lab+SNP - a group which (the SNP apart) would hardly have a democratic mandate - we don't get to 323 (we fall one short). Indeed, such a group would only be a fraction ahead of Con/DUP (assume 9-10). At that point, the remaining odds and sods come into play: PC, Greens surely for Labour, which adds on four votes, any UKIP MPs likely for Con. As a result, we end up with pretty much a dead heat and quite possibly some votes going through on Bercow's say-so. In an official confidence motion or on the Queen's speech, he is obliged to support the government because if the House has not specifically said it has no confidence in the government, technically that means it does have confidence. So getting the chance to form that government becomes absolutely crucial. Would Labour be able to do it? Candidly, the numbers are against them. Add one point to the Tories and knock one off Labour, which is unlikely but not implausible, and it becomes near-impossible.

    Or, the Lib Dems could look at the maths and admit that C and S with the Tories, however unpalatable to the survivors, makes arithmetical sense and should therefore be allowed for a couple of years while they try to rebuild their own activist base in preparation for another election.

    Which means it is not surprising that there are rumours flooding around that Labour are panicking about their prospects. It would not however explain their apparently giving up in some low-hanging marginals (e.g. Northampton and Ipswich). That strikes me as something more than arithmetic in play.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.

    Given up on Scotland then ?
    No. Statistically, Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls. It is better to look at it separately.
    The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]
    I reckon the best score to use for UKIP will be the highest of the phone pollsters.

    Why? Because at the Euros in 2014 (excepting YouGov), and in all the recent European elections, internet pollsters have tended to overstate insurgent parties, and phone pollsters to understate them. In the UK in 2015 there is a similar pattern emerging, with internet pollsters giving UKIP an average of 3 or 4% more than the phone pollsters.

    That gives us a 13% GB number for UKIP, which is probably 14% in England. And which probably means 4-5 seats for UKIP, unless there is tactical voting against them.
    Scores for UKIP seem to be converging across pollsters.
    Beware herding !
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.

    But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.

    When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.
    UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.
    Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.

    The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !
    The Greens could do similiar damage to Miliband ;)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    On topic, yes, it's all about individual seats, but a lot of what happens in one individual seat is cancelled out in another, which is why UNS is pretty good at predicting Lab vs Con.

    I think we will start to talk about RUNS in future. Swings are going to be regional and will involve different parties. UKIP will clearly be a much bigger factor East of Watling Street and the Pennines, for example. The Greens will do better in the South. And there will be significant anti-Labour tactical voting for probably the first time outside Scotland.

  • Whilst I think Dave has actually been a really good PM, I think as a politician he has basically failed. Imagine where we'd be if the UKIP phenomenon had simply never happened. If Dave had been more Maggielike and championed the conservative (small c) core vote. The Tories would be 15 points ahead in the polls and heading for a huge majority. Metrosexual Dave split the right. That he's nonetheless ahead in the polls is frankly amazing. Not sure it'll save him though.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    FPT:

    @NickPalmer said:
    Enjoyable mini-pbmeet in Broxtowe - Tyson, Roger, Tissue Price, Pulpstar, TSE, FoxinSox - 3 Lab, 2 Con, 1 LibDem - we only needed a ScotNat and a Kipper to make it a plausible poll panel. Tyson has been canvassing and is staying on to help in the final days. We agreed to make all comments non-attributable...

    Impressed that you've finished series 4 of GoT, MikeK - is that from Virgin Atlantic, or a boxed set, or what?
    --------
    It's a boxed set, Nick. Worth every penny and a solace for those that don't make it tomorrow.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    ydoethur said:


    However, because UNS takes no account of the SNP surge, that's clearly not likely to happen. So let's assume that Labour lose 35 seats in Scotland, which is probably at the optimistic end for them. That leaves them on 265, with the SNP on 41. In other words, because of a considerable churn, Labour and the Tories pretty much stand still.

    Is that initial seat distribution based on GB polling? If so, you're double-counting Labour losses to the SNP. If you want to count Scottish seats separately, you need to add a couple of % to the Labour share you get from the GB poll before you run UNS on it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546

    DavidL said:

    Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.

    The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.

    You still need to get 500 turkeys to vote for Christmas.

    What we need is a constitutional convention to look at the entire UK-wide settlement, including the voting system. The chances of getting one are close to zero. There are too many interests on all sides only to willing to put party before country. And that could well lead to the break-up of the UK.
    While I agree that a Constitutional Convention is needed, I cannot see our current politicians delivering it. If they did convene such a meeting then I would expect a dogs breakfast.

    We have a voting system and a constitutional settlement that are both actively accelerating the break-up of the UK. Yet we do not have a political class willing to put aside party advantage to come up with something better. It is very sad.

    The theoretical arguments against asymmetric devolution are now about to become very real.

    Sometimes ruling castes are prepared to set aside self-interest in the face of a greater danger, but it's rare.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire

    YouGov's methology changed at data point number 72 and took 5 days to fully impact upon the moving average.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    Patrick said:

    Whilst I think Dave has actually been a really good PM, I think as a politician he has basically failed. Imagine where we'd be if the UKIP phenomenon had simply never happened. If Dave had been more Maggielike and championed the conservative (small c) core vote. The Tories would be 15 points ahead in the polls and heading for a huge majority. Metrosexual Dave split the right. That he's nonetheless ahead in the polls is frankly amazing. Not sure it'll save him though.

    If voters wanted a small c, right-wing party in charge wouldn't UKIP be about to win the election? The Tories tried small c in 2001 and 2005. It did not work out.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Good Morning all.

    Last day before Judgement Day and all that...................
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    edited May 2015
    Roger said:

    Is it a smart idea for the Mail to push the idea that UKIP and the Tories are interchangable?

    And certain Lib Dems ;)
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Pulpstar said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.

    But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.

    When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.
    UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.
    Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.

    The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !
    The Greens could do similiar damage to Miliband ;)
    Definitely. But as yet the numbers are lower. Some of them are transfers from LD all of whom might not have come to Labour.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Patrick said:

    Whilst I think Dave has actually been a really good PM, I think as a politician he has basically failed. Imagine where we'd be if the UKIP phenomenon had simply never happened. If Dave had been more Maggielike and championed the conservative (small c) core vote. The Tories would be 15 points ahead in the polls and heading for a huge majority. Metrosexual Dave split the right. That he's nonetheless ahead in the polls is frankly amazing. Not sure it'll save him though.

    I am not convinced. I think a Tory core vote agenda would have been as unsuccessful as it was under Hague or Howard. The Conservatives chose Cameron for the same reason that Blair won the Labour contest in 94. They were sick of losing elections.

    I am not a Cameron fan, but can see why he was needed.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    edited May 2015
    surbiton said:

    Pulpstar said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.

    But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.

    When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.
    UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.
    Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.

    The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !
    The Greens could do similiar damage to Miliband ;)
    Definitely. But as yet the numbers are lower. Some of them are transfers from LD all of whom might not have come to Labour.
    There is barely any Green - Con switching though, whereas there is some UKIP - Labour switching. Sure the effect is lower than UKIP but it could cost Labour a few seats.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    ydoethur said:

    @Surbiton, your results don't make sense. You have compared three rather different opinion polls across three different countries. That's not, in my view, the best way to carry out a UNS prediction, even if such a thing exists.

    If done crudely, plugging Comres (figures remarkably close to latest ICM, who got closest last time, again not to say they will this time) I come up with a UNS of Con 304, Lab 300, Lib 16.

    However, because UNS takes no account of the SNP surge, that's clearly not likely to happen. So let's assume that Labour lose 35 seats in Scotland, which is probably at the optimistic end for them. That leaves them on 265, with the SNP on 41. In other words, because of a considerable churn, Labour and the Tories pretty much stand still.





    Or, the Lib Dems could look at the maths and admit that C and S with the Tories, however unpalatable to the survivors, makes arithmetical sense and should therefore be allowed for a couple of years while they try to rebuild their own activist base in preparation for another election.

    Which means it is not surprising that there are rumours flooding around that Labour are panicking about their prospects. It would not however explain their apparently giving up in some low-hanging marginals (e.g. Northampton and Ipswich). That strikes me as something more than arithmetic in play.

    How are you remotely going to get SNP seat figures on a GB wide UNS. It wouldn't give SNP even 10 seats !

    Because of the SNP phenomenon, Scotland calculations has to be done separately. There is no other way out.

    Please note when I use separate polls for the 3 countries, I am not using unweighted subsets. These are proper weighted polls in their own right.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Pulpstar said:

    surbiton said:

    Pulpstar said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.

    But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.

    When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.
    UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.
    Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.

    The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !
    The Greens could do similiar damage to Miliband ;)
    Definitely. But as yet the numbers are lower. Some of them are transfers from LD all of whom might not have come to Labour.
    There is barely any Green - Con switching though, whereas there is some UKIP - Labour switching. Sure the effect is lower than UKIP but it could cost Labour a few seats.
    Yes, for sure. It could have hurt Labour in Bristol West but Labour may have escaped.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Pulpstar said:

    Roger said:

    Is it a smart idea for the Mail to push the idea that UKIP and the Tories are interchangable?

    And certain Lib Dems ;)
    Lib Dems , Clegg in particular, are behaving as if they are.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    The exit pollsters have a few plausible scenarios which they can't possibly cover:

    Mahoosive tactical unionist voting in the privacy of the ballot box and then people saying they voted for their preferred party

    A collapse of the Green vote, and people saying they voted Green as they'd have liked to have done - to Labour's benefit

    See above but collapse of UKIP to Con.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited May 2015
    A very good proof that the Lab/Lib/Con 's are all basically one party:

    Only gone and done it again. All in it together #Lab #Con #Thanet #Folkestone Liberate yourselves... #VoteUKIP pic.twitter.com/zFKYDL2nxz

    — The Rebel Yell (@Rebel_Rock_On) May 5, 2015
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    surbiton said:

    Pulpstar said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.

    But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.

    When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.
    UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.
    Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.

    The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !
    The Greens could do similiar damage to Miliband ;)
    Definitely. But as yet the numbers are lower. Some of them are transfers from LD all of whom might not have come to Labour.
    A lot of the kipper vote comes from Labour, LD, DNV and BNP; so not just Con. The effect of this is to dilute the impact on the number of seats. By taking votes from all parties they wind up having little net effect on the number of Con seats.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.

    The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.

    You still need to get 500 turkeys to vote for Christmas.

    What we need is a constitutional convention to look at the entire UK-wide settlement, including the voting system. The chances of getting one are close to zero. There are too many interests on all sides only to willing to put party before country. And that could well lead to the break-up of the UK.
    While I agree that a Constitutional Convention is needed, I cannot see our current politicians delivering it. If they did convene such a meeting then I would expect a dogs breakfast.

    We have a voting system and a constitutional settlement that are both actively accelerating the break-up of the UK. Yet we do not have a political class willing to put aside party advantage to come up with something better. It is very sad.

    The theoretical arguments against asymmetric devolution are now about to become very real.

    Sometimes ruling castes are prepared to set aside self-interest in the face of a greater danger, but it's rare.
    I suppose that if one takes the view that it would be best that UK stayed together then one could say that:
    1. A proportional voting system (e.g STV) would limit the extent of the SNP success, which FPTP exaggerates.
    2. The avoidance of a referendum on leaving the European Union would be a good thing, since Scotland is very much in favour of remaining in the EU.
    So, if you are in favour of the union, you should hope for a Miliband victory. He is against leaving the EU and theoretically at least in favour of electoral reform.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    ICM is key.If that shows a narrowing like Ashcroft,then it is still neck and neck.I expect MORI to revert to the mean from the outlier last time.

    So far,only 1 point Labour online lead vs 2 and 3 point Tory phone poll lead.

    I will go for between 0-2 point Con lead on the night.
  • Pulpstar said:

    The exit pollsters have a few plausible scenarios which they can't possibly cover:

    Mahoosive tactical unionist voting in the privacy of the ballot box and then people saying they voted for their preferred party

    A collapse of the Green vote, and people saying they voted Green as they'd have liked to have done - to Labour's benefit

    See above but collapse of UKIP to Con.

    And large numbers of WWC who said they would vote Labour but actually vote UKIP
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.

    The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.

    You still need to get 500 turkeys to vote for Christmas.

    What we need is a constitutional convention to look at the entire UK-wide settlement, including the voting system. The chances of getting one are close to zero. There are too many interests on all sides only to willing to put party before country. And that could well lead to the break-up of the UK.
    While I agree that a Constitutional Convention is needed, I cannot see our current politicians delivering it. If they did convene such a meeting then I would expect a dogs breakfast.

    We have a voting system and a constitutional settlement that are both actively accelerating the break-up of the UK. Yet we do not have a political class willing to put aside party advantage to come up with something better. It is very sad.

    The theoretical arguments against asymmetric devolution are now about to become very real.

    Sometimes ruling castes are prepared to set aside self-interest in the face of a greater danger, but it's rare.
    I suppose that if one takes the view that it would be best that UK stayed together then one could say that:
    1. A proportional voting system (e.g STV) would limit the extent of the SNP success, which FPTP exaggerates.
    2. The avoidance of a referendum on leaving the European Union would be a good thing, since Scotland is very much in favour of remaining in the EU.
    So, if you are in favour of the union, you should hope for a Miliband victory. He is against leaving the EU and theoretically at least in favour of electoral reform.
    He said the other day he didn't support PR
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    Pulpstar said:

    The exit pollsters have a few plausible scenarios which they can't possibly cover:

    Mahoosive tactical unionist voting in the privacy of the ballot box and then people saying they voted for their preferred party

    A collapse of the Green vote, and people saying they voted Green as they'd have liked to have done - to Labour's benefit

    See above but collapse of UKIP to Con.

    And large numbers of WWC who said they would vote Labour but actually vote UKIP
    This is another !
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Pulpstar said:

    The exit pollsters have a few plausible scenarios which they can't possibly cover:

    Mahoosive tactical unionist voting in the privacy of the ballot box and then people saying they voted for their preferred party

    A collapse of the Green vote, and people saying they voted Green as they'd have liked to have done - to Labour's benefit

    See above but collapse of UKIP to Con.

    And large numbers of WWC who said they would vote Labour but actually vote UKIP
    Or vice versa...
  • I think one problem for the LDs (and one reason why they may be at the very low end of expectations) is that Tory-inclined voters who previously backed them in LD / Tory seats and who even might have been inclined to vote for them again, will be worried that the LDs could end up doing a deal with Labour post-election - so they will vote Conservative on safety grounds.

    If I had been Clegg, I would be a lot more forceful from early on in highlighting the benefits of the Coalition and suggesting a continuation would be his preferred option.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    Patrick said:

    Whilst I think Dave has actually been a really good PM, I think as a politician he has basically failed. Imagine where we'd be if the UKIP phenomenon had simply never happened. If Dave had been more Maggielike and championed the conservative (small c) core vote. The Tories would be 15 points ahead in the polls and heading for a huge majority. Metrosexual Dave split the right. That he's nonetheless ahead in the polls is frankly amazing. Not sure it'll save him though.

    I am not convinced. I think a Tory core vote agenda would have been as unsuccessful as it was under Hague or Howard. The Conservatives chose Cameron for the same reason that Blair won the Labour contest in 94. They were sick of losing elections.

    I am not a Cameron fan, but can see why he was needed.
    Tony Blair thought the Conservatives could win from the right.

    I don't see anything in UKIP's platform that would have repelled Mrs T.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    I think one problem for the LDs (and one reason why they may be at the very low end of expectations) is that Tory-inclined voters who previously backed them in LD / Tory seats and who even might have been inclined to vote for them again, will be worried that the LDs could end up doing a deal with Labour post-election - so they will vote Conservative on safety grounds.

    If I had been Clegg, I would be a lot more forceful from early on in highlighting the benefits of the Coalition and suggesting a continuation would be his preferred option.

    True - there only really are about 11 Lib Dem-Lab marginals and places like Gorton and Bristol West look like they're heading onto the pyre anyway.
  • Pulpstar said:

    The exit pollsters have a few plausible scenarios which they can't possibly cover:

    Mahoosive tactical unionist voting in the privacy of the ballot box and then people saying they voted for their preferred party

    A collapse of the Green vote, and people saying they voted Green as they'd have liked to have done - to Labour's benefit

    See above but collapse of UKIP to Con.

    And large numbers of WWC who said they would vote Labour but actually vote UKIP
    Or vice versa...
    Very true - although I don't believe the "Shy Labour" view: saying they vote Labour tends to make people feel morally superior to others.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    Patrick said:

    Whilst I think Dave has actually been a really good PM, I think as a politician he has basically failed. Imagine where we'd be if the UKIP phenomenon had simply never happened. If Dave had been more Maggielike and championed the conservative (small c) core vote. The Tories would be 15 points ahead in the polls and heading for a huge majority. Metrosexual Dave split the right. That he's nonetheless ahead in the polls is frankly amazing. Not sure it'll save him though.

    Wrong type of modernisation
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I'm telling in my ward tomorrow - who else is out and about for the GE?

    I generally hate polling day. It's boring as the TV/radio talk about everything else instead. Then there's the hiatus between 10pm and about 2am when it's all talking head speculation...
    MikeK said:

    Good Morning all.

    Last day before Judgement Day and all that...................

  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    Anthony Wells prediction

    Con 277,Lab 267,Lib Dem 29,SNP 52.

    He is also only predicting 10 Con gains from Lib Dem.
  • LestuhLestuh Posts: 50

    surbiton said:

    Pulpstar said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.

    But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.

    When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.
    UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.
    Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.

    The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !
    The Greens could do similiar damage to Miliband ;)
    Definitely. But as yet the numbers are lower. Some of them are transfers from LD all of whom might not have come to Labour.
    A lot of the kipper vote comes from Labour, LD, DNV and BNP; so not just Con. The effect of this is to dilute the impact on the number of seats. By taking votes from all parties they wind up having little net effect on the number of Con seats.
    A big question for the reliability of the polls for the kipper vote is how many of those DNVs are still DNVs come Friday.

    My feeling is that it will be quite a lot.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited May 2015

    Patrick said:

    Whilst I think Dave has actually been a really good PM, I think as a politician he has basically failed. Imagine where we'd be if the UKIP phenomenon had simply never happened. If Dave had been more Maggielike and championed the conservative (small c) core vote. The Tories would be 15 points ahead in the polls and heading for a huge majority. Metrosexual Dave split the right. That he's nonetheless ahead in the polls is frankly amazing. Not sure it'll save him though.

    I am not convinced. I think a Tory core vote agenda would have been as unsuccessful as it was under Hague or Howard. The Conservatives chose Cameron for the same reason that Blair won the Labour contest in 94. They were sick of losing elections.

    I am not a Cameron fan, but can see why he was needed.
    Tony Blair thought the Conservatives could win from the right.

    I don't see anything in UKIP's platform that would have repelled Mrs T.
    Tony Blair was not always correct!

    He defeated two Conservative campaigns led from the right. He may well have relished a further one.

    And while Farage is an admirer of Maggie, I am not at all convinced that she would reciprocate. Maggie was a tribal Tory and would have hated splitters, she highly valued loyalty.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,505
    DavidL said:

    Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.

    The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.

    Tories and Labour in a real funk and showing their true colours , self interest over democracy , together they will stoop to any level to keep their snouts in the trough. Both deserve to be obliterated and hopefully we will be free of both come Friday.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Me too - what's the forecast for 7th ? The weather today is horrid - and I'm in court giving evidence at 0930 - I'll get soaked on the way there
    Lestuh said:

    surbiton said:

    Pulpstar said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.

    But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.

    When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.
    UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.
    Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.

    The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !
    The Greens could do similiar damage to Miliband ;)
    Definitely. But as yet the numbers are lower. Some of them are transfers from LD all of whom might not have come to Labour.
    A lot of the kipper vote comes from Labour, LD, DNV and BNP; so not just Con. The effect of this is to dilute the impact on the number of seats. By taking votes from all parties they wind up having little net effect on the number of Con seats.
    A big question for the reliability of the polls for the kipper vote is how many of those DNVs are still DNVs come Friday.

    My feeling is that it will be quite a lot.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Eve of Poll SUPER ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

    777 minutes
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.

    The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.

    Tories and Labour in a real funk and showing their true colours , self interest over democracy , together they will stoop to any level to keep their snouts in the trough. Both deserve to be obliterated and hopefully we will be free of both come Friday.
    Who is going to win the prize turnip award though ?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,505

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.

    Given up on Scotland then ?
    No. Statistically, Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls. It is better to look at it separately.
    The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]
    Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls

    I think you've just provoked the gods of Nattery Surby.
    Just about says it all Alan , what a sh**y country
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Patrick said:

    Whilst I think Dave has actually been a really good PM, I think as a politician he has basically failed. Imagine where we'd be if the UKIP phenomenon had simply never happened. If Dave had been more Maggielike and championed the conservative (small c) core vote. The Tories would be 15 points ahead in the polls and heading for a huge majority. Metrosexual Dave split the right. That he's nonetheless ahead in the polls is frankly amazing. Not sure it'll save him though.

    Neoconservatism just isn't very popular with the British people. Cameron will have lost two elections.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    SMukesh said:

    ICM is key.If that shows a narrowing like Ashcroft,then it is still neck and neck.I expect MORI to revert to the mean from the outlier last time.

    So far,only 1 point Labour online lead vs 2 and 3 point Tory phone poll lead.

    I will go for between 0-2 point Con lead on the night.

    I think we're past the point where polling tells us anything, it's boot on ground and actual votes now
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Tactical voting - blues for yellows to keep out reds and greens.

    Greens send stuff about nationalisation, more state control, vote for what you believe in as if I wanted to back throwbacks to the '70s. Their candidate rides a bloody tricycle/rickshaw round Clifton and thinks this is cool forward looking stuff.

    Had more leaflets focussed on 20 somethings who may be studying at Uni Bristol or UWE, but says something about a weak database or analysis. Left Unity & Independent leaflest arrived yesterday, but vote had been posted.

    I don't want the Greens to hold the seat, nor do I want Labour, so should I have voted Con when the candidate has been busy campaigning for Chris Skidmore in Kingswood, or did I hold my nose vote for a LD or just spoil the ballot paper?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @chrisg000 of this parish passim is a great Twitter feed to follow

    https://twitter.com/chrisg0000/status/595846631624421376
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Good morning, everyone.

    If The Witcher 3 came out a fortnight earlier, I could've just played that for six hours and occasionally flicked onto electoral coverage. Oh well :p
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,803
    ydoethur said:



    Which means it is not surprising that there are rumours flooding around that Labour are panicking about their prospects. It would not however explain their apparently giving up in some low-hanging marginals (e.g. Northampton and Ipswich). That strikes me as something more than arithmetic in play.

    Out of curiosity do you have any evidence to back up these 'rumours' ?

    Five years ago we were told by a Scottish PBer that Darling had given up hope in Edinburgh SW - he won by over 8000 votes.


  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Aidan_Kerr1: James Scott is comparing his suspension to Alex Salmond's. This guy is gold. http://t.co/h39sWa6t8V
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Scott_P said:

    @Aidan_Kerr1: James Scott is comparing his suspension to Alex Salmond's. This guy is gold. http://t.co/h39sWa6t8V

    No relation??
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    Worse than BNP. How did UKIP choose this guy to be their candidate?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-england-32595003
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    It may be just my connection, but Vanilla is feeling rather slow - do we have a back-up in case the servers meltdown during tomorrow?

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    dr_spyn said:

    Tactical voting - blues for yellows to keep out reds and greens.

    Greens send stuff about nationalisation, more state control, vote for what you believe in as if I wanted to back throwbacks to the '70s. Their candidate rides a bloody tricycle/rickshaw round Clifton and thinks this is cool forward looking stuff.

    Had more leaflets focussed on 20 somethings who may be studying at Uni Bristol or UWE, but says something about a weak database or analysis. Left Unity & Independent leaflest arrived yesterday, but vote had been posted.

    I don't want the Greens to hold the seat, nor do I want Labour, so should I have voted Con when the candidate has been busy campaigning for Chris Skidmore in Kingswood, or did I hold my nose vote for a LD or just spoil the ballot paper?

    Voting Conservative was absolutely the correct thing to do :D
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited May 2015
    dr_spyn said:

    Tactical voting - blues for yellows to keep out reds and greens.

    Greens send stuff about nationalisation, more state control, vote for what you believe in as if I wanted to back throwbacks to the '70s. Their candidate rides a bloody tricycle/rickshaw round Clifton and thinks this is cool forward looking stuff.

    Had more leaflets focussed on 20 somethings who may be studying at Uni Bristol or UWE, but says something about a weak database or analysis. Left Unity & Independent leaflest arrived yesterday, but vote had been posted.

    I don't want the Greens to hold the seat, nor do I want Labour, so should I have voted Con when the candidate has been busy campaigning for Chris Skidmore in Kingswood, or did I hold my nose vote for a LD or just spoil the ballot paper?

    I think tactical voting just leads to buyers remorse. Just think about those Labour inclined voters who voted LD tactically last time.

    Vote for the party whose policies you are most aligned to. Sometimes the simple solution is the correct one.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,067
    edited May 2015
    Plato said:

    Me too - what's the forecast for 7th ? The weather today is horrid - and I'm in court giving evidence at 0930 - I'll get soaked on the way there

    Lestuh said:

    surbiton said:

    Pulpstar said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.

    But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.

    When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.
    UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.
    Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.

    The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !
    The Greens could do similiar damage to Miliband ;)
    Definitely. But as yet the numbers are lower. Some of them are transfers from LD all of whom might not have come to Labour.
    A lot of the kipper vote comes from Labour, LD, DNV and BNP; so not just Con. The effect of this is to dilute the impact on the number of seats. By taking votes from all parties they wind up having little net effect on the number of Con seats.
    A big question for the reliability of the polls for the kipper vote is how many of those DNVs are still DNVs come Friday.

    My feeling is that it will be quite a lot.
    Weather should be a lot better tomorrow:

    Largely fine in the South, more showery further north but nothing too horrendous.

    http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rtavn361.gif
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Pulpstar said:
    They might still do it though
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    ydoethur said:



    Which means it is not surprising that there are rumours flooding around that Labour are panicking about their prospects. It would not however explain their apparently giving up in some low-hanging marginals (e.g. Northampton and Ipswich). That strikes me as something more than arithmetic in play.

    Out of curiosity do you have any evidence to back up these 'rumours' ?

    Five years ago we were told by a Scottish PBer that Darling had given up hope in Edinburgh SW - he won by over 8000 votes.


    Labour will also be losers along with the other two though. Won't pick up many seats in England and Wales whilst the loss of Scotland will make it very hard to ever win a working majority again. Further down the line I am sure they worry about UKIP emulating the SNP trick.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Watford Constituency Update :

    Following my lunchtime chat yesterday with a Conservative source I shall be tapping into the LibDem team later this morning and I'll report back this afternoon. :smile:
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Literally thank Heavens for that!
    murali_s said:

    Plato said:

    Me too - what's the forecast for 7th ? The weather today is horrid - and I'm in court giving evidence at 0930 - I'll get soaked on the way there

    Lestuh said:

    surbiton said:

    Pulpstar said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.

    But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.

    When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.
    UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.
    Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.

    The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !
    The Greens could do similiar damage to Miliband ;)
    Definitely. But as yet the numbers are lower. Some of them are transfers from LD all of whom might not have come to Labour.
    A lot of the kipper vote comes from Labour, LD, DNV and BNP; so not just Con. The effect of this is to dilute the impact on the number of seats. By taking votes from all parties they wind up having little net effect on the number of Con seats.
    A big question for the reliability of the polls for the kipper vote is how many of those DNVs are still DNVs come Friday.

    My feeling is that it will be quite a lot.
    Weather should be a lot better tomorrow:

    Largely fine in the South, more showery further north but nothing too horrendous.

    http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rtavn361.gif
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708


    I think tactical voting just leads to buyers remorse. Just think about those Labour inclined voters who voted LD tactically last time.

    They shouldn't be remorseful, they got a much better outcome than they would have got if they'd voted Labour, both policy-wise and strategically.

    Obviously that's assuming they didn't bollocks it up and vote Lib in a Lab/Con marginal, which quite a few tactical voters did...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    JackW said:

    Watford Constituency Update :

    Following my lunchtime chat yesterday with a Conservative source I shall be tapping into the LibDem team later this morning and I'll report back this afternoon. :smile:

    Labour won't win Watford - that's as far as I'm going to predict !
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Pulpstar said:

    JackW said:

    Watford Constituency Update :

    Following my lunchtime chat yesterday with a Conservative source I shall be tapping into the LibDem team later this morning and I'll report back this afternoon. :smile:

    Labour won't win Watford - that's as far as I'm going to predict !
    You never know .... Ed landslide .... :smile:

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548


    I think tactical voting just leads to buyers remorse. Just think about those Labour inclined voters who voted LD tactically last time.

    They shouldn't be remorseful, they got a much better outcome than they would have got if they'd voted Labour, both policy-wise and strategically.

    Obviously that's assuming they didn't bollocks it up and vote Lib in a Lab/Con marginal, which quite a few tactical voters did...
    That is the problem of gaming the system, sometimes you just make things murkier!
This discussion has been closed.