That map shows Bish turning Blue. With BoJo in Shildon today, they must fancy their chances.
There's also a red splodge in Sheffield where it is currently yellow, btw.
As someone who accurately called Sheffield Hallam in 2015 I'm calling Clegg hold.
Both the dementia tax and Labour's plans for those earning over 80k have not gone down well here.
But the Tories for Clegg have gone back to the blue meanies...
The extra tax for those earning 80k is something that many tell their mates and colleagues is right, and they wouldn't mind paying, but votes against in the privacy of the ballot box.
Two further problems for Labour: (1) plenty of professionals in the 40k+ salary bracket believe that they'll eventually be earning that, even if they never will be, and, (2) no-one really believes the 45p tax rate will end there.
Something Ken Livingstone warned about in 1979: ignoring voters' aspirations.
Hold on, talking of Ken, isn't everyone's favourite pariah Gulf state, Qatar, one of the few that openly trades with Israel? Has the White House thought this through?
The famous "watch list" does seem to be of extremely limited utility as, quite obviously, those on it aren't closely watched at all.
People seem to be confusing a 'watch list' with 24 hour surveillance. There will be thousands of people on a watchlist, and you cannot stop them all hiring vans.
There also seems to be a number of different 'watchlists' from America to the police to MI5. Perhaps this requires further clarification.
Has Mrs Weak and Wobbly promised to give us back the 20,000 police she cut . The narrative of cuts in police numbers is really toxic for the Conservatives at this late stage in the campaign . Rightly or wrongly whether cutting the numbers was right to do or wrong or affects crime/terrorism or not is immaterial . 20,000 is a neat round number which voters on Thursday will remember as their pencil wavers away from putting a cross in the Conservative box .
0 is also a neat round number. Perhaps we'll see the Lib Dem seats number fall to it by Friday morning......
Seriously Mark, your astroturfing is as pointless as this line of mine above. Why bother?
You clearly have not watched any of the political coverage today or talked to any non partisan voters in the last 2 days . The police numbers story is very very toxic for the Conservatives and at the wrong time for them at the end of the campaign .
Au contraire.
I've watched much of it and been canvassing and delivering. Not a single person has mentioned it.
Not has a single person mentioned it on facebook, other than those who already insult me for being a Tory. Literally insult me. It is pretty repulsive.
Anecdata: only one person has mentioned it in my hearing. This was in the context of a conversation among colleagues to the effect that that burglaries seem to be rare because everything's so cheap now there's nothing in most houses that's worth nicking to sell. Hence police numbers are down because we need fewer.
It's about inputs versus outputs.
Most burglaries are about funding a drugs habit.
You need to conduct a huge number of burglaries if it's your only source of income.
I am uncomfortable with ComRes and ICM adding percentages to vote shares "for luck". This is not to say their figures match the reality less than the other pollsters. I think there has to be an objectivity and you go with your data. In principle, if people feel all polling underestimates a particular party they can add it themselves. Otherwise it's just soothsaying.
No ICM and Comres properly weigh based on 2015 turnout not self selected certain to vote like the others
Has Mrs Weak and Wobbly promised to give us back the 20,000 police she cut . The narrative of cuts in police numbers is really toxic for the Conservatives at this late stage in the campaign . Rightly or wrongly whether cutting the numbers was right to do or wrong or affects crime/terrorism or not is immaterial . 20,000 is a neat round number which voters on Thursday will remember as their pencil wavers away from putting a cross in the Conservative box .
0 is also a neat round number. Perhaps we'll see the Lib Dem seats number fall to it by Friday morning......
Seriously Mark, your astroturfing is as pointless as this line of mine above. Why bother?
You clearly have not watched any of the political coverage today or talked to any non partisan voters in the last 2 days . The police numbers story is very very toxic for the Conservatives and at the wrong time for them at the end of the campaign .
Ordinary police numbers cut and ordinary crime is down.
Terrorist police budget increased. That is what matters.
Whether you are empirically correct or not, the ex-policemen wheeled out to say Mrs May's policy was a rum-deal does not sound like a positive for the incumbent.
If it translates into lost votes is anyone's guess.
Has Mrs Weak and Wobbly promised to give us back the 20,000 police she cut . The narrative of cuts in police numbers is really toxic for the Conservatives at this late stage in the campaign . Rightly or wrongly whether cutting the numbers was right to do or wrong or affects crime/terrorism or not is immaterial . 20,000 is a neat round number which voters on Thursday will remember as their pencil wavers away from putting a cross in the Conservative box .
0 is also a neat round number. Perhaps we'll see the Lib Dem seats number fall to it by Friday morning......
Seriously Mark, your astroturfing is as pointless as this line of mine above. Why bother?
You clearly have not watched any of the political coverage today or talked to any non partisan voters in the last 2 days . The police numbers story is very very toxic for the Conservatives and at the wrong time for them at the end of the campaign .
Ordinary police numbers cut and ordinary crime is down.
Terrorist police budget increased. That is what matters.
Community policing and community youth services cut. Alienated young people receptive to evil ideologies increase (possibly). I think that's the argument. By the time you're relying on the anti-terror police it's much more difficult than to prevent radicalisation in the first place, or to disrupt them at any early stage in the process.
I am uncomfortable with ComRes and ICM adding percentages to vote shares "for luck". This is not to say their figures match the reality less than the other pollsters. I think there has to be an objectivity and you go with your data. In principle, if people feel all polling underestimates a particular party they can add it themselves. Otherwise it's just soothsaying.
No ICM and Comres properly weigh based on 2015 turnout not self selected certain to vote like the others
No serious polling organising (and ICM and ComRes are serious) just adds on vote shares "for luck." They have models which may or may not work.
Has Mrs Weak and Wobbly promised to give us back the 20,000 police she cut . The narrative of cuts in police numbers is really toxic for the Conservatives at this late stage in the campaign . Rightly or wrongly whether cutting the numbers was right to do or wrong or affects crime/terrorism or not is immaterial . 20,000 is a neat round number which voters on Thursday will remember as their pencil wavers away from putting a cross in the Conservative box .
0 is also a neat round number. Perhaps we'll see the Lib Dem seats number fall to it by Friday morning......
Seriously Mark, your astroturfing is as pointless as this line of mine above. Why bother?
You clearly have not watched any of the political coverage today or talked to any non partisan voters in the last 2 days . The police numbers story is very very toxic for the Conservatives and at the wrong time for them at the end of the campaign .
Ordinary police numbers cut and ordinary crime is down.
Terrorist police budget increased. That is what matters.
Armed Police down
Terrorist success up
Multiculturalism is to blame, aided and abetted by most politicians for the last 50 years. Although one did say that it would lead to
"...civil strife of appalling dimensions, and that institutions and laws, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it"
You realise you're not insulting her? Instead you're insulting those who dedicate their lives to looking after you.
The alternative hypothesis to yours is that the numbers they need to keep tabs on are growing and are less explicitly linked to each other, so harder to track. Rather than engage in political mud slinging we need consensus on how to best tackle an evolving threat.
Has Mrs Weak and Wobbly promised to give us back the 20,000 police she cut . The narrative of cuts in police numbers is really toxic for the Conservatives at this late stage in the campaign . Rightly or wrongly whether cutting the numbers was right to do or wrong or affects crime/terrorism or not is immaterial . 20,000 is a neat round number which voters on Thursday will remember as their pencil wavers away from putting a cross in the Conservative box .
0 is also a neat round number. Perhaps we'll see the Lib Dem seats number fall to it by Friday morning......
Seriously Mark, your astroturfing is as pointless as this line of mine above. Why bother?
You clearly have not watched any of the political coverage today or talked to any non partisan voters in the last 2 days . The police numbers story is very very toxic for the Conservatives and at the wrong time for them at the end of the campaign .
Ordinary police numbers cut and ordinary crime is down.
Terrorist police budget increased. That is what matters.
Community policing and community youth services cut. Alienated young people receptive to evil ideologies increase (possibly). I think that's the argument. By the time you're relying on the anti-terror police it's much more difficult than to prevent radicalisation in the first place, or to disrupt them at any early stage in the process.
Except most of the terrorists we have had aren't alienated yuff, many have gone to uni, had decent jobs, etc. Alienated yuff are more likely to be into crime for the money, not getting themselves killed for the virgins.
So each firm has cut their offer on Tort seats by between 8 - 10 points over the last 24 hrs which some would regard as being significant. Collectively their average mid spread of ~ 358 seats suggests a majority of around 66 for the Blue Team.
But the Tories are not clearly ahead this time. Three companies .Survation, Mori, and YouGov suggest they will lose their majority -and these , rather than ICM and Comres are getting the headlines
There are people of all parties who have witnessed the opening of postal votes for verification across the country. The parties know how things are panning out.
Didn't you say ahead of the 2016 local elections that you thought the Conservatives would win by the same margin as 2015? When in the event, Labour won by 1%?
However in the local elections in the area I was in the figure was the same , or just mildly worse than the GE. Massively underestimated the size of labour vote. Local election are about getting turnout right.
Parliamentary elections are different. The samples are bigger and not ward based, and assuming the 82% of young people who are certain to vote don't go out and vote, the PV will be indicative.
Has Mrs Weak and Wobbly promised to give us back the 20,000 police she cut . The narrative of cuts in police numbers is really toxic for the Conservatives at this late stage in the campaign . Rightly or wrongly whether cutting the numbers was right to do or wrong or affects crime/terrorism or not is immaterial . 20,000 is a neat round number which voters on Thursday will remember as their pencil wavers away from putting a cross in the Conservative box .
0 is also a neat round number. Perhaps we'll see the Lib Dem seats number fall to it by Friday morning......
Seriously Mark, your astroturfing is as pointless as this line of mine above. Why bother?
You clearly have not watched any of the political coverage today or talked to any non partisan voters in the last 2 days . The police numbers story is very very toxic for the Conservatives and at the wrong time for them at the end of the campaign .
Ordinary police numbers cut and ordinary crime is down.
Terrorist police budget increased. That is what matters.
So cutting police is responsible for crime coming down? They might be crap but suggesting their absense leads to a reduction in crime is bonkers!
A straw in the wind to demonstrate how the respective Red and Blue campaign teams think it is going.
As a Tory Activist in a safe seat (SW Beds) my efforts are directed to where they will be of most use. In 2015 I was sent to Milton Keynes South and then later, as the campaign went on, to Bedford.
In 2017 it has been entirely Luton South (I was there yesterday evening delivering in the rain!). All local Blue 'mutual aid' is going there from the other neighbouring safe seats (i.e Hitchin & Harpenden).
Yesterday I received an e-mail from the Labour party (I'm a £3 quidder) asking for my help in ..... Luton South.
If Labour had any faith in the surge the polls apparently point to, then it would be directing resources to Bedford (barely a 1,000 majority) or Milton Keynes South (8k) if they were confident that Bedford was in the bag.
Why is Labour playing defensive on a seat they hold by 5k+ if we really are in NOM territory? I suspect the answer is that they know the likes of YOUGOV and Survation have got it wrong..
Shortly before her expected Radio 4 appearance today, a picture of Ms Abbott was apparently taken at Oxford Circus Tube by a commuter.
The image snapped at 8.40am shows her in a suit and talking on the phone. She was due on air at 9am at New Broadcasting House — a 10-minute walk from the station.
Has Mrs Weak and Wobbly promised to give us back the 20,000 police she cut . The narrative of cuts in police numbers is really toxic for the Conservatives at this late stage in the campaign . Rightly or wrongly whether cutting the numbers was right to do or wrong or affects crime/terrorism or not is immaterial . 20,000 is a neat round number which voters on Thursday will remember as their pencil wavers away from putting a cross in the Conservative box .
0 is also a neat round number. Perhaps we'll see the Lib Dem seats number fall to it by Friday morning......
Seriously Mark, your astroturfing is as pointless as this line of mine above. Why bother?
You clearly have not watched any of the political coverage today or talked to any non partisan voters in the last 2 days . The police numbers story is very very toxic for the Conservatives and at the wrong time for them at the end of the campaign .
Ordinary police numbers cut and ordinary crime is down.
Terrorist police budget increased. That is what matters.
So cutting police is responsible for crime coming down? They might be crap but suggesting their absense leads to a reduction in crime is bonkers!
Reducing car journeys into London reduces traffic speeds.
A straw in the wind to demonstrate how the respective Red and Blue campaign teams think it is going.
As a Tory Activist in a safe seat (SW Beds) my efforts are directed to where they will be of most use. In 2015 I was sent to Milton Keynes South and then later, as the campaign went on, to Bedford.
In 2017 it has been entirely Luton South (I was there yesterday evening delivering in the rain!). All local Blue 'mutual aid' is going there from the other neighbouring safe seats (i.e Hitchin & Harpenden).
Yesterday I received an e-mail from the Labour party (I'm a £3 quidder) asking for my help in ..... Luton South.
If Labour had any faith in the surge the polls apparently point to, then it would be directing resources to Bedford (barely a 1,000 majority) or Milton Keynes South (8k) if they were confident that Bedford was in the bag.
Why is Labour playing defensive on a seat they hold by 5k+ if we really are in NOM territory? I suspect the answer is that they know the likes of YOUGOV and Survation have got it wrong..
Has Mrs Weak and Wobbly promised to give us back the 20,000 police she cut . The narrative of cuts in police numbers is really toxic for the Conservatives at this late stage in the campaign . Rightly or wrongly whether cutting the numbers was right to do or wrong or affects crime/terrorism or not is immaterial . 20,000 is a neat round number which voters on Thursday will remember as their pencil wavers away from putting a cross in the Conservative box .
0 is also a neat round number. Perhaps we'll see the Lib Dem seats number fall to it by Friday morning......
Seriously Mark, your astroturfing is as pointless as this line of mine above. Why bother?
You clearly have not watched any of the political coverage today or talked to any non partisan voters in the last 2 days . The police numbers story is very very toxic for the Conservatives and at the wrong time for them at the end of the campaign .
Au contraire.
I've watched much of it and been canvassing and delivering. Not a single person has mentioned it.
Not has a single person mentioned it on facebook, other than those who already insult me for being a Tory. Literally insult me. It is pretty repulsive.
Anecdata: only one person has mentioned it in my hearing. This was in the context of a conversation among colleagues to the effect that that burglaries seem to be rare because everything's so cheap now there's nothing in most houses that's worth nicking to sell. Hence police numbers are down because we need fewer.
It's about inputs versus outputs.
Most burglaries are about funding a drugs habit.
You need to conduct a huge number of burglaries if it's your only source of income.
Yes, I understand that often most burglaries are carried out by a few prolific burglars -- and often targeting the same victims. again and again. Snatching mobile phones seems to be the new fashion, from mopeds, as the most expensive item of electronics most people own (now the price of TVs has fallen) is carried around in pockets and used openly in the street.
Has Mrs Weak and Wobbly promised to give us back the 20,000 police she cut . The narrative of cuts in police numbers is really toxic for the Conservatives at this late stage in the campaign . Rightly or wrongly whether cutting the numbers was right to do or wrong or affects crime/terrorism or not is immaterial . 20,000 is a neat round number which voters on Thursday will remember as their pencil wavers away from putting a cross in the Conservative box .
0 is also a neat round number. Perhaps we'll see the Lib Dem seats number fall to it by Friday morning......
Seriously Mark, your astroturfing is as pointless as this line of mine above. Why bother?
You clearly have not watched any of the political coverage today or talked to any non partisan voters in the last 2 days . The police numbers story is very very toxic for the Conservatives and at the wrong time for them at the end of the campaign .
Ordinary police numbers cut and ordinary crime is down.
Terrorist police budget increased. That is what matters.
Armed Police down
Terrorist success up
Multiculturalism is to blame, aided and abetted by most politicians for the last 50 years. Although one did say that it would lead to
"...civil strife of appalling dimensions, and that institutions and laws, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it"
Does every Tory learn Enoch Powell's words by heart and worship at the shrine of Thomas Malthus? Why not be open about it in election material?
I am uncomfortable with ComRes and ICM adding percentages to vote shares "for luck". This is not to say their figures match the reality less than the other pollsters. I think there has to be an objectivity and you go with your data. In principle, if people feel all polling underestimates a particular party they can add it themselves. Otherwise it's just soothsaying.
Who says they are adding percentages "for luck"? I don't think you understand what they are doing. The majority of the difference between them and the self-reporters is in the turnout modelling.
Let's put "turnout modelling" into quotes. They have to call it something respectable. Bear in mind they have already done the turnout squeeze on the entire sample. This would suggest Labour voters are less likely to turnout after saying they will across all demographics than supporters of other parties. It's possible, but it is just as likely (more likely IMO) that there is a problem with sampling or weighting that affects all polling companies.
ICM’s view, which has been so long-held it pre-dates even my own 22 years in situ, is that polls intrinsically inflate Labour’s share—there’s more evidence of this than a stick can be shaken at—and finding ways to mitigate that problem is the responsibility of the polling agency. So, to summarise, YouGov are softer on turnout than ICM and have a 5-point Tory lead. ICM is probably the hardest polling firm on turnout and we have a 14-point Tory lead.
...
But the raw data we collect is, actually, the core problem. After 2015, the British Polling Council Inquiry identified “unrepresentative samples” as the cause of the polling miss, and all us pollsters have tried to address this problem in different ways. The difficulty is that nobody really understands why the samples were unrepresentative, and if the problem is too complex to understand, you can bet the solution might be directed towards the wrong root cause.
Basically they discount the Labour share of the vote because it's always too high, for reasons they don't understand.
Not that odd. Perfectly reasonable to say that the campaign (though pretty crap at times) has successfully dragged Labour back up to where it was polling before the post-Brexit coup attempt tanked them. To be frightening the Tories like this, with a party machine that has spent two years trying to amplify his weaknesses rather than his strengths, is a decent result for Corbyn personally given he has played such a central role. If he had a party behind him Labour might not be about to lose this election.
A straw in the wind to demonstrate how the respective Red and Blue campaign teams think it is going.
As a Tory Activist in a safe seat (SW Beds) my efforts are directed to where they will be of most use. In 2015 I was sent to Milton Keynes South and then later, as the campaign went on, to Bedford.
In 2017 it has been entirely Luton South (I was there yesterday evening delivering in the rain!). All local Blue 'mutual aid' is going there from the other neighbouring safe seats (i.e Hitchin & Harpenden).
Yesterday I received an e-mail from the Labour party (I'm a £3 quidder) asking for my help in ..... Luton South.
If Labour had any faith in the surge the polls apparently point to, then it would be directing resources to Bedford (barely a 1,000 majority) or Milton Keynes South (8k) if they were confident that Bedford was in the bag.
Why is Labour playing defensive on a seat they hold by 5k+ if we really are in NOM territory? I suspect the answer is that they know the likes of YOUGOV and Survation have got it wrong..
A straw in the wind, no more.
Another straw, labour sending activists from neighbouring constituencies, not to the seat with a 2,500 Tory majority (from labour), or the seat that had always been labour until lost a short time ago with a 2,000 Tory majority, but to the labour seat which has a 5,000 majority.
Those critizing the watchlists, we now have 1000s of f##king nutters and they have foiled an incredible number of plots. Of course jezza like to write reference letters for them to get released from jail and make judgement calls about if we should bother prosecuting them.
Cuts are ongoing Met 40% smaller going forward even from todays numbers if May gets back
It truly is an impressive lobbying effort from the Police Federation, but one largely related to beat officers and community policing and not the security services.
Has Mrs Weak and Wobbly promised to give us back the 20,000 police she cut . The narrative of cuts in police numbers is really toxic for the Conservatives at this late stage in the campaign . Rightly or wrongly whether cutting the numbers was right to do or wrong or affects crime/terrorism or not is immaterial . 20,000 is a neat round number which voters on Thursday will remember as their pencil wavers away from putting a cross in the Conservative box .
0 is also a neat round number. Perhaps we'll see the Lib Dem seats number fall to it by Friday morning......
Seriously Mark, your astroturfing is as pointless as this line of mine above. Why bother?
You clearly have not watched any of the political coverage today or talked to any non partisan voters in the last 2 days . The police numbers story is very very toxic for the Conservatives and at the wrong time for them at the end of the campaign .
Ordinary police numbers cut and ordinary crime is down.
Terrorist police budget increased. That is what matters.
Armed Police down
Terrorist success up
Multiculturalism is to blame, aided and abetted by most politicians for the last 50 years. Although one did say that it would lead to
"...civil strife of appalling dimensions, and that institutions and laws, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it"
Does every Tory learn Enoch Powell's words by heart and worship at the shrine of Thomas Malthus? Why not be open about it in election material?
Can't speak for Tories, but there does seem to be a lot of civil strife around that institutions seem powerless to prevent
A straw in the wind to demonstrate how the respective Red and Blue campaign teams think it is going.
As a Tory Activist in a safe seat (SW Beds) my efforts are directed to where they will be of most use. In 2015 I was sent to Milton Keynes South and then later, as the campaign went on, to Bedford.
In 2017 it has been entirely Luton South (I was there yesterday evening delivering in the rain!). All local Blue 'mutual aid' is going there from the other neighbouring safe seats (i.e Hitchin & Harpenden).
Yesterday I received an e-mail from the Labour party (I'm a £3 quidder) asking for my help in ..... Luton South.
If Labour had any faith in the surge the polls apparently point to, then it would be directing resources to Bedford (barely a 1,000 majority) or Milton Keynes South (8k) if they were confident that Bedford was in the bag.
Why is Labour playing defensive on a seat they hold by 5k+ if we really are in NOM territory? I suspect the answer is that they know the likes of YOUGOV and Survation have got it wrong..
A straw in the wind, no more.
It is fairly clear the Tories' internal polling is very different to what we're seeing. They either have a superb model, or have fcuked up big time. 72 hours until we find out.
Has Mrs Weak and Wobbly promised to give us back the 20,000 police she cut . The narrative of cuts in police numbers is really toxic for the Conservatives at this late stage in the campaign . Rightly or wrongly whether cutting the numbers was right to do or wrong or affects crime/terrorism or not is immaterial . 20,000 is a neat round number which voters on Thursday will remember as their pencil wavers away from putting a cross in the Conservative box .
0 is also a neat round number. Perhaps we'll see the Lib Dem seats number fall to it by Friday morning......
Seriously Mark, your astroturfing is as pointless as this line of mine above. Why bother?
You clearly have not watched any of the political coverage today or talked to any non partisan voters in the last 2 days . The police numbers story is very very toxic for the Conservatives and at the wrong time for them at the end of the campaign .
Au contraire.
I've watched much of it and been canvassing and delivering. Not a single person has mentioned it.
Not has a single person mentioned it on facebook, other than those who already insult me for being a Tory. Literally insult me. It is pretty repulsive.
Anecdata: only one person has mentioned it in my hearing. This was in the context of a conversation among colleagues to the effect that that burglaries seem to be rare because everything's so cheap now there's nothing in most houses that's worth nicking to sell. Hence police numbers are down because we need fewer.
It's about inputs versus outputs.
Most burglaries are about funding a drugs habit.
You need to conduct a huge number of burglaries if it's your only source of income.
Cash-in-hand jobs, drug dealing, theft, bit of smuggling, and benefits will fund a "mixed" lifestyle.
A home raid of jewellery (valuable, and easy to transport) every month or so could yield a few hundred quid every time, which pays for the ongoing habit.
They wouldn't be doing that if they thought they were winning
Perhaps the winning parameters are very different for the pro/anti Corbyn brigade. If Jeremy loses the election, but hangs on as party leader I really can’t see what the PLP can do other than accept things as are, or forming a breakaway party.
Shortly before her expected Radio 4 appearance today, a picture of Ms Abbott was apparently taken at Oxford Circus Tube by a commuter.
The image snapped at 8.40am shows her in a suit and talking on the phone. She was due on air at 9am at New Broadcasting House — a 10-minute walk from the station.
I am uncomfortable with ComRes and ICM adding percentages to vote shares "for luck". This is not to say their figures match the reality less than the other pollsters. I think there has to be an objectivity and you go with your data. In principle, if people feel all polling underestimates a particular party they can add it themselves. Otherwise it's just soothsaying.
Who says they are adding percentages "for luck"? I don't think you understand what they are doing. The majority of the difference between them and the self-reporters is in the turnout modelling.
Let's put "turnout modelling" into quotes. They have to call it something respectable. Bear in mind they have already done the turnout squeeze on the entire sample. This would suggest Labour voters are less likely to turnout after saying they will across all demographics than supporters of other parties. It's possible, but it is just as likely (more likely IMO) that there is a problem with sampling or weighting that affects all polling companies.
ICM’s view, which has been so long-held it pre-dates even my own 22 years in situ, is that polls intrinsically inflate Labour’s share—there’s more evidence of this than a stick can be shaken at—and finding ways to mitigate that problem is the responsibility of the polling agency. So, to summarise, YouGov are softer on turnout than ICM and have a 5-point Tory lead. ICM is probably the hardest polling firm on turnout and we have a 14-point Tory lead.
...
But the raw data we collect is, actually, the core problem. After 2015, the British Polling Council Inquiry identified “unrepresentative samples” as the cause of the polling miss, and all us pollsters have tried to address this problem in different ways. The difficulty is that nobody really understands why the samples were unrepresentative, and if the problem is too complex to understand, you can bet the solution might be directed towards the wrong root cause.
Basically they discount the Labour share of the vote because it's always too high, for reasons they don't understand.
It's easy. When asked "What would you prefer, roast child or cuddling baby lambs?" The answer is easy.
But the Tories are not clearly ahead this time. Three companies .Survation, Mori, and YouGov suggest they will lose their majority -and these , rather than ICM and Comres are getting the headlines
There are people of all parties who have witnessed the opening of postal votes for verification across the country. The parties know how things are panning out.
Apart from gauging turnout of postal votes (which never really changes), it is impossible to get any information from the opening of postal ballots due to the way they are opened. No votes can be seen.
They wouldn't be doing that if they thought they were winning
Perhaps the winning parameters are very different for the pro/anti Corbyn brigade. If Jeremy loses the election, but hangs on as party leader I really can’t see what the PLP can do other than accept things as are, or forming a breakaway party.
Indeed, corbyn will be easily able to spin this as a victory, regardless of the result (unless it's utterly dire) on the basis of the vote share.
Cuts are ongoing Met 40% smaller going forward even from todays numbers if May gets back
If you want more spending above all you will not be voting Tory anyway, Osborne protected the police budget and increased counter terror budget from 2015 plus it is national security concerns and Corbyn and Abbott's weakness there which is the focus for Tories
Let's forgot the police federation lied and tried to fit up Andrew Mitchell. Regardless of what went on in downing street between him and the plod, he recorded his meeting with the police federation and they then went out and lied and lied and lied again.
You know it is very possible for the result for the VI to be close to YouGov but the actual seat distribution to look like ICM put through electoral calculus
They wouldn't be doing that if they thought they were winning
Perhaps the winning parameters are very different for the pro/anti Corbyn brigade. If Jeremy loses the election, but hangs on as party leader I really can’t see what the PLP can do other than accept things as are, or forming a breakaway party.
Indeed, corbyn will be easily able to spin this as a victory, regardless of the result (unless it's utterly dire) on the basis of the vote share.
That map shows Bish turning Blue. With BoJo in Shildon today, they must fancy their chances.
There's also a red splodge in Sheffield where it is currently yellow, btw.
As someone who accurately called Sheffield Hallam in 2015 I'm calling Clegg hold.
Both the dementia tax and Labour's plans for those earning over 80k have not gone down well here.
But the Tories for Clegg have gone back to the blue meanies...
The extra tax for those earning 80k is something that many tell their mates and colleagues is right, and they wouldn't mind paying, but votes against in the privacy of the ballot box.
Two further problems for Labour: (1) plenty of professionals in the 40k+ salary bracket believe that they'll eventually be earning that, even if they never will be, and, (2) no-one really believes the 45p tax rate will end there.
Something Ken Livingstone warned about in 1979: ignoring voters' aspirations.
Hold on, talking of Ken, isn't everyone's favourite pariah Gulf state, Qatar, one of the few that openly trades with Israel? Has the White House thought this through?
My sense is that it's London, students and the middle classes (particularly in the public sector) shouting for Labour this time, and they shout far more loudly and effectively.
If Labour were really after working class votes, they'd be strong on security, crime, low-cost housing, immigration, and restoring tax-credits/working age benefits, rather than abolishing tuition fees, maintaining the triple-lock, and keeping all social care subsidies.
The mass unionised blue-collar votes that were such a feature of UK politics in the 1970s and 1980s simply no longer exist.
Has Mrs Weak and Wobbly promised to give us back the 20,000 police she cut . The narrative of cuts in police numbers is really toxic for the Conservatives at this late stage in the campaign . Rightly or wrongly whether cutting the numbers was right to do or wrong or affects crime/terrorism or not is immaterial . 20,000 is a neat round number which voters on Thursday will remember as their pencil wavers away from putting a cross in the Conservative box .
0 is also a neat round number. Perhaps we'll see the Lib Dem seats number fall to it by Friday morning......
Seriously Mark, your astroturfing is as pointless as this line of mine above. Why bother?
You clearly have not watched any of the political coverage today or talked to any non partisan voters in the last 2 days . The police numbers story is very very toxic for the Conservatives and at the wrong time for them at the end of the campaign .
Ordinary police numbers cut and ordinary crime is down.
Terrorist police budget increased. That is what matters.
So cutting police is responsible for crime coming down? They might be crap but suggesting their absense leads to a reduction in crime is bonkers!
Reducing car journeys into London reduces traffic speeds.
It might reduce accidents but I can't see how it could reduce car speeds.
Let's forgot the police federation lied and tried to fit up Andrew Mitchell. Regardless of what went on in downing street between him and the plod, he recorded his meeting with the police federation and they then went out and lied and lied and lied again.
Also, don't forget many Tories are still pissed off at the police over the arrest of Damian Green.
I am uncomfortable with ComRes and ICM adding percentages to vote shares "for luck". This is not to say their figures match the reality less than the other pollsters. I think there has to be an objectivity and you go with your data. In principle, if people feel all polling underestimates a particular party they can add it themselves. Otherwise it's just soothsaying.
Who says they are adding percentages "for luck"? I don't think you understand what they are doing. The majority of the difference between them and the self-reporters is in the turnout modelling.
Let's put "turnout modelling" into quotes. They have to call it something respectable. Bear in mind they have already done the turnout squeeze on the entire sample. This would suggest Labour voters are less likely to turnout after saying they will across all demographics than supporters of other parties. It's possible, but it is just as likely (more likely IMO) that there is a problem with sampling or weighting that affects all polling companies.
ICM’s view, which has been so long-held it pre-dates even my own 22 years in situ, is that polls intrinsically inflate Labour’s share—there’s more evidence of this than a stick can be shaken at—and finding ways to mitigate that problem is the responsibility of the polling agency. So, to summarise, YouGov are softer on turnout than ICM and have a 5-point Tory lead. ICM is probably the hardest polling firm on turnout and we have a 14-point Tory lead.
...
But the raw data we collect is, actually, the core problem. After 2015, the British Polling Council Inquiry identified “unrepresentative samples” as the cause of the polling miss, and all us pollsters have tried to address this problem in different ways. The difficulty is that nobody really understands why the samples were unrepresentative, and if the problem is too complex to understand, you can bet the solution might be directed towards the wrong root cause.
Basically they discount the Labour share of the vote because it's always too high, for reasons they don't understand.
It's easy. When asked "What would you prefer, roast child or cuddling baby lambs?" The answer is easy.
Is the roast child versus cuddling baby lambs trade-off measurably different when people are polled and when they vote? That's my issue. There is no objectivity in this. The adjustments aren't based on rationales or facts.
A straw in the wind to demonstrate how the respective Red and Blue campaign teams think it is going.
As a Tory Activist in a safe seat (SW Beds) my efforts are directed to where they will be of most use. In 2015 I was sent to Milton Keynes South and then later, as the campaign went on, to Bedford.
In 2017 it has been entirely Luton South (I was there yesterday evening delivering in the rain!). All local Blue 'mutual aid' is going there from the other neighbouring safe seats (i.e Hitchin & Harpenden).
Yesterday I received an e-mail from the Labour party (I'm a £3 quidder) asking for my help in ..... Luton South.
If Labour had any faith in the surge the polls apparently point to, then it would be directing resources to Bedford (barely a 1,000 majority) or Milton Keynes South (8k) if they were confident that Bedford was in the bag.
Why is Labour playing defensive on a seat they hold by 5k+ if we really are in NOM territory? I suspect the answer is that they know the likes of YOUGOV and Survation have got it wrong..
A straw in the wind, no more.
It is fairly clear the Tories' internal polling is very different to what we're seeing. They either have a superb model, or have fcuked up big time. 72 hours until we find out.
I think we know that they have access to more accurate polling than we do. The fact that we do have some polls (ICM, TNS) in line with how the Tory activists appear to see the game suggests they are at least more likely to be correct than Yougov or Survation.
There is of course the chance Yougov is correct and we're seeing voter inefficiency like never before from Labour meaning a 4 point national lead equals a 50 seat majority. But the former option seems more likely to me.
I'm surprised how little gossip there has been around postal vote opening this time. Either counting authorities better at securing process or more discipline in obeying electoral law than we've seen before?
All about turnout really - and I'm not convinced it will be high enough to prevent a big Tory maority. Theresa May seems to have stirred up division between young and old more starkly than ever. Look at the graphs that have come out in the campaign showing the huge generational differences. But if even Brexit, school cuts and hugging Trump close don't get younger turnout up then nothing will.
Lib Dems in pure survival mode, what a difference to the start of the campaign when the talk was of taking most of the South West Tory gains back from last time.
They wouldn't be doing that if they thought they were winning
Perhaps the winning parameters are very different for the pro/anti Corbyn brigade. If Jeremy loses the election, but hangs on as party leader I really can’t see what the PLP can do other than accept things as are, or forming a breakaway party.
Presumably the worst possible result for Labour's MPs would be something like a 35, 36% vote share and a 100-seat defeat.
Corbyn would be cemented in by a performance like that and would win any leadership contest.
They wouldn't be doing that if they thought they were winning
Perhaps the winning parameters are very different for the pro/anti Corbyn brigade. If Jeremy loses the election, but hangs on as party leader I really can’t see what the PLP can do other than accept things as are, or forming a breakaway party.
Indeed, corbyn will be easily able to spin this as a victory, regardless of the result (unless it's utterly dire) on the basis of the vote share.
He'll easily win any leadership election.
if Corbyn hangs on Labour will split
All depends on numbers.
Mcluskey gave him the 200 bar, which he may well clear.
They wouldn't be doing that if they thought they were winning
Perhaps the winning parameters are very different for the pro/anti Corbyn brigade. If Jeremy loses the election, but hangs on as party leader I really can’t see what the PLP can do other than accept things as are, or forming a breakaway party.
Indeed, corbyn will be easily able to spin this as a victory, regardless of the result (unless it's utterly dire) on the basis of the vote share.
He'll easily win any leadership election.
Regardless of the result, the Tories have screwed up massively. They have allowed corbynism to be legitimised and the chance of seeing a sensible centre left pro business labour party in the near future off the agenda. IMO that is really bad for the country. I want a sensible competent opposition.
I am uncomfortable with ComRes and ICM adding percentages to vote shares "for luck". This is not to say their figures match the reality less than the other pollsters. I think there has to be an objectivity and you go with your data. In principle, if people feel all polling underestimates a particular party they can add it themselves. Otherwise it's just soothsaying.
Who says they are adding percentages "for luck"? I don't think you understand what they are doing. The majority of the difference between them and the self-reporters is in the turnout modelling.
ICM and COMRES weighting 18-24s back to 2015 levels
I will be amazed if turnout in that group isnt higher
Nigel Marriott Forecast Do your own research but remember in last month's locals on 1st preference the largest party was Aberdeen: SNP SNP Hold North Con Gain South Aberdeenshire: SCon South Con Gain WA&K Con Gain Angus: SCon Con Gain Argyll: SNP SNP Hold Clackmannan: SNP SNP Hold Dumfries and Galloway: SCon Con Hold Dundee: SNP SNP Hold East Ayrshire: SNP SNP Hold East Dunbartionshire: SNP SNP Hold East Lothian: SLAB SNP Hold East Renfrewhshire: SCon Lab Gain Edinburgh: SCon: East/SW: SNP Hold North Lab Gain South Lab Hold Falkirk: SNP SNP Hold Fife: SNP SNP Hold Glasgow: SNP SNP Hold Highland, Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland: Indep LD Hold Inverclyde: SNP SNP Hold Midlothian: SNP SNP Hold Moray: SCon Con Gain North Ayrshire: SNP SNP Hold North Lanarkshire: SNP SNP Hold Perthshire: SCon SNP Hold Renfrewshire: SNP Paisley SNP Hold East Lab Gain Scottish Borders: SCon Con Gain South Ayrshire: SCon SNP Hold South Lanarkshire: SNP SNP Hold Stirling: SCon SNP Hold West Dunbartonshire: SNP SNP Hold West Lothian: SNP SNP Hold
He misses Edinburgh West, where the LibDems were well in the lead on first preferences, including an astonishing 50% of the first preferences in Almond ward.
He's calling Edinburgh West very tight - Lib Dem 29, SNP 31
But I thought the point about this analysis was that it was based around last month's locals?
Three wards make up over 90% of the voters in Edinburgh West: Almond, Drum Brae/Gyle and Costorphine/Murrayfield. The first pref votes in these three were
Almond: LibDem 7,217 SNP 3,211
Drum Brae/Gyle: LibDem 3,176 SNP 2,541
Costorphine/Murrayfield: LibDem 3,502 SNP 2,474
Put together, the LibDems got 13,895 votes against 8,226 for the SNP.
And the LDs won the Holyrood seat on a big swing to them last year.
I always highly doubted that Tories would get more than 45%, that is already sky high.
It is, but UKIP have collapsed from 13% to 4/5% or so, and the Tories will get most of that. Add on to 38% last time.....
That's in the polls now. It is not something new that will happen.
What we don't know is how many UKIP intenders will get to the polling booth & find there isn't a candidate to vote for - and what they'll do then.....
Forget why they went to the polling booth, go home to watch Countdown, fall asleep in front of the 6 o'clock news and dream of England before the Windrush...
Has Mrs Weak and Wobbly promised to give us back the 20,000 police she cut . The narrative of cuts in police numbers is really toxic for the Conservatives at this late stage in the campaign . Rightly or wrongly whether cutting the numbers was right to do or wrong or affects crime/terrorism or not is immaterial . 20,000 is a neat round number which voters on Thursday will remember as their pencil wavers away from putting a cross in the Conservative box .
0 is also a neat round number. Perhaps we'll see the Lib Dem seats number fall to it by Friday morning......
Seriously Mark, your astroturfing is as pointless as this line of mine above. Why bother?
You clearly have not watched any of the political coverage today or talked to any non partisan voters in the last 2 days . The police numbers story is very very toxic for the Conservatives and at the wrong time for them at the end of the campaign .
Ordinary police numbers cut and ordinary crime is down.
Terrorist police budget increased. That is what matters.
They wouldn't be doing that if they thought they were winning
Perhaps the winning parameters are very different for the pro/anti Corbyn brigade. If Jeremy loses the election, but hangs on as party leader I really can’t see what the PLP can do other than accept things as are, or forming a breakaway party.
Indeed, corbyn will be easily able to spin this as a victory, regardless of the result (unless it's utterly dire) on the basis of the vote share.
He'll easily win any leadership election.
Regardless of the result, the Tories have screwed up massively. They have allowed corbynism to be legitimised and the chance of seeing a sensible centre left pro business labour party in the near future off the agenda. IMO that is really bad for the country. I want a sensible competent opposition.
You will only get that if it is a Tory landslide of 150+, now Corbyn will do a Kinnock 1987, lose but increase the Labour voteshare after a good campaign and probably fight the next election too
PB Tories: would we rather see Farron or Lucas lose their seat? I'm feeling conflicted here.
I'd rather see Caroline Lucas lose. She's a sanctimonious see you next Tuesday and I rarely use that term. Farron on the first the other hand is ineffectual and should stay where he is.
They wouldn't be doing that if they thought they were winning
Perhaps the winning parameters are very different for the pro/anti Corbyn brigade. If Jeremy loses the election, but hangs on as party leader I really can’t see what the PLP can do other than accept things as are, or forming a breakaway party.
Indeed, corbyn will be easily able to spin this as a victory, regardless of the result (unless it's utterly dire) on the basis of the vote share.
He'll easily win any leadership election.
if Corbyn hangs on Labour will split
The fact that we've seen a clear return to two party politics makes that less likely. Labour isn't going to be supplanted so any opposition to Corbyn will need to work within the party.
But the Tories are not clearly ahead this time. Three companies .Survation, Mori, and YouGov suggest they will lose their majority -and these , rather than ICM and Comres are getting the headlines
There are people of all parties who have witnessed the opening of postal votes for verification across the country. The parties know how things are panning out.
Apart from gauging turnout of postal votes (which never really changes), it is impossible to get any information from the opening of postal ballots due to the way they are opened. No votes can be seen.
I certainly do understand the difference between deficit and debt. The debt has increased massively since the Conservatives took office and deficit targets has been continually kicked into the long grass. Austerity has failed.
They wouldn't be doing that if they thought they were winning
Perhaps the winning parameters are very different for the pro/anti Corbyn brigade. If Jeremy loses the election, but hangs on as party leader I really can’t see what the PLP can do other than accept things as are, or forming a breakaway party.
Indeed, corbyn will be easily able to spin this as a victory, regardless of the result (unless it's utterly dire) on the basis of the vote share.
He'll easily win any leadership election.
Regardless of the result, the Tories have screwed up massively. They have allowed corbynism to be legitimised and the chance of seeing a sensible centre left pro business labour party in the near future off the agenda. IMO that is really bad for the country. I want a sensible competent opposition.
The Tories havent screwed up if their modus operandi is being in power. Any increase in seats without a landslide just drags out the Labour death. I agree it's not good for the country though and risks a far left government in future if there is a perfect storm of scandal, bad Brexit and weak leadership.
They wouldn't be doing that if they thought they were winning
Perhaps the winning parameters are very different for the pro/anti Corbyn brigade. If Jeremy loses the election, but hangs on as party leader I really can’t see what the PLP can do other than accept things as are, or forming a breakaway party.
Indeed, corbyn will be easily able to spin this as a victory, regardless of the result (unless it's utterly dire) on the basis of the vote share.
He'll easily win any leadership election.
if Corbyn hangs on Labour will split
All depends on numbers.
Mcluskey gave him the 200 bar, which he may well clear.
McLuskey can't stop Labour moderates from breaking away if they think they have an unelectable leader
They wouldn't be doing that if they thought they were winning
Perhaps the winning parameters are very different for the pro/anti Corbyn brigade. If Jeremy loses the election, but hangs on as party leader I really can’t see what the PLP can do other than accept things as are, or forming a breakaway party.
Presumably the worst possible result for Labour's MPs would be something like a 35, 36% vote share and a 100-seat defeat.
Corbyn would be cemented in by a performance like that and would win any leadership contest.
But the Tories are not clearly ahead this time. Three companies .Survation, Mori, and YouGov suggest they will lose their majority -and these , rather than ICM and Comres are getting the headlines
There are people of all parties who have witnessed the opening of postal votes for verification across the country. The parties know how things are panning out.
Apart from gauging turnout of postal votes (which never really changes), it is impossible to get any information from the opening of postal ballots due to the way they are opened. No votes can be seen.
Even if you just learn turnout, you can compare that with what you know from canvassing to be the proportion of each party's supporters who have applied for postal votes, and therefore deduce whether high postal vote returns are good or bad.
They wouldn't be doing that if they thought they were winning
Perhaps the winning parameters are very different for the pro/anti Corbyn brigade. If Jeremy loses the election, but hangs on as party leader I really can’t see what the PLP can do other than accept things as are, or forming a breakaway party.
Indeed, corbyn will be easily able to spin this as a victory, regardless of the result (unless it's utterly dire) on the basis of the vote share.
He'll easily win any leadership election.
Regardless of the result, the Tories have screwed up massively. They have allowed corbynism to be legitimised and the chance of seeing a sensible centre left pro business labour party in the near future off the agenda. IMO that is really bad for the country. I want a sensible competent opposition.
You will only get that if it is a Tory landslide of 150+, now Corbyn will do a Kinnock 1987, lose but increase the Labour voteshare after a good campaign and probably fight the next election too
Has Mrs Weak and Wobbly promised to give us back the 20,000 police she cut . The narrative of cuts in police numbers is really toxic for the Conservatives at this late stage in the campaign . Rightly or wrongly whether cutting the numbers was right to do or wrong or affects crime/terrorism or not is immaterial . 20,000 is a neat round number which voters on Thursday will remember as their pencil wavers away from putting a cross in the Conservative box .
0 is also a neat round number. Perhaps we'll see the Lib Dem seats number fall to it by Friday morning......
Seriously Mark, your astroturfing is as pointless as this line of mine above. Why bother?
You clearly have not watched any of the political coverage today or talked to any non partisan voters in the last 2 days . The police numbers story is very very toxic for the Conservatives and at the wrong time for them at the end of the campaign .
Ordinary police numbers cut and ordinary crime is down.
Terrorist police budget increased. That is what matters.
Community policing and community youth services cut. Alienated young people receptive to evil ideologies increase (possibly). I think that's the argument. By the time you're relying on the anti-terror police it's much more difficult than to prevent radicalisation in the first place, or to disrupt them at any early stage in the process.
Except most of the terrorists we have had aren't alienated yuff, many have gone to uni, had decent jobs, etc. Alienated yuff are more likely to be into crime for the money, not getting themselves killed for the virgins.
I don't know what the demographics are for those involve in terrorism - particularly the majority which we don't end up seeing in newspapers because they've been stopped early. But a quick google turns up countless reports, articles, and the like for the last few years on the role of community policing and youth services in preventing radicalisation, and the threat of cuts to those services. I'll not pretend to be a sudden counter-terror expert, though, just repeating the argument as I'm hearing it.
Regardless of the result, the Tories have screwed up massively. They have allowed corbynism to be legitimised and the chance of seeing a sensible centre left pro business labour party in the near future off the agenda. IMO that is really bad for the country. I want a sensible competent opposition.
@ Francis
Surely what you describe ensures they'll get re-elected in perpetuity? Which is not screwing up, but the whole idea?
Has Mrs Weak and Wobbly promised to give us back the 20,000 police she cut . The narrative of cuts in police numbers is really toxic for the Conservatives at this late stage in the campaign . Rightly or wrongly whether cutting the numbers was right to do or wrong or affects crime/terrorism or not is immaterial . 20,000 is a neat round number which voters on Thursday will remember as their pencil wavers away from putting a cross in the Conservative box .
The majority of those 20,000 were presumably cut by the coalition government, by a home office which contained Lib Dem ministers as well as Conservatives.
One of the reasons the Lib Dems are going to do so badly on Thursday is that they spend so much time trashing the record of the government they themselves supported and belonged to, hoping the general public are too foolish to remember....they are not.
I'm surprised how little gossip there has been around postal vote opening this time. Either counting authorities better at securing process or more discipline in obeying electoral law than we've seen before?
All about turnout really - and I'm not convinced it will be high enough to prevent a big Tory maority. Theresa May seems to have stirred up division between young and old more starkly than ever. Look at the graphs that have come out in the campaign showing the huge generational differences. But if even Brexit, school cuts and hugging Trump close don't get younger turnout up then nothing will.
Lib Dems in pure survival mode, what a difference to the start of the campaign when the talk was of taking most of the South West Tory gains back from last time.
Did anyone really think that the BiB was going to happen? It was obvious that Farron was going to run a SW London campaign, even if he might be regretting that now.
Let's forgot the police federation lied and tried to fit up Andrew Mitchell. Regardless of what went on in downing street between him and the plod, he recorded his meeting with the police federation and they then went out and lied and lied and lied again.
Also, don't forget many Tories are still pissed off at the police over the arrest of Damian Green.
They wouldn't be doing that if they thought they were winning
Perhaps the winning parameters are very different for the pro/anti Corbyn brigade. If Jeremy loses the election, but hangs on as party leader I really can’t see what the PLP can do other than accept things as are, or forming a breakaway party.
Indeed, corbyn will be easily able to spin this as a victory, regardless of the result (unless it's utterly dire) on the basis of the vote share.
He'll easily win any leadership election.
Regardless of the result, the Tories have screwed up massively. They have allowed corbynism to be legitimised and the chance of seeing a sensible centre left pro business labour party in the near future off the agenda. IMO that is really bad for the country. I want a sensible competent opposition.
Yes, Jezza and the hard Left will be perfectly happy with merely increasing their vote share and cementing their hold on the party. Thereafter they'll just bide their time and wait for Brexit to shatter the May government or the natural swing of politics to do its work. Tick tock...
Since we are sharing anecdotes, I have noted many middle aged people I know who are not necessarily natural Tory voters but they like the "school-marmishness" of Theresa May. Like a favourite primary school teacher, they see her as solid, stable, no-nonsense and just the sort of person to lead the country. They don't see her as elitist or posh which in many cases made them not like Dave and Gideon.
Just wished my 92 year old godfather happy birthday on the phone. He comes from a traditional Glasgow-Irish poor working class background and although he has done very well through hard graft, has been a Labour man all his days. He thinks Theresa May is wonderful because unlike her predecessors as Home Secretary has managed to expel Muslim hate preachers and he can't stand Corbyn whom he sees as a layabout who has done nothing in 30+ years as an MP except protest. Godfather told me he voted Tory for the 1st time in his life when he sent his postal vote in. Sadly he now lives in a safe Tory seat so it will make no difference but I continue to be amazed at some of the people who have told me very quietly and privately that they have voted for Theresa May. Note they have voted for Theresa May not the Tory Party. Too many PBers are too close to the Westminster bubble to fully appreciate how many "ordinary" people feel about the PM.
Has Mrs Weak and Wobbly promised to give us back the 20,000 police she cut . The narrative of cuts in police numbers is really toxic for the Conservatives at this late stage in the campaign . Rightly or wrongly whether cutting the numbers was right to do or wrong or affects crime/terrorism or not is immaterial . 20,000 is a neat round number which voters on Thursday will remember as their pencil wavers away from putting a cross in the Conservative box .
0 is also a neat round number. Perhaps we'll see the Lib Dem seats number fall to it by Friday morning......
Seriously Mark, your astroturfing is as pointless as this line of mine above. Why bother?
You clearly have not watched any of the political coverage today or talked to any non partisan voters in the last 2 days . The police numbers story is very very toxic for the Conservatives and at the wrong time for them at the end of the campaign .
Au contraire.
I've watched much of it and been canvassing and delivering. Not a single person has mentioned it.
Not has a single person mentioned it on facebook, other than those who already insult me for being a Tory. Literally insult me. It is pretty repulsive.
Quite. Small wonder Tories are extra shy this time round.
A straw in the wind to demonstrate how the respective Red and Blue campaign teams think it is going.
As a Tory Activist in a safe seat (SW Beds) my efforts are directed to where they will be of most use. In 2015 I was sent to Milton Keynes South and then later, as the campaign went on, to Bedford.
In 2017 it has been entirely Luton South (I was there yesterday evening delivering in the rain!). All local Blue 'mutual aid' is going there from the other neighbouring safe seats (i.e Hitchin & Harpenden).
Yesterday I received an e-mail from the Labour party (I'm a £3 quidder) asking for my help in ..... Luton South.
If Labour had any faith in the surge the polls apparently point to, then it would be directing resources to Bedford (barely a 1,000 majority) or Milton Keynes South (8k) if they were confident that Bedford was in the bag.
Why is Labour playing defensive on a seat they hold by 5k+ if we really are in NOM territory? I suspect the answer is that they know the likes of YOUGOV and Survation have got it wrong..
A straw in the wind, no more.
You mention Milton Keynes South which I know well. The MP (Iain Stewart) has been skipping hustings and been seen campaigning in Coventry. Although Labour have been having some fun with this, the attitude is that this seat (which should have been a marginal last time but the Tories won by 9k) is not worth worrying about. The only significant thing he's done for a while is back Liam Fox's leadership campaign so not necessarily endearing himself to swing voters. However the Labour candidate (Hannah O'Neill) might be worth keeping an eye on - my guess is that she will keep standing, and that she will be well-placed when the political pendulum swings back as it eventually will.
Regardless of the result, the Tories have screwed up massively. They have allowed corbynism to be legitimised and the chance of seeing a sensible centre left pro business labour party in the near future off the agenda. IMO that is really bad for the country. I want a sensible competent opposition.
@ Francis
Surely what you describe ensures they'll get re-elected in perpetuity? Which is not screwing up, but the whole idea?
No chance. I'm fully expecting the 2022 General Election to be awful for the Tories.
Regardless of the result, the Tories have screwed up massively. They have allowed corbynism to be legitimised and the chance of seeing a sensible centre left pro business labour party in the near future off the agenda. IMO that is really bad for the country. I want a sensible competent opposition.
@ Francis
Surely what you describe ensures they'll get re-elected in perpetuity? Which is not screwing up, but the whole idea?
At some point things will go tits up and the Tories get the boot. I would prefer a SO-style labour party in the wings waiting to take over than the option that is currently giving me sleepless nights.
Regardless of the result, the Tories have screwed up massively. They have allowed corbynism to be legitimised and the chance of seeing a sensible centre left pro business labour party in the near future off the agenda. IMO that is really bad for the country. I want a sensible competent opposition.
@ Francis
Surely what you describe ensures they'll get re-elected in perpetuity? Which is not screwing up, but the whole idea?
no political party gets re-elected in perpetuity, they all have a shelf life
They wouldn't be doing that if they thought they were winning
Perhaps the winning parameters are very different for the pro/anti Corbyn brigade. If Jeremy loses the election, but hangs on as party leader I really can’t see what the PLP can do other than accept things as are, or forming a breakaway party.
Presumably the worst possible result for Labour's MPs would be something like a 35, 36% vote share and a 100-seat defeat.
Corbyn would be cemented in by a performance like that and would win any leadership contest.
That is a very likely result now
Worst for Labour MPs but not necessarily for Labour. Without 1931 to clear out Labour's yesterday's men there could not have been a 1945.
Indeed, corbyn will be easily able to spin this as a victory, regardless of the result (unless it's utterly dire) on the basis of the vote share.
Leads me on to what I was wondering earlier: how dire is dire? Models and markets suggest about 215 (-17). But if <209? That'd be their lowest seat total post-war. Even <200 sounds possible from some of the mood music from the parties.
They wouldn't be doing that if they thought they were winning
Perhaps the winning parameters are very different for the pro/anti Corbyn brigade. If Jeremy loses the election, but hangs on as party leader I really can’t see what the PLP can do other than accept things as are, or forming a breakaway party.
Indeed, corbyn will be easily able to spin this as a victory, regardless of the result (unless it's utterly dire) on the basis of the vote share.
He'll easily win any leadership election.
Regardless of the result, the Tories have screwed up massively. They have allowed corbynism to be legitimised and the chance of seeing a sensible centre left pro business labour party in the near future off the agenda. IMO that is really bad for the country. I want a sensible competent opposition.
Yes and there are many others who have contributing to legitimising the poison including the PLP, Labour tribalists and journalists not commanding their brief. Part of the problem is that the some of the Corbyn followers think that much of the critcism is a smear because otherwise the truth is too hard to bear. The Tories lack bite, they have turned up to a knife fight without a knife. Corbyn and co are effective campaigners because that is what they do and also as true fantics have absolutley no moral restraints beacuse the cause trancends such minor considerations.
Let's put "turnout modelling" into quotes. They have to call it something respectable. Bear in mind they have already done the turnout squeeze on the entire sample. This would suggest Labour voters are less likely to turnout after saying they will across all demographics than supporters of other parties. It's possible, but it is just as likely (more likely IMO) that there is a problem with sampling or weighting that affects all polling companies.
ICM’s view, which has been so long-held it pre-dates even my own 22 years in situ, is that polls intrinsically inflate Labour’s share—there’s more evidence of this than a stick can be shaken at—and finding ways to mitigate that problem is the responsibility of the polling agency. So, to summarise, YouGov are softer on turnout than ICM and have a 5-point Tory lead. ICM is probably the hardest polling firm on turnout and we have a 14-point Tory lead.
...
But the raw data we collect is, actually, the core problem. After 2015, the British Polling Council Inquiry identified “unrepresentative samples” as the cause of the polling miss, and all us pollsters have tried to address this problem in different ways. The difficulty is that nobody really understands why the samples were unrepresentative, and if the problem is too complex to understand, you can bet the solution might be directed towards the wrong root cause.
Basically they discount the Labour share of the vote because it's always too high, for reasons they don't understand.
It has nothing to do with discounting the Labour vote, it's about samples having too many enthusiastic political anoraks. Yes, they ask the question about turnout like all the others. They know however that because their sample is unrepresentative that they have far too many people of certain demographics who say they will turn out than actually do.
ICM use the modelling to compare self-reporting to how in real elections people in these demographic groups behave. In theory this should weight down the over-enthused.
Why you think this is worse than a polling company that does **** all to try and correct their sample I don't understand.
But the Tories are not clearly ahead this time. Three companies .Survation, Mori, and YouGov suggest they will lose their majority -and these , rather than ICM and Comres are getting the headlines
There are people of all parties who have witnessed the opening of postal votes for verification across the country. The parties know how things are panning out.
Apart from gauging turnout of postal votes (which never really changes), it is impossible to get any information from the opening of postal ballots due to the way they are opened. No votes can be seen.
I'm not sure. People have got close to being in serious trouble for tweeting info about postal ballots - which would not be the case if it were impossible that they should have the information they are tweeting. I understand bot the B and the A envelopes are opened and the secrecy of the ballot is maintained only by a rule that ballot papers are always held face down. That looks a serious security fail to me.
I certainly do understand the difference between deficit and debt. The debt has increased massively since the Conservatives took office and deficit targets has been continually kicked into the long grass. Austerity has failed.
So your plan is to spend more?
Investing more can be a good thing if it leads to growth; as can what we used to call priming the pump. Quantitative easing (and anyone who thinks this government hasn't got a magic money tree isn't paying attention) might be seen by some to be bailing out criminal banksters but the alternatives are probably worse. But austerity was always the wrong path because it can only succeed in one country at a time. Osborne's Plan A could have worked but only if the Germans had bailed out the Greeks and other Eurozone states.
Regardless of the result, the Tories have screwed up massively. They have allowed corbynism to be legitimised and the chance of seeing a sensible centre left pro business labour party in the near future off the agenda. IMO that is really bad for the country. I want a sensible competent opposition.
@ Francis
Surely what you describe ensures they'll get re-elected in perpetuity? Which is not screwing up, but the whole idea?
No chance. I'm fully expecting the 2022 General Election to be awful for the Tories.
Let's see if we can get the 2017 one right before making predictions about 2022!
At the start of the campaign, who'd have said we would be where we are now?
So it's premature to declare that we're now in a permanent age of two-party politics - the landscape is simply too unpredictable to call right now. If Labour goes down to a 100-seat defeat and Corbyn or an acolyte hangs on to the leadership, I think SDP2 is a very real possibility.
(...and if you want to concoct even more intriguing scenarios, imagine that the Lib Dems are reduced to 4 or 5 seats, but that one of them is Cable.)
Has Mrs Weak and Wobbly promised to give us back the 20,000 police she cut . The narrative of cuts in police numbers is really toxic for the Conservatives at this late stage in the campaign . Rightly or wrongly whether cutting the numbers was right to do or wrong or affects crime/terrorism or not is immaterial . 20,000 is a neat round number which voters on Thursday will remember as their pencil wavers away from putting a cross in the Conservative box .
0 is also a neat round number. Perhaps we'll see the Lib Dem seats number fall to it by Friday morning......
Seriously Mark, your astroturfing is as pointless as this line of mine above. Why bother?
You clearly have not watched any of the political coverage today or talked to any non partisan voters in the last 2 days . The police numbers story is very very toxic for the Conservatives and at the wrong time for them at the end of the campaign .
Ordinary police numbers cut and ordinary crime is down.
Terrorist police budget increased. That is what matters.
No, what matters is what the voters perceive
Yes I don't wish to discuss who is right and wrong over police cuts, but does anyone think that security arguments being in the news will mean swing voters move to Labour? I just can't see it. The bigger the issue national security becomes then the bigger the Tory vote - providing of course there is no leaked memo showing her personal failing relating to London Bridge.
But the Tories are not clearly ahead this time. Three companies .Survation, Mori, and YouGov suggest they will lose their majority -and these , rather than ICM and Comres are getting the headlines
There are people of all parties who have witnessed the opening of postal votes for verification across the country. The parties know how things are panning out.
Apart from gauging turnout of postal votes (which never really changes), it is impossible to get any information from the opening of postal ballots due to the way they are opened. No votes can be seen.
I'm not sure. People have got close to being in serious trouble for tweeting info about postal ballots - which would not be the case if it were impossible that they should have the information they are tweeting. I understand bot the B and the A envelopes are opened and the secrecy of the ballot is maintained only by a rule that ballot papers are always held face down. That looks a serious security fail to me.
The inadvertent leaks on twitter have been there from Labour activists.
Regardless of the result, the Tories have screwed up massively. They have allowed corbynism to be legitimised and the chance of seeing a sensible centre left pro business labour party in the near future off the agenda. IMO that is really bad for the country. I want a sensible competent opposition.
@ Francis
Surely what you describe ensures they'll get re-elected in perpetuity? Which is not screwing up, but the whole idea?
No chance. I'm fully expecting the 2022 General Election to be awful for the Tories.
Let's see if we can get the 2017 one right before making predictions about 2022!
Regardless of the result, the Tories have screwed up massively. They have allowed corbynism to be legitimised and the chance of seeing a sensible centre left pro business labour party in the near future off the agenda. IMO that is really bad for the country. I want a sensible competent opposition.
@ Francis
Surely what you describe ensures they'll get re-elected in perpetuity? Which is not screwing up, but the whole idea?
No chance. I'm fully expecting the 2022 General Election to be awful for the Tories.
Yes, and all the Kippers will peel off again screaming betrayal.
Comments
Hold on, talking of Ken, isn't everyone's favourite pariah Gulf state, Qatar, one of the few that openly trades with Israel? Has the White House thought this through?
There also seems to be a number of different 'watchlists' from America to the police to MI5. Perhaps this requires further clarification.
If it translates into lost votes is anyone's guess.
Cuts are ongoing Met 40% smaller going forward even from todays numbers if May gets back
"...civil strife of appalling dimensions, and that institutions and laws, let alone exhortations, will be powerless to prevent it"
The alternative hypothesis to yours is that the numbers they need to keep tabs on are growing and are less explicitly linked to each other, so harder to track. Rather than engage in political mud slinging we need consensus on how to best tackle an evolving threat.
https://twitter.com/JonathanPlaid/status/871976807771381760
IG ............ 353.5 - 359.5
Sporting ..... 356 - 362
Spreadex .... 355 - 358
So each firm has cut their offer on Tort seats by between 8 - 10 points over the last 24 hrs which some would regard as being significant. Collectively their average mid spread of ~ 358 seats suggests a majority of around 66 for the Blue Team.
Parliamentary elections are different. The samples are bigger and not ward based, and assuming the 82% of young people who are certain to vote don't go out and vote, the PV will be indicative.
As a Tory Activist in a safe seat (SW Beds) my efforts are directed to where they will be of most use. In 2015 I was sent to Milton Keynes South and then later, as the campaign went on, to Bedford.
In 2017 it has been entirely Luton South (I was there yesterday evening delivering in the rain!).
All local Blue 'mutual aid' is going there from the other neighbouring safe seats (i.e Hitchin & Harpenden).
Yesterday I received an e-mail from the Labour party (I'm a £3 quidder) asking for my help in ..... Luton South.
If Labour had any faith in the surge the polls apparently point to, then it would be directing resources to Bedford (barely a 1,000 majority) or Milton Keynes South (8k) if they were confident that Bedford was in the bag.
Why is Labour playing defensive on a seat they hold by 5k+ if we really are in NOM territory? I suspect the answer is that they know the likes of YOUGOV and Survation have got it wrong..
A straw in the wind, no more.
The image snapped at 8.40am shows her in a suit and talking on the phone. She was due on air at 9am at New Broadcasting House — a 10-minute walk from the station.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/diane-abbott-pulls-out-of-womans-hour-debate-at-short-notice-a3557791.html
I would be more worried if they are not on the watch list. The spooks just need to contemplate better ways of watching.
Martin Boon of ICM explains
ICM’s view, which has been so long-held it pre-dates even my own 22 years in situ, is that polls intrinsically inflate Labour’s share—there’s more evidence of this than a stick can be shaken at—and finding ways to mitigate that problem is the responsibility of the polling agency. So, to summarise, YouGov are softer on turnout than ICM and have a 5-point Tory lead. ICM is probably the hardest polling firm on turnout and we have a 14-point Tory lead.
...
But the raw data we collect is, actually, the core problem. After 2015, the British Polling Council Inquiry identified “unrepresentative samples” as the cause of the polling miss, and all us pollsters have tried to address this problem in different ways. The difficulty is that nobody really understands why the samples were unrepresentative, and if the problem is too complex to understand, you can bet the solution might be directed towards the wrong root cause.
Basically they discount the Labour share of the vote because it's always too high, for reasons they don't understand.
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/872028705660567552
A home raid of jewellery (valuable, and easy to transport) every month or so could yield a few hundred quid every time, which pays for the ongoing habit.
He'll easily win any leadership election.
If Labour were really after working class votes, they'd be strong on security, crime, low-cost housing, immigration, and restoring tax-credits/working age benefits, rather than abolishing tuition fees, maintaining the triple-lock, and keeping all social care subsidies.
The mass unionised blue-collar votes that were such a feature of UK politics in the 1970s and 1980s simply no longer exist.
There is of course the chance Yougov is correct and we're seeing voter inefficiency like never before from Labour meaning a 4 point national lead equals a 50 seat majority. But the former option seems more likely to me.
All about turnout really - and I'm not convinced it will be high enough to prevent a big Tory maority. Theresa May seems to have stirred up division between young and old more starkly than ever. Look at the graphs that have come out in the campaign showing the huge generational differences. But if even Brexit, school cuts and hugging Trump close don't get younger turnout up then nothing will.
Lib Dems in pure survival mode, what a difference to the start of the campaign when the talk was of taking most of the South West Tory gains back from last time.
Corbyn would be cemented in by a performance like that and would win any leadership contest.
Mcluskey gave him the 200 bar, which he may well clear.
I will be amazed if turnout in that group isnt higher
Interesting in the North-East, Midlands and Yorks/Lancs in particular.
Three wards make up over 90% of the voters in Edinburgh West: Almond, Drum Brae/Gyle and Costorphine/Murrayfield. The first pref votes in these three were
Almond:
LibDem 7,217
SNP 3,211
Drum Brae/Gyle:
LibDem 3,176
SNP 2,541
Costorphine/Murrayfield:
LibDem 3,502
SNP 2,474
Put together, the LibDems got 13,895 votes against 8,226 for the SNP.
And the LDs won the Holyrood seat on a big swing to them last year.
I'm going for LD gain.
This is not the case.
Surely what you describe ensures they'll get re-elected in perpetuity? Which is not screwing up, but the whole idea?
One of the reasons the Lib Dems are going to do so badly on Thursday is that they spend so much time trashing the record of the government they themselves supported and belonged to, hoping the general public are too foolish to remember....they are not.
Just wished my 92 year old godfather happy birthday on the phone. He comes from a traditional Glasgow-Irish poor working class background and although he has done very well through hard graft, has been a Labour man all his days. He thinks Theresa May is wonderful because unlike her predecessors as Home Secretary has managed to expel Muslim hate preachers and he can't stand Corbyn whom he sees as a layabout who has done nothing in 30+ years as an MP except protest. Godfather told me he voted Tory for the 1st time in his life when he sent his postal vote in. Sadly he now lives in a safe Tory seat so it will make no difference but I continue to be amazed at some of the people who have told me very quietly and privately that they have voted for Theresa May. Note they have voted for Theresa May not the Tory Party. Too many PBers are too close to the Westminster bubble to fully appreciate how many "ordinary" people feel about the PM.
ICM use the modelling to compare self-reporting to how in real elections people in these demographic groups behave. In theory this should weight down the over-enthused.
Why you think this is worse than a polling company that does **** all to try and correct their sample I don't understand.
So it's premature to declare that we're now in a permanent age of two-party politics - the landscape is simply too unpredictable to call right now. If Labour goes down to a 100-seat defeat and Corbyn or an acolyte hangs on to the leadership, I think SDP2 is a very real possibility.
(...and if you want to concoct even more intriguing scenarios, imagine that the Lib Dems are reduced to 4 or 5 seats, but that one of them is Cable.)