The Tory relaunch seems to be abandoning the field to Corbyn with tbe assumption that he will bag a hattrick or two of own goals. All the Tory wonks nod at this.
The truth is that the British public likes what they see. It is a very dangerous tactic.
In that case, I can now reveal that the Queen has met the IRA.
You don't think the situation was a tad different?
I don't know. What was the situation? What was the occasion shown in that photo? When was it taken? Was it before Tony Blair met Martin McGuinness in 1997? Was it before Margaret Thatcher authorised talks with the IRA through Martin McGuinness in 1990? I would guess not.
His meeting with them in 1984 certainly pre-dates the lot.
Just a thought on the Con attacks on Corbyn re IRA.
Many people say it's already priced in - but could Crosby think that it'll nag away at people - some people may say Lab now but when it comes to the crunch in the ballot booth the IRA attacks may lead to cold feet at the last minute and the vote then switches to Con.
That is the big hope, I am sure. All part of the Corbyn vs May polarisation that they hope will see many people who have rallied back to Labour not managing to do it when push comes to shove.
This is one reason the 'relaunch' could be very important of course - with negative Tory narratives, it could be easier for people to stick with Labour even if they truly dislike and are worried about Corbyn. Get some positive stuff in, nail Corbyn on his negatives, and it's tough for those people to self justify.
It was a peculiar thing to claim. Were those his exact words on the topic? as it is strange given he chooses his words carefully on the subject and can and no doubt would explain that it was no big deal that he met or spoke with various figures.
Was it not well known that McGuinness was provo IRA Chief of Staff? From the Saville Report, ''Before the soldiers of Support Company went into the Bogside he was probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun, and though it is possible that he fired this weapon, there is insufficient evidence to make any finding on this, save that we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire''
Perhaps Corbyn is coming over all (Bill) Clintonesque in his hair splitting. When he said 'IRA' he really did mean 'IRA' and not 'Provo IRA'
Martin McGuiness supposedly left the IrA, abandoned the armed struggle in favour of the ballot box in the late Seventies. Maybe not the whole truth but that is the story.
It was a peculiar thing to claim. Were those his exact words on the topic? as it is strange given he chooses his words carefully on the subject and can and no doubt would explain that it was no big deal that he met or spoke with various figures.
Was it not well known that McGuinness was provo IRA Chief of Staff? From the Saville Report, ''Before the soldiers of Support Company went into the Bogside he was probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun, and though it is possible that he fired this weapon, there is insufficient evidence to make any finding on this, save that we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire''
Perhaps Corbyn is coming over all (Bill) Clintonesque in his hair splitting. When he said 'IRA' he really did mean 'IRA' and not 'Provo IRA'
The Officials largely disbanded their campaign in 1972. Now they are known as the Workers' Party.
The Tory relaunch seems to be abandoning the field to Corbyn with tbe assumption that he will bag a hattrick or two of own goals. All the Tory wonks nod at this.
The truth is that the British public likes what they see. It is a very dangerous tactic.
It was also their tactic at the start, when the leads were bigger. I suppose the problem was that left the Tories vulnerable when their own bad news did come as they had nothing substantive to counter with, and might not be a tactic which recovers the big leads even if it does successfully buttress their position.
These relatively small differences in the polls imply very large variations in the likely scale of the Conservative victory - and we can make a good estimate of what those will be by looking at historical precedent.
Based on historical precedent, here is what we ought to expect, approximately speaking, in terms of how the Tory lead over Labour might translate in terms of a Parliamentary majority. Please note that these figures assume the Conservatives win nothing at all in Scotland, so you can add an adjustment for Scotland onto the values given, according to taste:
Con-Lab lead: 4% Con seats: 307 Majority: n/a (Con short by 18)
Con-Lab lead: 6% Con seats: 327 Majority: 4
Con-Lab lead: 8% Con seats: 355 Majority: 60
Con-Lab lead: 10% Con seats: 394 Majority: 138
I'm reticent about projecting beyond a Tory lead of 10%, because the biggest lead in the 1945-1970 data set is Labour's 8.6% advantage in 1945, and so it's possible that the maths will begin to break down as any possible Conservative surge breaks against a firewall of extremely safe Labour seats in urban areas. However, the main point is clear: historical precedent suggests that, in a two-party scenario, relatively modest changes in the difference in vote share between the two largest parties can have wholly disproportionate effects on the majority of the Government.
(Footnote: Conservative totals in the historical data sets for 1945-1970 include the Unionist Party in Scotland, the National Liberals and the Ulster Unionist Party, where relevant.)
Fascinating, brilliant and convincing
Blimey, but this is good. *applause*
On this analysis, my gut feel is somewhere just over 6%, and a majority of 30-40. But as I have said before, if it's a majority of 12, oh the irony...
In that case, I can now reveal that the Queen has met the IRA.
You don't think the situation was a tad different?
I don't know. What was the situation? What was the occasion shown in that photo? When was it taken? Was it before Tony Blair met Martin McGuinness in 1997? Was it before Margaret Thatcher authorised talks with the IRA through Martin McGuinness in 1990? I would guess not.
His meeting with them in 1984 certainly pre-dates the lot.
His attack on the British government blaming them for the IRA's remembrance sunday attack on November 1987 and demanding an end to British 'occupation' predates it as well.
It makes you wonder how he regards British occupation of the Falklands.
In that case, I can now reveal that the Queen has met the IRA.
You don't think the situation was a tad different?
I don't know. What was the situation? What was the occasion shown in that photo? When was it taken? Was it before Tony Blair met Martin McGuinness in 1997? Was it before Margaret Thatcher authorised talks with the IRA through Martin McGuinness in 1990? I would guess not.
His meeting with them in 1984 certainly pre-dates the lot.
Then Boris Johnson would have been wiser to say something about that, rather than to post a photo of a meeting in (by the look of it) in the mid 1990s, as though it was some kind of smoking gun.
Because there are probably plenty of photos of meetings between Sinn Fein and mainstream politicians from the mid 1990s. Johnson may be setting himself up for a Michael Fallon moment.
That's jolly kind, thank you! I think most people find my arguments strange, stupid and clueless, so it's nice to be appreciated for a change.
FWIW, if I'd only thought about this a few weeks ago and made the assumption that Ukip would melt like the snow in Spring, then I could've predicted the Labour surge: if even Attlee in 1945 could "only" manage an 8.6% lead, then why assume that Theresa May would necessarily manage 15-20%, even under current circumstances? Certainly, there's no reason to suppose that the large bodies of anti-Conservative, as well as anti-Labour, opinion in the country have gone away, and those votes all have to go somewhere. If all the other alternatives outside of Scotland are faltering, then that only leaves Labour. But I think I was just too biased against Corbyn to entertain such a scenario, I'm afraid. With hindsight the Labour surge was always possible, probable even. But hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
All that having been said, given my previous thoughts on Labour's poor demographics in terms of turnout, differential swing across the country, the possibility that the pollsters are under-weighting the Lib Dems and over-weighting Labour, and the long-term historical bias of the polls against the Tories, I still think it likely that the Conservatives will end up with a double-digit lead in terms of vote share over Labour. If that turns out to by the case, then the historical data I've been analysing suggest that the Conservatives might actually end up doing better than I had previously assumed. I forecast a Tory majority of 124 seats at the start of May, and I'm going to stand by that.
We will have to see which strategy works, but these ads are all just about negative stuff, whereas we believe people want to debate the big issues and have proper face-to-face discussions, and that’s what we’re doing.”
Nothing to worry about then?
I get the concern about being outspent on online advertising, but what's the point of simultaneously saying its shady, while also saying you don't think it is effective?
We will have to see which strategy works, but these ads are all just about negative stuff, whereas we believe people want to debate the big issues and have proper face-to-face discussions, and that’s what we’re doing.”
Nothing to worry about then?
I get the concern about being outspent on online advertising, but what's the point of simultaneously saying its shady, while also saying you don't think it is effective?
"whereas we believe people want to debate the big issues and have proper face-to-face discussions, and that’s what we’re doing"
In that case, I can now reveal that the Queen has met the IRA.
You don't think the situation was a tad different?
I don't know. What was the situation? What was the occasion shown in that photo? When was it taken? Was it before Tony Blair met Martin McGuinness in 1997? Was it before Margaret Thatcher authorised talks with the IRA through Martin McGuinness in 1990? I would guess not.
His meeting with them in 1984 certainly pre-dates the lot.
His attack on the British government blaming them for the IRA's remembrance sunday attack on November 1987 and demanding an end to British 'occupation' predates it as well.
It makes you wonder how he regards British occupation of the Falklands.
Agreed campaign spending limits per constituency are essential in a fair democracy.
Lets hope they're not being broken.
Given how all the parties got fined for various breaches of the rules last time, and the high barrier to prosecution, I would not be at all surprised to see more fines arising from this election.
Agreed campaign spending limits per constituency are essential in a fair democracy.
Lets hope they're not being broken.
Given how all the parties got fined for various breaches of the rules last time, and the high barrier to prosecution, I would not be at all surprised to see more fines arising from this election.
I think it is fine, as long as you don't mention the candidate's name or the name of the constituency.
In that case, I can now reveal that the Queen has met the IRA.
You don't think the situation was a tad different?
I don't know. What was the situation? What was the occasion shown in that photo? When was it taken? Was it before Tony Blair met Martin McGuinness in 1997? Was it before Margaret Thatcher authorised talks with the IRA through Martin McGuinness in 1990? I would guess not.
His meeting with them in 1984 certainly pre-dates the lot.
His attack on the British government blaming them for the IRA's remembrance sunday attack on November 1987 and demanding an end to British 'occupation' predates it as well.
It makes you wonder how he regards British occupation of the Falklands.
Hhhhmmm I'll take a wild guess...........
Its late so I'll settle for 'ambivalent'. To be fair he has a determined and settled view of Trident replacement. And the need for MI5. And membership of NATO.
ICM - what issue is most important? In order of priority:
1. NHS 2. Brexit 3. National security 4. Economy 5. Immigration 6. Strong leadership 7. Social care
2, 3, 4 ,5 and 6 are all very good issues for Con.
Lab has big lead on 1 and 7.
Best PM: May 48, Corbyn 27
The above surely looks good for Con.
Absolutely, and I also find ICM currently the most convincing of the pollsters. This is not because they are the most kind to the Conservatives, but rather because they showed very good consistency and stability, up until the Tory manifesto fiasco and the attendant consolidation of support behind the main Opposition.
But that said, ICM are indeed the most positive of the pollsters about the Conservative share, so people are entitled to point out that they are something of an outlier from the main trend amongst the companies as a whole. I presume, based on recent comments by ICM themselves, that this is down to a difference in turnout weighting: they have effectively suggested that their rivals may have got theirs wrong.
Of course, if the pollsters continue to show significant differences in their Lab-Con margins then we all have to decide which, if any, we find the more convincing, based on our own reason. We're not going to know for sure, of course, until the big day - but there's not too long left to wait now...
Having read Black_Rook's analysis earlier this evening, I was reminded by this article I read recently about rule of thumb trumping complex analysis. Takes about a minute to read, but definitely something to bear in mind when you feel you are too far down the polling rabbit hole.
Incidentally, the GMB is playing politics with the British Airways IT outage - blaming it on IT outsourcing, and the sacking of British-based IT staff last December. But I noticed an interesting coincidence: government outsourcing favourite Capita also had a massive server outage today (also blamed on a power failure, and also still not fixed this evening) which has taken down council services across the country, and *they* did a big IT outsourcing in December and sacked loads of British IT staff around the same time. Coincidence?
I think Matthew Goodwin is right. The polls are overestimating Labour, as usual.
Do a constituency map by age. This isn't working vs middle class any more. This is young vs old.
Largely concentrated in very safe Labour seats.
And Cambridge? (poor LDs)
16th in list of % of 16-24 year olds from the House of Commons Library based on 2011 Census:
Sheffield Central 34.2 Cardiff Central 31.6 New castle upon Tyne East 30.5 Nottingham South 30.2 Liverpool, Riverside 28.9 Leeds North West 27.4 Manchester Central 26.3 Leeds Central 25.4 Bristol West 23.8 Oxford East 23.6 Portsmouth South 23.5 Glasgow North 23.0 Glasgow Central 22.9 Manchester, Gorton 22.5 Leicester South 22.3 Cambridge 22.3 Swansea West 22.0 Canterbury 21.7 Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport 21.5 Coventry South 21.5
Agreed campaign spending limits per constituency are essential in a fair democracy.
Lets hope they're not being broken.
Given how all the parties got fined for various breaches of the rules last time, and the high barrier to prosecution, I would not be at all surprised to see more fines arising from this election.
I think it is fine, as long as you don't mention the candidate's name or the name of the constituency.
Oh that particularly example might be fine - that it is 'unregulated' appears to be the issue, so I presume its not against a rule? - but I doubt they've all avoided issues entirely. Besides, it's hard to prove criminal intent with most breaches anyway.
Agreed campaign spending limits per constituency are essential in a fair democracy.
Lets hope they're not being broken.
Given how all the parties got fined for various breaches of the rules last time, and the high barrier to prosecution, I would not be at all surprised to see more fines arising from this election.
I think it is fine, as long as you don't mention the candidate's name or the name of the constituency.
Oh that particularly example might be fine - that it is 'unregulated' appears to be the issue, so I presume its not against a rule? - but I doubt they've all avoided issues entirely. Besides, it's hard to prove criminal intent with most breaches anyway.
I doubt it's unregulated. Nothing is stopping them complaining to the electoral commission, for example.
I think Matthew Goodwin is right. The polls are overestimating Labour, as usual.
Do a constituency map by age. This isn't working vs middle class any more. This is young vs old.
Largely concentrated in very safe Labour seats.
And Cambridge? (poor LDs)
16th in list of % of 16-24 year olds from the House of Commons Library based on 2011 Census:
Sheffield Central 34.2 Cardiff Central 31.6 New castle upon Tyne East 30.5 Nottingham South 30.2 Liverpool, Riverside 28.9 Leeds North West 27.4 Manchester Central 26.3 Leeds Central 25.4 Bristol West 23.8 Oxford East 23.6 Portsmouth South 23.5 Glasgow North 23.0 Glasgow Central 22.9 Manchester, Gorton 22.5 Leicester South 22.3 Cambridge 22.3 Swansea West 22.0 Canterbury 21.7 Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport 21.5 Coventry South 21.5
Agreed campaign spending limits per constituency are essential in a fair democracy.
Lets hope they're not being broken.
What exactly are they complaining about? That the Tories aren't giving them a free run?
The ads the tories were running were national ones.
The complaint appears to be that those with the most money can buy up more space and drown out your competition.
PB is as close to social media as I come, so I cannot speak as to the effectiveness of such tactics, although clearly the parties put plenty of effort into it. So for me the question is merely 'are rules being broken?' and 'should there be a rule if there aren't any to cover this area?' If the first is no, well, touch diddums. If the second is yes, well, we'll have to wait and see what comes out.
The Conservative "Corbyn IRA" attack advert has been watched by just under 60,000 people since it was linked to in a post on here only an hour or two ago.
Agreed campaign spending limits per constituency are essential in a fair democracy.
Lets hope they're not being broken.
Given how all the parties got fined for various breaches of the rules last time, and the high barrier to prosecution, I would not be at all surprised to see more fines arising from this election.
I think it is fine, as long as you don't mention the candidate's name or the name of the constituency.
Oh that particularly example might be fine - that it is 'unregulated' appears to be the issue, so I presume its not against a rule? - but I doubt they've all avoided issues entirely. Besides, it's hard to prove criminal intent with most breaches anyway.
I doubt it's unregulated. Nothing is stopping them complaining to the electoral commission, for example.
" David Hanson, of Labour, is defending the seat in Delyn and will lose it if there is a 3.9% swing to the Tories. He said: “It feels pretty symptomatic. We’re running a local campaign, talking to people about local issues on the ground, whereas the Conservatives are using these national adverts, run at a national level, and are actively trying to suppress the turnout in a number of ways.
“We will have to see which strategy works, but these ads are all just about negative stuff, whereas we believe people want to debate the big issues and have proper face-to-face discussions, and that’s what we’re doing.”
It's soooooo unfair.
I can hear a violin playing, perhaps the smallest violin in the world.
Agreed campaign spending limits per constituency are essential in a fair democracy.
Lets hope they're not being broken.
Given how all the parties got fined for various breaches of the rules last time, and the high barrier to prosecution, I would not be at all surprised to see more fines arising from this election.
I think it is fine, as long as you don't mention the candidate's name or the name of the constituency.
Oh that particularly example might be fine - that it is 'unregulated' appears to be the issue, so I presume its not against a rule? - but I doubt they've all avoided issues entirely. Besides, it's hard to prove criminal intent with most breaches anyway.
I doubt it's unregulated.
You mean a newspaper subheading is sensationalising things!?! But they are 'dark' ads and everything!
Agreed campaign spending limits per constituency are essential in a fair democracy.
Lets hope they're not being broken.
What exactly are they complaining about? That the Tories aren't giving them a free run?
The ads the tories were running were national ones.
The complaint appears to be that those with the most money can buy up more space and drown out your competition.
PB is as close to social media as I come, so I cannot speak as to the effectiveness of such tactics, although clearly the parties put plenty of effort into it. So for me the question is merely 'are rules being broken?' and 'should there be a rule if there aren't any to cover this area?' If the first is no, well, touch diddums. If the second is yes, well, we'll have to wait and see what comes out.
There's no limit on an individual 'item' (such as facebook ads). The Tories could spend all £17 million of their national election expenses on advertising in one village, for example. That would lead to the same situation here, with the other parties crowded out.
Agreed campaign spending limits per constituency are essential in a fair democracy.
Lets hope they're not being broken.
Given how all the parties got fined for various breaches of the rules last time, and the high barrier to prosecution, I would not be at all surprised to see more fines arising from this election.
I think it is fine, as long as you don't mention the candidate's name or the name of the constituency.
Oh that particularly example might be fine - that it is 'unregulated' appears to be the issue, so I presume its not against a rule? - but I doubt they've all avoided issues entirely. Besides, it's hard to prove criminal intent with most breaches anyway.
I doubt it's unregulated. Nothing is stopping them complaining to the electoral commission, for example.
" David Hanson, of Labour, is defending the seat in Delyn and will lose it if there is a 3.9% swing to the Tories. He said: “It feels pretty symptomatic. We’re running a local campaign, talking to people about local issues on the ground, whereas the Conservatives are using these national adverts, run at a national level, and are actively trying to suppress the turnout in a number of ways.
“We will have to see which strategy works, but these ads are all just about negative stuff, whereas we believe people want to debate the big issues and have proper face-to-face discussions, and that’s what we’re doing.”
It's soooooo unfair.
I can hear a violin playing, perhaps the smallest violin in the world.
In all seriousness, what does he mean when saying the Tories are 'actively trying to suppress the turnout in a number of ways'? Because that strikes me as a pretty bold claim - not itself covered by them replacing a Labour 'register to vote' ad with a Tory 'don't vote for Labour' ad.
Additionally, 'we're running a local campaign while they are running a national campaign' is a weird criticism given there is a distinction between local and national spends, and so it is a ok to have national and local messages.
In that case, I can now reveal that the Queen has met the IRA.
You don't think the situation was a tad different?
I don't know. What was the situation? What was the occasion shown in that photo? When was it taken? Was it before Tony Blair met Martin McGuinness in 1997? Was it before Margaret Thatcher authorised talks with the IRA through Martin McGuinness in 1990? I would guess not.
His meeting with them in 1984 certainly pre-dates the lot.
His attack on the British government blaming them for the IRA's remembrance sunday attack on November 1987 and demanding an end to British 'occupation' predates it as well.
It makes you wonder how he regards British occupation of the Falklands.
Hhhhmmm I'll take a wild guess...........
Its late so I'll settle for 'ambivalent'. To be fair he has a determined and settled view of Trident replacement. And the need for MI5. And membership of NATO.
I'm delighted that MI5 will continue to exist. They delivered my box of ballot papers this afternoon - already filled in too.
I think Matthew Goodwin is right. The polls are overestimating Labour, as usual.
Do a constituency map by age. This isn't working vs middle class any more. This is young vs old.
Largely concentrated in very safe Labour seats.
And Cambridge? (poor LDs)
16th in list of % of 16-24 year olds from the House of Commons Library based on 2011 Census:
Sheffield Central 34.2 Cardiff Central 31.6 New castle upon Tyne East 30.5 Nottingham South 30.2 Liverpool, Riverside 28.9 Leeds North West 27.4 Manchester Central 26.3 Leeds Central 25.4 Bristol West 23.8 Oxford East 23.6 Portsmouth South 23.5 Glasgow North 23.0 Glasgow Central 22.9 Manchester, Gorton 22.5 Leicester South 22.3 Cambridge 22.3 Swansea West 22.0 Canterbury 21.7 Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport 21.5 Coventry South 21.5
Sheffield Central - Labour Cardiff Central - Labour Newcastle upon Tyne East - Labour Nottingham South - Labour Liverpool Riverside - Labour Leeds North West - Lib Dem Manchester Central - Labour Leeds Central - Labour Bristol West - Labour Oxford East - Labour Portsmouth South - Conservative Glasgow North - SNP Glasgow Central - SNP Manchester Gorton - Labour Leicester South - Labour Cambridge - Labour Swansea West - Labour Canterbury - Conservative Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport - Conservative Coventry South - Labour
In that case, I can now reveal that the Queen has met the IRA.
You don't think the situation was a tad different?
I don't know. What was the situation? What was the occasion shown in that photo? When was it taken? Was it before Tony Blair met Martin McGuinness in 1997? Was it before Margaret Thatcher authorised talks with the IRA through Martin McGuinness in 1990? I would guess not.
His meeting with them in 1984 certainly pre-dates the lot.
His attack on the British government blaming them for the IRA's remembrance sunday attack on November 1987 and demanding an end to British 'occupation' predates it as well.
It makes you wonder how he regards British occupation of the Falklands.
Hhhhmmm I'll take a wild guess...........
Its late so I'll settle for 'ambivalent'. To be fair he has a determined and settled view of Trident replacement. And the need for MI5. And membership of NATO.
I'm delighted that MI5 will continue to exist. They delivered my box of ballot papers this afternoon - already filled in too.
Very helpful, the boys and girls of MI5, they think of everything. Stuffed ballot boxes so much easier to manage than when they had us all rubbing out people's votes and re-voting, especially once people started bringing their own pens!
In that case, I can now reveal that the Queen has met the IRA.
You don't think the situation was a tad different?
I don't know. What was the situation? What was the occasion shown in that photo? When was it taken? Was it before Tony Blair met Martin McGuinness in 1997? Was it before Margaret Thatcher authorised talks with the IRA through Martin McGuinness in 1990? I would guess not.
His meeting with them in 1984 certainly pre-dates the lot.
His attack on the British government blaming them for the IRA's remembrance sunday attack on November 1987 and demanding an end to British 'occupation' predates it as well.
It makes you wonder how he regards British occupation of the Falklands.
Hhhhmmm I'll take a wild guess...........
Its late so I'll settle for 'ambivalent'. To be fair he has a determined and settled view of Trident replacement. And the need for MI5. And membership of NATO.
I'm delighted that MI5 will continue to exist. They delivered my box of ballot papers this afternoon - already filled in too.
In all seriousness, what does he mean when saying the Tories are 'actively trying to suppress the turnout in a number of ways'? Because that strikes me as a pretty bold claim - not itself covered by them replacing a Labour 'register to vote' ad with a Tory 'don't vote for Labour' ad.
Additionally, 'we're running a local campaign while they are running a national campaign' is a weird criticism given there is a distinction between local and national spends, and so it is a ok to have national and local messages.
Vote suppresion is a concept that emerged in the last US election - the idea is to put out so much negative and confusing propaganda that your opponents' voters just stay at home. It struck me as weird then but it's apparently seen now as part of electoral armory.
Agreed campaign spending limits per constituency are essential in a fair democracy.
Lets hope they're not being broken.
Given how all the parties got fined for various breaches of the rules last time, and the high barrier to prosecution, I would not be at all surprised to see more fines arising from this election.
I think it is fine, as long as you don't mention the candidate's name or the name of the constituency.
Oh that particularly example might be fine - that it is 'unregulated' appears to be the issue, so I presume its not against a rule? - but I doubt they've all avoided issues entirely. Besides, it's hard to prove criminal intent with most breaches anyway.
I doubt it's unregulated. Nothing is stopping them complaining to the electoral commission, for example.
" David Hanson, of Labour, is defending the seat in Delyn and will lose it if there is a 3.9% swing to the Tories. He said: “It feels pretty symptomatic. We’re running a local campaign, talking to people about local issues on the ground, whereas the Conservatives are using these national adverts, run at a national level, and are actively trying to suppress the turnout in a number of ways.
“We will have to see which strategy works, but these ads are all just about negative stuff, whereas we believe people want to debate the big issues and have proper face-to-face discussions, and that’s what we’re doing.”
It's soooooo unfair.
I can hear a violin playing, perhaps the smallest violin in the world.
I've just realised I have £30 at 3/1 on this guy to hold his seat.
I retract my earlier comments.
Quite frankly it's a disgrace and something must be done.
When the war kicked off i was 16 and i sort of vaguely thought the falklabds were sonewgere off orkney. Some people under 50 probably do know where they are but i find it hard to believe they were going to vote labour and this article will suddenly alter their entire perspective
In all seriousness, what does he mean when saying the Tories are 'actively trying to suppress the turnout in a number of ways'? Because that strikes me as a pretty bold claim - not itself covered by them replacing a Labour 'register to vote' ad with a Tory 'don't vote for Labour' ad.
Additionally, 'we're running a local campaign while they are running a national campaign' is a weird criticism given there is a distinction between local and national spends, and so it is a ok to have national and local messages.
Vote suppresion is a concept that emerged in the last US election - the idea is to put out so much negative and confusing propaganda that your opponents' voters just stay at home. It struck me as weird then but it's apparently seen now as part of electoral armory.
I thought in the US voter suppression (and particularly 'active' suppression as is accused here) was more about laws around voter ID, postal votes and so on which disproportionately impacted groups more likely to vote for one side than another?
Applying such a term to advertising more effectively than your opponent is just plain dumb and makes the accusation look overdone, when the issue of regulation or lack thereof of these ads might be worth talking about.
When the war kicked off i was 16 and i sort of vaguely thought the falklabds were sonewgere off orkney. Some people under 50 probably do know where they are but i find it hard to believe they were going to vote labour and this article will suddenly alter their entire perspective
Did you also think Argentina was somewhere near Orkney, or was it that you weren't sure where Orkney was either? Agreed on its own it won't change anyone's vote, but it's part of a bigger picture.
I knew Argentina was near brazil and didnt really look any further than that. Perhaps putting simon weston forward as a spokesman might not be the best move in view of his anti english vuews that hes expressed previously?
When the war kicked off i was 16 and i sort of vaguely thought the falklabds were sonewgere off orkney. Some people under 50 probably do know where they are but i find it hard to believe they were going to vote labour and this article will suddenly alter their entire perspective
Did you also think Argentina was somewhere near Orkney, or was it that you weren't sure where Orkney was either? Agreed on its own it won't change anyone's vote, but it's part of a bigger picture.
I remember voxpops on the news at the time. Many a man in the street imagined that Falklands were off Scotland so the Argentinian invasion did seem rather serious.
I think Matthew Goodwin is right. The polls are overestimating Labour, as usual.
Do a constituency map by age. This isn't working vs middle class any more. This is young vs old.
Largely concentrated in very safe Labour seats.
And Cambridge? (poor LDs)
16th in list of % of 16-24 year olds from the House of Commons Library based on 2011 Census:
Sheffield Central 34.2 Cardiff Central 31.6 New castle upon Tyne East 30.5 Nottingham South 30.2 Liverpool, Riverside 28.9 Leeds North West 27.4 Manchester Central 26.3 Leeds Central 25.4 Bristol West 23.8 Oxford East 23.6 Portsmouth South 23.5 Glasgow North 23.0 Glasgow Central 22.9 Manchester, Gorton 22.5 Leicester South 22.3 Cambridge 22.3 Swansea West 22.0 Canterbury 21.7 Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport 21.5 Coventry South 21.5
Sheffield Central - Labour Cardiff Central - Labour Newcastle upon Tyne East - Labour Nottingham South - Labour Liverpool Riverside - Labour Leeds North West - Lib Dem Manchester Central - Labour Leeds Central - Labour Bristol West - Labour Oxford East - Labour Portsmouth South - Conservative Glasgow North - SNP Glasgow Central - SNP Manchester Gorton - Labour Leicester South - Labour Cambridge - Labour Swansea West - Labour Canterbury - Conservative Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport - Conservative Coventry South - Labour
Or another way to look at it, largely coterminous with Remain constituencies (shock).
When the war kicked off i was 16 and i sort of vaguely thought the falklabds were sonewgere off orkney. Some people under 50 probably do know where they are but i find it hard to believe they were going to vote labour and this article will suddenly alter their entire perspective
Did you also think Argentina was somewhere near Orkney, or was it that you weren't sure where Orkney was either? Agreed on its own it won't change anyone's vote, but it's part of a bigger picture.
I remember voxpops on the news at the time. Many a man in the street imagined that Falklands were off Scotland so the Argentinian invasion did seem rather serious.
What should Rudd say when someone inevitably asks, "Why is May not here?".
The conservatives are offering a strong team under the leadership of Theresa May.
Of course labour could claim the same. If the party is willing but o send someone, it's odd it's not the leader. She will probably get asked what may thinks of x and y, and how her answers are sure with May not there.
What should Rudd say when someone inevitably asks, "Why is May not here?".
Well presumably Rudd will have a line prepared, probably something like:
"Theresa is doing numerous TV appearances and indeed she is on this very channel for Question Time in just two days time when she will face uninterrupted questions for 45 mins. The Conservative Party is a team and it's important the public sees the team".
It's also very helpful that Robertson is now appearing for the SNP - means Con won't be the only party without its leader - so much easier to justify.
Will be interesting to see what other parties now do. Might LDs be tempted to go for Clegg? I would if I was them.
What should Rudd say when someone inevitably asks, "Why is May not here?".
Well presumably Rudd will have a line prepared, probably something like:
"Theresa is doing numerous TV appearances and indeed she is on this very channel for Question Time in just two days time when she will face uninterrupted questions for 45 mins. The Conservative Party is a team and it's important the public sees the team".
It's also very helpful that Robertson is now appearing for the SNP - means Con won't be the only party without its leader - so much easier to justify.
Will be interesting to see what other parties now do. Might LDs be tempted to go for Clegg? I would if I was them.
Interesting, thanks. I wonder why Sturgeon isn't appearing? Perhaps to show off the 'team' to a GB* audience.
When the war kicked off i was 16 and i sort of vaguely thought the falklabds were sonewgere off orkney. Some people under 50 probably do know where they are but i find it hard to believe they were going to vote labour and this article will suddenly alter their entire perspective
Did you also think Argentina was somewhere near Orkney, or was it that you weren't sure where Orkney was either? Agreed on its own it won't change anyone's vote, but it's part of a bigger picture.
I remember voxpops on the news at the time. Many a man in the street imagined that Falklands were off Scotland so the Argentinian invasion did seem rather serious.
I suppose they sound a bit like Falkirk.
There's a village called Falkland in Fife. It was the Viscount of Falkland that the islands in the South Atlantic were named after.
When the war kicked off i was 16 and i sort of vaguely thought the falklabds were sonewgere off orkney. Some people under 50 probably do know where they are but i find it hard to believe they were going to vote labour and this article will suddenly alter their entire perspective
Did you also think Argentina was somewhere near Orkney, or was it that you weren't sure where Orkney was either? Agreed on its own it won't change anyone's vote, but it's part of a bigger picture.
I remember voxpops on the news at the time. Many a man in the street imagined that Falklands were off Scotland so the Argentinian invasion did seem rather serious.
I suppose they sound a bit like Falkirk.
There's a village called Falkland in Fife. It was the Viscount of Falkland that the islands in the South Atlantic were named after.
Thanks. Wish I'd paid more attention to geography in school. Mostly about oxbow lakes when I did listen.
What should Rudd say when someone inevitably asks, "Why is May not here?".
Well presumably Rudd will have a line prepared, probably something like:
"Theresa is doing numerous TV appearances and indeed she is on this very channel for Question Time in just two days time when she will face uninterrupted questions for 45 mins. The Conservative Party is a team and it's important the public sees the team".
It's also very helpful that Robertson is now appearing for the SNP - means Con won't be the only party without its leader - so much easier to justify.
Will be interesting to see what other parties now do. Might LDs be tempted to go for Clegg? I would if I was them.
Interesting, thanks. I wonder why Sturgeon isn't appearing? Perhaps to show off the 'team' to a GB audience.
What should Rudd say when someone inevitably asks, "Why is May not here?".
Well presumably Rudd will have a line prepared, probably something like:
"Theresa is doing numerous TV appearances and indeed she is on this very channel for Question Time in just two days time when she will face uninterrupted questions for 45 mins. The Conservative Party is a team and it's important the public sees the team".
It's also very helpful that Robertson is now appearing for the SNP - means Con won't be the only party without its leader - so much easier to justify.
Will be interesting to see what other parties now do. Might LDs be tempted to go for Clegg? I would if I was them.
Interesting, thanks. I wonder why Sturgeon isn't appearing? Perhaps to show off the 'team' to a GB audience.
edit: indeed, UK, most likely.
The Tories are threatening Robertsons seat.
Yes, should add an extra incentive for him to do well!
He's good at asking pointed questions in the HoC; not seem him in a proper debate setting before.
Always a chance Lab could spring Corbyn on us in that debate.
I see few downsides. Ok, maybe he finally messes up, but may being unwilling gives him an open goal, he can deflect anything Rudd says.
Yeah, it is a somewhat more tempting propostion when the Tories have some representative there instead of just nobody. Think maybe they'll send McDonnell?
Then Boris Johnson would have been wiser to say something about that, rather than to post a photo of a meeting in (by the look of it) in the mid 1990s, as though it was some kind of smoking gun.
Because there are probably plenty of photos of meetings between Sinn Fein and mainstream politicians from the mid 1990s. Johnson may be setting himself up for a Michael Fallon moment.
Jeremy Corbyn didn't meet the IRA, if by "not IRA" we include Sinn Fein leaders who either had been in the IRA but weren't officially in it any more, or Sinn Fein leaders who ostensibly had always been Sinn Fein rather than IRA, even if in actuality they were in the IRA. People like Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, etc. That definition of "not IRA" was the standard one in British and Irish politics for decades. Similarly Tony Blair, Mo Mowlam, the monarch, etc., "didn't" meet the IRA.
What Corbyn did do was talk crap in support of Irish republicanism in the 1980s.
As for Boris Johnson, he was sacked twice by employers for dishonesty.
Do you realise that nobody under the age of 50 knows where the faklands iis?
I would seriously like to know what proportion of people under 40 know who the IRA were.
I know both and I'm 34. I am from Warrington and a similar age to what Tim Parry would have been had the IRA not blown him up Aged 12. Yes I do remember my hometown getting bombed though I didn't live there at the time I was horrified and still am.
Do you realise that nobody under the age of 50 knows where the faklands iis?
I would seriously like to know what proportion of people under 40 know who the IRA were.
I know both and I'm 34. I am from Warrington and a similar age to what Tim Parry would have been had the IRA not blown him up Aged 12. Yes I do remember my hometown getting bombed though I didn't live there at the time I was horrified and still am.
These relatively small differences in the polls imply very large variations in the likely scale of the Conservative victory - and we can make a good estimate of what those will be by looking at historical precedent.
What essentially appears to be happening in this election is that, with the squeeze being applied to the Lib Dems and the near-total collapse of Ukip, England and Wales are reverting to the post-War two-party system, i.e. that which prevailed in the General Elections from 1945 to 1970 inclusive. So, if we plot each election result on a graph with two axes - the percentage lead in vote share for the winning party, and the percentage lead in terms of the proportion of total Commons seats won by the winning party - then we can simply plot a line of best fit through the available data points, find any given vote share lead on the line, read across to the seat share lead and finally calculate the number of seats to which this equates. Easy! I ran a polynomial regression through the data points, and obtained a curve with R-squared = 0.957, indicating that the regression line fits the data quite well.
There are 573 seats in England and Wales, and I have made the (not unreasonable) assumption for the purposes of this exercise that the minor parties (LD, Green, Ukip, and Plaid, plus the Speaker) will win 14 seats in total, which is the same as at present. This leaves 559 to be allocated to the two main parties.
Based on historical precedent, here is what we ought to expect, approximately speaking, in terms of how the Tory lead over Labour might translate in terms of a Parliamentary majority. Please note that these figures assume the Conservatives win nothing at all in Scotland, so you can add an adjustment for Scotland onto the values given, according to taste:
Con-Lab lead: 4% Con seats: 307 Majority: n/a (Con short by 18)
Con-Lab lead: 6% Con seats: 327 Majority: 4
Con-Lab lead: 8% Con seats: 355 Majority: 60
Con-Lab lead: 10% Con seats: 394 Majority: 138
Excellent stuff - thanks for this! Crunching it down to a quick and dirty sentence:
subtract 6 from the Tory lead in %, and multiply by 30 to get the Tory majority in seats.
That would say 6% 0, 8% 60, 10% 120, good enough for some purposes.
Summary: after a terrible week or so the Tories are, on average, 10 points ahead.
A lead which, for now, appears broadly stable. Though I'd put it at ~9% personally. If the lead remains stable or bounces back a bit, Tory nerves can calm. But with the 2015 win being 6.5%, any more slippage at all should alarm them.
Of course, Labour have looked good 2 or 3 weeks out before...
Anyone who's studied history at school ought to know about the Falklands War and the IRA. If they don't, something's gone seriously wrong with the education system.
Conservatives put up Amber Rudd for BBC Leaders Debate on Friday night with Labour still to announce nd Angus Robertson appearing for SNP
Interesting that Angus Robertson has been put up for the SNP, its not often that Nicola Sturgeon steps aside from a grandstanding UK wide media opportunity... Wonder how the campaign is going for Angus Robertson up in Moray.
Anyone who's studied history at school ought to know about the Falklands War and the IRA. If they don't, something's gone seriously wrong with the education system.
I was at primary school in the early 70s, and grew up against the back drop of the troubles in Northern Ireland. During that period my childhood was effected by my Dad's emergency deployments to Northern Ireland. We lived in military family accomadation and one day I was out playing with all my friends after school when another child ran up to tell us that 'one of our dad's had been shot by the IRA'! The child also knew the rank of the soldier that had been shot, and that therefore narrowed down whose Dad had been hurt to just a few of us. I still remember running home to ask my Mum if it was my Dad! It was not my Dad, but it was the Dad of one of my friends, and that memory still lives with me today.
Conservatives put up Amber Rudd for BBC Leaders Debate on Friday night with Labour still to announce nd Angus Robertson appearing for SNP
Interesting that Angus Robertson has been put up for the SNP, its not often that Nicola Sturgeon steps aside from a grandstanding UK wide media opportunity... Wonder how the campaign is going for Angus Robertson up in Moray.
What did Rudd say about Boris ? Can't trust him in a taxi ? His hands move too fast !
What should Rudd say when someone inevitably asks, "Why is May not here?".
Well presumably Rudd will have a line prepared, probably something like:
"Theresa is doing numerous TV appearances and indeed she is on this very channel for Question Time in just two days time when she will face uninterrupted questions for 45 mins. The Conservative Party is a team and it's important the public sees the team".
It's also very helpful that Robertson is now appearing for the SNP - means Con won't be the only party without its leader - so much easier to justify.
Will be interesting to see what other parties now do. Might LDs be tempted to go for Clegg? I would if I was them.
Robertson is the SNP leader at Westminster. May is the only Westminster leader not to show. They should empty chair her.
These relatively small differences in the polls imply very large variations in the likely scale of the Conservative victory - and we can make a good estimate of what those will be by looking at historical precedent.
What essentially appears to be happening in this election is that, with the squeeze being applied to the Lib Dems and the near-total collapse of Ukip, England and Wales are reverting to the post-War two-party system, i.e. that which prevailed in the General Elections from 1945 to 1970 inclusive. So, if we plot each election result on a graph with two axes - the percentage lead in vote share for the winning party, and the percentage lead in terms of the proportion of total Commons seats won by the winning party - then we can simply plot a line of best fit through the available data points, find any given vote share lead on the line, read across to the seat share lead and finally calculate the number of seats to which this equates. Easy! I ran a polynomial regression through the data points, and obtained a curve with R-squared = 0.957, indicating that the regression line fits the data quite well.
Based on historical precedent, here is what we ought to expect, approximately speaking, in terms of how the Tory lead over Labour might translate in terms of a Parliamentary majority. Please note that these figures assume the Conservatives win nothing at all in Scotland, so you can add an adjustment for Scotland onto the values given, according to taste:
Con-Lab lead: 4% Con seats: 307 Majority: n/a (Con short by 18)
Con-Lab lead: 6% Con seats: 327 Majority: 4
Con-Lab lead: 8% Con seats: 355 Majority: 60
Con-Lab lead: 10% Con seats: 394 Majority: 138
Excellent stuff - thanks for this! Crunching it down to a quick and dirty sentence:
subtract 6 from the Tory lead in %, and multiply by 30 to get the Tory majority in seats.
That would say 6% 0, 8% 60, 10% 120, good enough for some purposes.
It's an interesting exercise but I doubt much use as a predictor; old GEs don't provide good data to model modern GEs. There have been big changes since then, particularly in how pro-active the major parties have been in 'gaming' boundary reviews. This has created more safe seats and reduced the number of swing seats since the old days, as well as removed some oddities such as more seats for Scotland and Wales. The third parties, whilst all having a bad time, are still more significant in more locations than in pre-1974. All of this alters the number of seats gained for every extra 1%.
Although I don't believe this will be a good UNS election, a modern seat calculator will do a better job of this sort of exercise than using ancient GEs as a model.
These relatively small differences in the polls imply very large variations in the likely scale of the Conservative victory - and we can make a good estimate of what those will be by looking at historical precedent. .
There are 573 seats in England and Wales, and I have made the (not unreasonable) assumption for the purposes of this exercise that the minor parties (LD, Green, Ukip, and Plaid, plus the Speaker) will win 14 seats in total, which is the same as at present. This leaves 559 to be allocated to the two main parties.
Based on historical precedent, here is what we ought to expect, approximately speaking, in terms of how the Tory lead over Labour might translate in terms of a Parliamentary majority. Please note that these figures assume the Conservatives win nothing at all in Scotland, so you can add an adjustment for Scotland onto the values given, according to taste:
Con-Lab lead: 4% Con seats: 307 Majority: n/a (Con short by 18)
Con-Lab lead: 6% Con seats: 327 Majority: 4
Con-Lab lead: 8% Con seats: 355 Majority: 60
Con-Lab lead: 10% Con seats: 394 Majority: 138
I'm reticent about projecting beyond a Tory lead of 10%, because the biggest lead in the 1945-1970 data set is Labour's 8.6% advantage in 1945, and so it's possible that the maths will begin to break down as any possible Conservative surge breaks against a firewall of extremely safe Labour seats in urban areas. However, the main point is clear: historical precedent suggests that, in a two-party scenario, relatively modest changes in the difference in vote share between the two largest parties can have wholly disproportionate effects on the majority of the Government.
(Footnote: Conservative totals in the historical data sets for 1945-1970 include the Unionist Party in Scotland, the National Liberals and the Ulster Unionist Party, where relevant.)
Fascinating, brilliant and convincing
Bullshit !
C 45, Lab 35, LD 9, UKIP 4, GRN 1, SNP 4.9, PC 0.6, Others 0.6 in Electoral Calculus gives
C 368, Lab 204, LD 4, SNP 55, PC 1, NI 18 Majority 86
"I'm reticent about projecting beyond a Tory lead of 10%, because the biggest lead in the 1945-1970 data set is Labour's 8.6% advantage in 1945, and so it's possible that the maths will begin to break down as any possible Conservative surge breaks against a firewall of extremely safe Labour seats in urban areas"
Does your archive not have the 1983 election when the Tories had a 16% lead.
What should Rudd say when someone inevitably asks, "Why is May not here?".
Well presumably Rudd will have a line prepared, probably something like:
"Theresa is doing numerous TV appearances and indeed she is on this very channel for Question Time in just two days time when she will face uninterrupted questions for 45 mins. The Conservative Party is a team and it's important the public sees the team".
It's also very helpful that Robertson is now appearing for the SNP - means Con won't be the only party without its leader - so much easier to justify.
Will be interesting to see what other parties now do. Might LDs be tempted to go for Clegg? I would if I was them.
Robertson is the SNP leader at Westminster. May is the only Westminster leader not to show. They should empty chair her.
In all seriousness, what does he mean when saying the Tories are 'actively trying to suppress the turnout in a number of ways'? Because that strikes me as a pretty bold claim - not itself covered by them replacing a Labour 'register to vote' ad with a Tory 'don't vote for Labour' ad.
Additionally, 'we're running a local campaign while they are running a national campaign' is a weird criticism given there is a distinction between local and national spends, and so it is a ok to have national and local messages.
Vote suppresion is a concept that emerged in the last US election - the idea is to put out so much negative and confusing propaganda that your opponents' voters just stay at home. It struck me as weird then but it's apparently seen now as part of electoral armory.
Not just the last election - it's the conventional thinking behind negative campaigning. The idea is that going negative depresses both your vote and your opponent's, but it depresses your opponents' more.
What's new is that with social media it's getting easier to put out a mostly or completely made-up negative story without leaving your fingerprints on it.
In all seriousness, what does he mean when saying the Tories are 'actively trying to suppress the turnout in a number of ways'? Because that strikes me as a pretty bold claim - not itself covered by them replacing a Labour 'register to vote' ad with a Tory 'don't vote for Labour' ad.
Additionally, 'we're running a local campaign while they are running a national campaign' is a weird criticism given there is a distinction between local and national spends, and so it is a ok to have national and local messages.
Vote suppresion is a concept that emerged in the last US election - the idea is to put out so much negative and confusing propaganda that your opponents' voters just stay at home. It struck me as weird then but it's apparently seen now as part of electoral armory.
I thought in the US voter suppression (and particularly 'active' suppression as is accused here) was more about laws around voter ID, postal votes and so on which disproportionately impacted groups more likely to vote for one side than another?
Applying such a term to advertising more effectively than your opponent is just plain dumb and makes the accusation look overdone, when the issue of regulation or lack thereof of these ads might be worth talking about.
I agree with kle that adverts don't constitute voter suppression (apart from those telling certain groups to vote on June 9th!). Voter suppression is serious stuff like reducing the number of voting places, putting people off making the journey and creating long queue as a disincentive to vote; making the ID process as stringent as possible, to exclude or intimidate, and add to queue; limiting the hours of voting as far as possible; making it much more difficult to get an absentee vote, etc. You could argue that the Tories' IER is a mild form of suppression, although on balance I think it was a reasonable thing to do, and did arise from multi-party consensus at least originally. Thankfully we haven't seen any serious voter supresssion stuff in the UK, largely because most of the rules are set nationally not locally, with councils sorting out where polling stations are, which rarely causes any political arguments.
I remember in my ward, we got an extra polling station for a council estate after the Conservatives lost control of the council, and there was a bit of muttering about this being for political reasons. But the decision was never reversed and most councillors would see more polling stations, where sensible, as a good thing. I haven't come across any other politicised disputes about polling. Unusually for Brits we don't like queuing to vote and there would be consensus that where there are big queues (2010 had a few issues before polls closed) something needs to be done.
My conversations suggest to me that even the pollsters aren’t that confident of their numbers. They have tried to correct for the mistakes that they made in 2015, when they overinflated the Labour share because their samples were not sufficiently representative of who would turn up at the polling stations and what they would do there. The pollsters cannot know whether the changes to their methodologies have been the right ones. The point about the polls is that the Tories would not be so twitchy about them if their faith in their leader had not already become eroded and their confidence had not become rather brittle.
...
She is still on course to win, but it will not be the unvarnished victory that she was looking for when she began this campaign. Her armour has been dented and some of its chinks have been exposed to a wider audience. A campaign designed to profit from her opponent’s weaknesses has turned out to be most educative about her own flaws.
On topic I think the markets have overshot. Corbyn's demographics suck at voting.
It's all down to turnout - anywhere from hung parliament (continued decline in Tory vote) to landslide (differential turn out) could be inferred from the current polls.
What a depressing poll. 65%/21% want to bring back hanging.
There is nothing in the small print that suggests this is going to be anything other than an epic landslide for the Tories. They score 43%/24% on the economy and that makes it game set and match.
Only the dilettante wealthy can afford the luxury of voting on social issues and there aren't enough of them. Brexit is an exception but thanks to Labour's ambivalence that has effectively been neutralised. Terrorism is a seven day wonder and most realise it isn't in the control of politicians anyway.
Summary: after a terrible week or so the Tories are, on average, 10 points ahead.
A lead which, for now, appears broadly stable. Though I'd put it at ~9% personally. If the lead remains stable or bounces back a bit, Tory nerves can calm. But with the 2015 win being 6.5%, any more slippage at all should alarm them.
Of course, Labour have looked good 2 or 3 weeks out before...
If say the Tories got 45%, Labour got 38.5%* - same margin as 2015, but higher share of the vote each - how would that impact upon the number of seats won by the two parties? Anyone crunched that?
*Not that I think Labour will poll anything like that high...
Agreed campaign spending limits per constituency are essential in a fair democracy.
Lets hope they're not being broken.
Given how all the parties got fined for various breaches of the rules last time, and the high barrier to prosecution, I would not be at all surprised to see more fines arising from this election.
I think it is fine, as long as you don't mention the candidate's name or the name of the constituency.
Oh that particularly example might be fine - that it is 'unregulated' appears to be the issue, so I presume its not against a rule? - but I doubt they've all avoided issues entirely. Besides, it's hard to prove criminal intent with most breaches anyway.
I doubt it's unregulated. Nothing is stopping them complaining to the electoral commission, for example.
" David Hanson, of Labour, is defending the seat in Delyn and will lose it if there is a 3.9% swing to the Tories. He said: “It feels pretty symptomatic. We’re running a local campaign, talking to people about local issues on the ground, whereas the Conservatives are using these national adverts, run at a national level, and are actively trying to suppress the turnout in a number of ways.
“We will have to see which strategy works, but these ads are all just about negative stuff, whereas we believe people want to debate the big issues and have proper face-to-face discussions, and that’s what we’re doing.”
It's soooooo unfair.
I can hear a violin playing, perhaps the smallest violin in the world.
In all seriousness, what does he mean when saying the Tories are 'actively trying to suppress the turnout in a number of ways'? Because that strikes me as a pretty bold claim - not itself covered by them replacing a Labour 'register to vote' ad with a Tory 'don't vote for Labour' ad.
Additionally, 'we're running a local campaign while they are running a national campaign' is a weird criticism given there is a distinction between local and national spends, and so it is a ok to have national and local messages.
It sounds like the argument of somebody who knows he has lost....
"I'd have got away with it, if it weren't for you pesky kids Tories...."
What a depressing poll. 65%/21% want to bring back hanging.
There is nothing in the small print that suggests this is going to be anything other than an epic landslide for the Tories. They score 43%/24% on the economy and that makes it game set and match.
Only the dilettante wealthy can afford the luxury of voting on social issues and there aren't enough of them. Brexit is an exception but thanks to Labour's ambivalence that has effectively been neutralised. Terrorism is a seven day wonder and most realise it isn't in the control of politicians anyway.
Roger what to you make of Jezza now ?
Three weeks ago he was a donkey, now he looks like a well hung one.
The PB poll flouncing ignores the fact that if the polling is correct he'll do better than deadhead Ed
The poll movement hasnt been so much Mrs M losing support, but Jezza picking it up to close the gap.
Labour should put up a shrine to Tim Farron for being so crap and allowing the party a chance to survive.
Comments
The truth is that the British public likes what they see. It is a very dangerous tactic.
This is one reason the 'relaunch' could be very important of course - with negative Tory narratives, it could be easier for people to stick with Labour even if they truly dislike and are worried about Corbyn. Get some positive stuff in, nail Corbyn on his negatives, and it's tough for those people to self justify.
'not the whole truth'? You are having a laugh.
On this analysis, my gut feel is somewhere just over 6%, and a majority of 30-40. But as I have said before, if it's a majority of 12, oh the irony...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/27/conservatives-facebook-dark-ads-data-protection-election
Agreed campaign spending limits per constituency are essential in a fair democracy.
Lets hope they're not being broken.
1. NHS
2. Brexit
3. National security
4. Economy
5. Immigration
6. Strong leadership
7. Social care
2, 3, 4 ,5 and 6 are all very good issues for Con.
Lab has big lead on 1 and 7.
Best PM: May 48, Corbyn 27
The above surely looks good for Con.
It makes you wonder how he regards British occupation of the Falklands.
Because there are probably plenty of photos of meetings between Sinn Fein and mainstream politicians from the mid 1990s. Johnson may be setting himself up for a Michael Fallon moment.
FWIW, if I'd only thought about this a few weeks ago and made the assumption that Ukip would melt like the snow in Spring, then I could've predicted the Labour surge: if even Attlee in 1945 could "only" manage an 8.6% lead, then why assume that Theresa May would necessarily manage 15-20%, even under current circumstances? Certainly, there's no reason to suppose that the large bodies of anti-Conservative, as well as anti-Labour, opinion in the country have gone away, and those votes all have to go somewhere. If all the other alternatives outside of Scotland are faltering, then that only leaves Labour. But I think I was just too biased against Corbyn to entertain such a scenario, I'm afraid. With hindsight the Labour surge was always possible, probable even. But hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
All that having been said, given my previous thoughts on Labour's poor demographics in terms of turnout, differential swing across the country, the possibility that the pollsters are under-weighting the Lib Dems and over-weighting Labour, and the long-term historical bias of the polls against the Tories, I still think it likely that the Conservatives will end up with a double-digit lead in terms of vote share over Labour. If that turns out to by the case, then the historical data I've been analysing suggest that the Conservatives might actually end up doing better than I had previously assumed. I forecast a Tory majority of 124 seats at the start of May, and I'm going to stand by that.
Nothing to worry about then?
I get the concern about being outspent on online advertising, but what's the point of simultaneously saying its shady, while also saying you don't think it is effective?
Paging IOS.
Jeremy Corbyn's Falklands plan tantamount to surrender to Argentina, warns wounded veteran Simon Weston
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11833264/Jeremy-Corbyns-Falklands-plan-tantamount-to-surrender-to-Argentina-warns-wounded-veteran-Simon-Weston.html
But that said, ICM are indeed the most positive of the pollsters about the Conservative share, so people are entitled to point out that they are something of an outlier from the main trend amongst the companies as a whole. I presume, based on recent comments by ICM themselves, that this is down to a difference in turnout weighting: they have effectively suggested that their rivals may have got theirs wrong.
Of course, if the pollsters continue to show significant differences in their Lab-Con margins then we all have to decide which, if any, we find the more convincing, based on our own reason. We're not going to know for sure, of course, until the big day - but there's not too long left to wait now...
Gradually Getting Closer to the Truth
Just one more reason I love PB...
Incidentally, the GMB is playing politics with the British Airways IT outage - blaming it on IT outsourcing, and the sacking of British-based IT staff last December. But I noticed an interesting coincidence: government outsourcing favourite Capita also had a massive server outage today (also blamed on a power failure, and also still not fixed this evening) which has taken down council services across the country, and *they* did a big IT outsourcing in December and sacked loads of British IT staff around the same time. Coincidence?
The ads the tories were running were national ones.
Sheffield Central 34.2
Cardiff Central 31.6
New castle upon Tyne East 30.5
Nottingham South 30.2
Liverpool, Riverside 28.9
Leeds North West 27.4
Manchester Central 26.3
Leeds Central 25.4
Bristol West 23.8
Oxford East 23.6
Portsmouth South 23.5
Glasgow North 23.0
Glasgow Central 22.9
Manchester, Gorton 22.5
Leicester South 22.3
Cambridge 22.3
Swansea West 22.0
Canterbury 21.7
Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport 21.5
Coventry South 21.5
PB is as close to social media as I come, so I cannot speak as to the effectiveness of such tactics, although clearly the parties put plenty of effort into it. So for me the question is merely 'are rules being broken?' and 'should there be a rule if there aren't any to cover this area?' If the first is no, well, touch diddums. If the second is yes, well, we'll have to wait and see what comes out.
Now watched by a total of 1,370,000 people.
" David Hanson, of Labour, is defending the seat in Delyn and will lose it if there is a 3.9% swing to the Tories. He said: “It feels pretty symptomatic. We’re running a local campaign, talking to people about local issues on the ground, whereas the Conservatives are using these national adverts, run at a national level, and are actively trying to suppress the turnout in a number of ways.
“We will have to see which strategy works, but these ads are all just about negative stuff, whereas we believe people want to debate the big issues and have proper face-to-face discussions, and that’s what we’re doing.”
It's soooooo unfair.
I can hear a violin playing, perhaps the smallest violin in the world.
Additionally, 'we're running a local campaign while they are running a national campaign' is a weird criticism given there is a distinction between local and national spends, and so it is a ok to have national and local messages.
They delivered my box of ballot papers this afternoon - already filled in too.
Cardiff Central - Labour
Newcastle upon Tyne East - Labour
Nottingham South - Labour
Liverpool Riverside - Labour
Leeds North West - Lib Dem
Manchester Central - Labour
Leeds Central - Labour
Bristol West - Labour
Oxford East - Labour
Portsmouth South - Conservative
Glasgow North - SNP
Glasgow Central - SNP
Manchester Gorton - Labour
Leicester South - Labour
Cambridge - Labour
Swansea West - Labour
Canterbury - Conservative
Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport - Conservative
Coventry South - Labour
Besides, plenty of young people love to go on about how everything goes back to Thatcher, so I'm sure plenty could locate the Falklands on a map.
I retract my earlier comments.
Quite frankly it's a disgrace and something must be done.
Night all.
Applying such a term to advertising more effectively than your opponent is just plain dumb and makes the accusation look overdone, when the issue of regulation or lack thereof of these ads might be worth talking about.
Of course labour could claim the same. If the party is willing but o send someone, it's odd it's not the leader. She will probably get asked what may thinks of x and y, and how her answers are sure with May not there.
"Theresa is doing numerous TV appearances and indeed she is on this very channel for Question Time in just two days time when she will face uninterrupted questions for 45 mins. The Conservative Party is a team and it's important the public sees the team".
It's also very helpful that Robertson is now appearing for the SNP - means Con won't be the only party without its leader - so much easier to justify.
Will be interesting to see what other parties now do. Might LDs be tempted to go for Clegg? I would if I was them.
* edit: indeed, UK, most likely.
He's good at asking pointed questions in the HoC; not seem him in a proper debate setting before.
What Corbyn did do was talk crap in support of Irish republicanism in the 1980s.
As for Boris Johnson, he was sacked twice by employers for dishonesty.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1336330/Ealing-bomb-was-planned-as-massacre.html
Crunching it down to a quick and dirty sentence:
subtract 6 from the Tory lead in %, and multiply by 30 to get the Tory majority in seats.
That would say 6% 0, 8% 60, 10% 120, good enough for some purposes.
Of course, Labour have looked good 2 or 3 weeks out before...
Although I don't believe this will be a good UNS election, a modern seat calculator will do a better job of this sort of exercise than using ancient GEs as a model.
C 45, Lab 35, LD 9, UKIP 4, GRN 1, SNP 4.9, PC 0.6, Others 0.6 in Electoral Calculus gives
C 368, Lab 204, LD 4, SNP 55, PC 1, NI 18 Majority 86
"I'm reticent about projecting beyond a Tory lead of 10%, because the biggest lead in the 1945-1970 data set is Labour's 8.6% advantage in 1945, and so it's possible that the maths will begin to break down as any possible Conservative surge breaks against a firewall of extremely safe Labour seats in urban areas"
Does your archive not have the 1983 election when the Tories had a 16% lead.
What's new is that with social media it's getting easier to put out a mostly or completely made-up negative story without leaving your fingerprints on it.
I remember in my ward, we got an extra polling station for a council estate after the Conservatives lost control of the council, and there was a bit of muttering about this being for political reasons. But the decision was never reversed and most councillors would see more polling stations, where sensible, as a good thing. I haven't come across any other politicised disputes about polling. Unusually for Brits we don't like queuing to vote and there would be consensus that where there are big queues (2010 had a few issues before polls closed) something needs to be done.
...
She is still on course to win, but it will not be the unvarnished victory that she was looking for when she began this campaign. Her armour has been dented and some of its chinks have been exposed to a wider audience. A campaign designed to profit from her opponent’s weaknesses has turned out to be most educative about her own flaws.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/27/theresa-may-leader-conservatives-focus-deficiencies
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/jeremy-corbyn-secured-a-salary-for-convicted-ira-terrorist-gerry-maclochlainn-rjzsxg778
There is nothing in the small print that suggests this is going to be anything other than an epic landslide for the Tories. They score 43%/24% on the economy and that makes it game set and match.
Only the dilettante wealthy can afford the luxury of voting on social issues and there aren't enough of them. Brexit is an exception but thanks to Labour's ambivalence that has effectively been neutralised. Terrorism is a seven day wonder and most realise it isn't in the control of politicians anyway.
*Not that I think Labour will poll anything like that high...
"I'd have got away with it, if it weren't for you pesky
kidsTories...."Three weeks ago he was a donkey, now he looks like a well hung one.
The PB poll flouncing ignores the fact that if the polling is correct he'll do better than deadhead Ed
The poll movement hasnt been so much Mrs M losing support, but Jezza picking it up to close the gap.
Labour should put up a shrine to Tim Farron for being so crap and allowing the party a chance to survive.