All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Sorry but I have had to delete some of Ian's comments to get this in, which I really didn't want to do.
Agree good article, but also very much agree with Ian's points. Exactly my thoughts.
UNS assumes the parties have the same make up of voters as before with the edges flaking off to other parties as percentages go up and down. But we don't know that is the case this time and there is evidence that it isn't. Both the Labour and Tory party may well have changed their core vote with Momentum and Brexit and who is to say the LD vote of 20% is made up of the same 20% they had before they plunged to 5% for nearly a decade, particularly as although they have always been pro EU they are very, very much more clearly defined as the Remain party now. just look at their support in London now. Clearly very different to the past when they were on the same percentage
As evidence of this look at Scotland. When I was young Scotland was Tory. It became solid Labour, now it is solid SNP. Apply UNS in the past did not produce those changes. Something else happened.
UNS works when the voters are basically the same and you apply the percentage changes to those voters. If the voters change it doesn't work.
Now Justin might be right in JRM seat as might HYFUD in all the analysis he does. After all they at least have the starting position right so the probability is on their side. However I don't think the probable results are anywhere near as high as they think they are. We would be in a different world.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, uncertainty is the thing.
The London effect for the LibDems could be a weakness - it is possible that they might stack up a shedload of votes with good second places across Camden, Islington, Haringey, Lambeth, Southwark and the like with no seats to show for it.
We just need to remember the incredulity that the YouGov model predictions for Canterbury and Kensington produced (from me as well) before ruling out a larger batch of similar surprises next time.
This is a very important point. There were some major shocks last time and there were also some very near misses. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives seem to have known what their best prospects were - unsurprising when both saw major rises in their vote share. If both see major falls in their vote share next time, they will have the same problem in reverse.
The chances of them targeting efficiently must be greatly reduced.
Yes, it’s a good article, with perhaps two weaknesses. It doesn’t say anything about the changing drivers of voting behaviour, and doesn’t give the latest models enough credit for at least trying to adapt UNS to something more appropriate. Flavible in particular are trying to solve the very problem the lead is expounding. And a third issue is the possibility of alliances between at least some of the parties (or among at least some of their voters).
The reason why these models are likely to be less reliable isn’t solely because we are expecting dramatic falls in the level of support for both major parties - it is also because the demographic and hence geographical basis of support for both of them is changing.
If the level of party support shifted dramatically, but still along the same lines as the previous GE, the models would be more reliable. Yet we canne thing that is unlikely is that it arrives as a straight swing (after all, in the LibDem’s case it didn’t depart as one).
An undercommented observation on recent polling is that, just as the Conservatives lose their base in the middle class of all ages and move toward a more evenly spread vote across the census categories, the LibDems are acquiring a base of educated working age people which has some of the same geographical characteristics. At vote shares into the 20%s, this ought to offer a sounder basis for winning seats across a broad swathe of the south.
A further feature of the more even distribution of Conservative support is that, at lower vote shares, they start to run into similar problems as the LibDems. This was beginning to show in some of the polls prior to the ascent of Bozo, which gave significant Labour seat leads for relatively small vote leads. There is a tipping point opening up beneath the Conservatives in the high 20%s-30% that is broadly the same as the one that always eluded the LibDems coming from below.
If Project Fear is even partly true, Bozo may get to explore that for himself.
The concentration in Conservative support is not based on income, now, but on support/opposition to Brexit. Yougov has 14% of Remainers voting Conservative, compared to 51% of Leavers. By and large, I don't think many Conservative seats that voted Leave are in danger (bar a handful where TBP will challenge). The danger comes in Conservative Remain seats.
Conservatives are building up a coalition of voters which will not endure long past Brexit (either because Brexit will go badly, or because the Conservatives are just a temporary home to get what they want). Storing up a lot of trouble for the longer term.
Politics is more cultural now not class based so I suspect it will actually
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
Would the SNP really stand down in favour of the Lib Dems, or vice versa?
No and no.
There's quite a lot of residual antagonism between the parties probably exacerbated by the Indy ref, I'm sensing it's not at the same pitch between LDs & Plaid.
There's an upcoming Holyrood by election, largely unremarked upon here, in Shetland. I expect the LDs will win comfortably but the vote shares should be a useful straw in the wind.
Yes, it’s a good article, with perhaps two weaknesses. It doesn’t say anything about the changing drivers of voting behaviour, and doesn’t give the latest models enough credit for at least trying to adapt UNS to something more appropriate. Flavible in particular are trying to solve the very problem the lead is expounding. And a third issue is the possibility of alliances between at least some of the parties (or among at least some of their voters).
The reason why these models are likely to be less reliable isn’t solely because we are expecting dramatic falls in the level of support for both major parties - it is also because the demographic and hence geographical basis of support for both of them is changing.
If the level of party support shifted dramatically, but still along the same lines as the previous GE, the models would be more reliable. Yet we canne thing that is unlikely is that it arrives as a straight swing (after all, in the LibDem’s case it didn’t depart as one).
The Liberals did exceptionally well in 1974 (esp February - indeed Feb 74 remains the third party high water mark in many southern seats), yet, not having a core constituency beyond the then-called Celtic fringe, their seat tally was barely into double figures.
An undercommented observation on recent polling is that, just as the Conservatives lose their base in the middle class of all ages and move toward a more evenly spread vote across the census categories, the LibDems are acquiring a base of educated working age people which has some of the same geographical characteristics. At vote shares into the 20%s, this ought to offer a sounder basis for winning seats across a broad swathe of the south.
A further feature of the more even distribution of Conservative support is that, at lower vote shares, they start to run into similar problems as the LibDems. This was beginning to show in some of the polls prior to the ascent of Bozo, which gave significant Labour seat leads for relatively small vote leads. There is a tipping point opening up beneath the Conservatives in the high 20%s-30% that is broadly the same as the one that always eluded the LibDems coming from below.
If Project Fear is even partly true, Bozo may get to explore that for himself.
The concentration in Conservative support is not based on income, now, but on support/opposition to Brexit. Yougov has 14% of Remainers voting Conservative, compared to 51% of Leavers. By and large, I don't think many Conservative seats that voted Leave are in danger (bar a handful where TBP will challenge). The danger comes in Conservative Remain seats.
And age (and to some extent uneducation) has replaced income.
'Tories the party for old thickos'. It has got a certain ring to it.
It could easily be Tory-free without them having to bother.
Swinson would be crazy to go for such an alliance, and as she's not crazy and is Scottish so will doubtless has a good grasp of electoral currents I doubt if she will. It would make the Tories pretty much the sole Unionist option in Scotland and that must be worth ten points on its own in the current febrile atmosphere.
What Swinson needs to do is convince people the Liberal Democrats are the only meaningful and sane Scotland-wide alternative to the SNP and best placed to both protect the divers unions the people of Scotland voted for and deliver the promises made in 2014 and since ignored. Helpfully the Tories and Labour are doing a very good job of making this a reality without her having to lift a finger.
An alliance with the SNP isn't really viable, but a pitch for the double unionist vote in Scotland (UK and EU) is a viable, abeit niche position.
PC is a slightly different kettle of fish, as I think even PC think Welsh independence is some way off, and LDs have long been pro devolution and geographic economic redistribution.
All alliances fall apart on local egos. It seems that no one hates a politician from X more than his neighbour with slightly different politics.
Plaid Cymru have said they would hold a referendum on Welsh independence. Whether they actually believe they could win it is a different question. I think it's more probable that it's Adam Price pitching to Leanne Wood's supporters.
As for a niche position, I'm not sure I agree. There are studies suggesting as many as a third of SNP supporters voted for Brexit including a substantial number of MSPs. Which implies here must have been a fairly solid vote for the EU among Unionists. Probably many of them Labour - but Labour is rapidly abandoning both unions. The Liberal Democrats could easily hoover up support from there, as they are already doing over what appear to be a number of issues.
Yes, I think the Unionist vote in Scotland is mostly double Unionist, and that will be a problem for Boris. I agre that there is a significant Leave vote for the SNP, a double Leave.
I wonder how the Indy/Unionist split is on the million or so that didn't vote in the EU ref is ? Of course these are unlikely GE voters
Mr. Doethur, pretty easy line for her. Just so she's the only one consistently pro-union.
For the UK, for the EU.
And that has the merit of being consistent. Unlike the SNP, who are mostly pro-EU and yet anti-UK, or the Tories who are officially pro-UK, and increasingly hysterical about being anti-EU.
I think the Liberal Democrats need to show right now they are strong enough to be a serious force on their own. If they cuddle up to the SNP in an anti-Tory pact it could easily be counterproductive. There must be a number of seats where a Unionist vote decisive in the last elections for the Liberal Democrats swinging behind the Tories would topple an incumbent.
But tbh, I think this is like yesterday's ridiculous claims. It's kite-flying by people who very much want it to happen, and believe it worked in B&R because hey are pig ignorant of what happened there, but have no understanding that it wouldn't work where the dynamics are not solely Leave/Remain - which is basically Scotland, Wales, the semi-rural Norh of England and the West Country (or 'most places' for short).
Rumours are still circulating that the LDs have three defections (Wollaston, Lee and Allen most often mentioned) for September, either early on or for Conference. These rumours have been around for a while, but we know nothing is going to happen this month.
Meanwhile the LDs have won every single local by-election in which they've stood for three weeks' running now.
Yes. And they have a chance to continue this trend. But not if they start cuddling up to the SNP.
Ydoethur, don't be taken in , they could only wish the SNP would give them the time of day. They will win little in Scotland and are no competition for SNP.
Do people really think Johnson would want to hold a general election exactly a week or exactly a fortnight after a No Deal Brexit? Even the loopiest Brexiteers admit there may be some short-term disruption immediately after such a Brexit. It would be incredibly risky to schedule an election for the time when that disruption was at its height, when people couldn't help noticing it, and when the opposition parties could so easily argue that it was the beginning of catastrophe.
Surely the date that would appeal is Brexit Day itself, 31 October?
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote.
Plus Electoral Calculus reflects the rise of third parties as much as the pollsters if they get a big enough swing
I'm not sure about tactical voting. There's plenty of evidence that in 2017 voters primary motive was to vote against Mrs May's Conservatives rather than for a particular opposition party. The next election if it's soon is likely to see anti Tory/Johnson voting on an unprecedented scale. Where that'll take you is difficult to predict.
Indeed - that both the Tories and Labour were major beneficiaries from tactical voting in June 2017 is evidenced by their polling numbers now.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
Nope, see my third paragraph
Not sure how the 3rd para shows you have taken it onboard and the 1st para shows you definitely haven't.
Starting with 'All very well...' which I interpret as I am going to ignore all this evidence and then promptly prove that by the contents of the rest of your sentence shows your reply to me should have been 'Yep' and not 'Nope'
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote.
Plus Electoral Calculus reflects the rise of third parties as much as the pollsters if they get a big enough swing
I'm not sure about tactical voting. There's plenty of evidence that in 2017 voters primary motive was to vote against Mrs May's Conservatives rather than for a particular opposition party. The next election if it's soon is likely to see anti Tory/Johnson voting on an unprecedented scale. Where that'll take you is difficult to predict.
Actually that is likely to be less true, only 31% of Remainers back Corbyn over Boris as next PM but 69% of Leavers back Boris over Corbyn as best PM, in fact Boris is more likely to win back former Brexit Party voters on polling day than Corbyn is to win back LD voters
It could easily be Tory-free without them having to bother.
Swinson would be crazy to go for such an alliance, and as she's not crazy and is Scottish so will doubtless has a good grasp of electoral currents I doubt if she will. It would make the Tories pretty much the sole Unionist option in Scotland and that must be worth ten points on its own in the current febrile atmosphere.
What Swinson needs to do is convince people the Liberal Democrats are the only meaningful and sane Scotland-wide alternative to the SNP and best placed to both protect the divers unions the people of Scotland voted for and deliver the promises made in 2014 and since ignored. Helpfully the Tories and Labour are doing a very good job of making this a reality without her having to lift a finger.
There is no way the Lib Dems are an alternative to the SNP, it is just not going to happen, lots of stupid people but not that many.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Took a while for HY to respond. I thought maybe he was searching for some honest doubt.
But honest doubt is a two way street. It means with honest doubt we have to be open to everything HY says as correct.
Would the SNP really stand down in favour of the Lib Dems, or vice versa?
No and no.
There's quite a lot of residual antagonism between the parties probably exacerbated by the Indy ref, I'm sensing it's not at the same pitch between LDs & Plaid.
There's an upcoming Holyrood by election, largely unremarked upon here, in Shetland. I expect the LDs will win comfortably but the vote shares should be a useful straw in the wind.
I hear the SNP are working it very hard but I’m sure it will really be about candidate and local issues. It’s difficult to see how you ship (literally) boat loads of helpers in.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
I don't discount that your prediction of a 1983 redux won't come true. It's certainly a viable scenario. However this site is at its best when we all try to identify and think over more than just the same single possibility.
Yes, it’s a good article, with perhaps two weaknesses. It doesn’t say anything about the changing drivers of voting behaviour, and doesn’t give the latest models enough credit for at least trying to adapt UNS to something more appropriate. Flavible in particular are trying to solve the very problem the lead is expounding. And a third issue is the possibility of alliances between at least some of the parties (or among at least some of their voters).
The reason why these models are likely to be less reliable isn’t solely because we are expecting dramatic falls in the level of support for both major parties - it is also because the demographic and hence geographical basis of support for both of them is changing.
If the level of party support shifted dramatically, but still along the same lines as the previous GE, the models would be more reliable. Yet we canne thing that is unlikely is that it arrives as a straight swing (after all, in the LibDem’s case it didn’t depart as one).
An undercommented observation on recent polling is that, just as the Conservatives lose their base in the middle class of all ages and move toward a more evenly spread vote across the census categories, the LibDems are acquiring a base of educated working age people which has some of the same geographical characteristics. At vote shares into the 20%s, this ought to offer a sounder basis for winning seats across a broad swathe of the south.
A further the same as the one that always eluded the LibDems coming from below.
If Project Fear is even partly true, Bozo may get to explore that for himself.
The concentration in Conservative support is not based on income, now, but on support/opposition to Brexit. Yougov has 14% of Remainers voting Conservative, compared to 51% of Leavers. By and large, I don't think many Conservative seats that voted Leave are in danger (bar a handful where TBP will challenge). The danger comes in Conservative Remain seats.
Conservatives are building up a coalition of voters which will not endure long past Brexit (either because Brexit will go badly, or because the Conservatives are just a temporary home to get what they want). Storing up a lot of trouble for the longer term.
Politics is more cultural now not class based so I suspect it will actually
Then the Tories are absolutely buggered. They have always relied on people becoming more economically self-interested as they got older. Cultural values are much less likely to change. And the cultural values that drive the current Tory vote are not those of the under 50s.
I though they were ubiquitous on this continent, I guess not. Curious spread.
In them there medieval times the British Isles was all about wool. Scotland and England were the nations of fine wool production sought after by the Continent.
Meanwhile, we have learned this weekend that No Deal Brexit = Business bailouts, emergency airlifts and higher prices. The Tories are stuck in the low 30s in the polls while all this is abstract, not real. They cannot wait too long for a general election. They need one in early November at the very latest.
They need the Tsipras strategy, take the GE before the real pain hits.
The executive controls the initiative, parliament will be wrong footed by Cummings because they are merely waiting to respond to whatever he comes up with. Just like Remain ended up losing game of catch up.
If parliament are indeed capable of preventing no deal they can only do this from the front foot. Before we get to the end of the recess they should demonstrate they have the votes not only to win a Vonc, but have the votes behind the individual who then commands support in the house and the queen should call. Sort it all out this week.
So armed with the initiative they are saying to Boris, go on, pull that stunt, we are ready for it.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
Nope, see my third paragraph
Not sure how the 3rd para shows you have taken it onboard and the 1st para shows you definitely haven't.
Starting with 'All very well...' which I interpret as I am going to ignore all this evidence and then promptly prove that by the contents of the rest of your sentence shows your reply to me should have been 'Yep' and not 'Nope'
What evidence? If third parties rise in the polls they also rise in seats on electoral calculus, so it is pointless saying falling voteshare for the 2 main parties means electoral calculus etc should be ignored unless you rely heavily on tactical voting which as I said mainly applies to the most highly educated voters ie a minority
Ed Conwy on Sky destroying Rachel Maskell on labours rail nationalisation and Brexit
Cringeworthy and just highlights the utter incompetence and unsuitability for office of so many of our politicians
Who or what is Rachel Maskell?
Shadow rail minister her only qualification it would seem being MP for York and having visited the railway museum. I’m probably wrong and she will be a former rail union official.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
I don't discount that your prediction of a 1983 redux won't come true. It's certainly a viable scenario. However this site is at its best when we all try to identify and think over more than just the same single possibility.
I have not said it would be '1983 redux' other than it is possible Labour will have a smaller lead over the Liberals than any general election since that point
Would the SNP really stand down in favour of the Lib Dems, or vice versa?
No and no.
There's quite a lot of residual antagonism between the parties probably exacerbated by the Indy ref, I'm sensing it's not at the same pitch between LDs & Plaid.
There's an upcoming Holyrood by election, largely unremarked upon here, in Shetland. I expect the LDs will win comfortably but the vote shares should be a useful straw in the wind.
I hear the SNP are working it very hard but I’m sure it will really be about candidate and local issues. It’s difficult to see how you ship (literally) boat loads of helpers in.
It has always been Lib Dem so unless they win by a barrow load we will see all the flim flam is just about normal for them. They are going nowhere in Scotland.
Do people really think Johnson would want to hold a general election exactly a week or exactly a fortnight after a No Deal Brexit? Even the loopiest Brexiteers admit there may be some short-term disruption immediately after such a Brexit. It would be incredibly risky to schedule an election for the time when that disruption was at its height, when people couldn't help noticing it, and when the opposition parties could so easily argue that it was the beginning of catastrophe.
Surely the date that would appeal is Brexit Day itself, 31 October?
Only if you are confident that the state can run a challenging transition and a general election simultaneously. It's a heck of a gamble. But yes- a GE before Brexit leaves him vulnerable to Farage, and one afterwards leaves him vulnerable to something going badly wrong.
Quick physics conclusion: there isn't a good time for a general election for the government.
Morning Malc, trust the turnips weathered the storm yesterday.
What's the WTO tariff on a turnip?
Morning , I think I have webbed feet, still raining. Mind you I did have an hour or two in the garden yesterday as it goes from summer to winter alternatively. We had little wind here mind you , a gentle breeze. Currently horsing it down.
Yes, it’s a good article, with perhaps two weaknesses. It doesn’t say anything about the changing drivers of voting =es as a straight swing (after all, in the LibDem’s case it didn’t depart as one).
An undercommented o seats across a broad swathe of the south.
A further the same as the one that always eluded the LibDems coming from below.
If Project Fear is even partly true, Bozo may get to explore that for himself.
The concentration i=onservative Remain seats.
Conservatives are building up a coalition of voters which will not endure long past Brexit (either because Brexit will go badly, or because the Conservatives are just a temporary home to get what they want). Storing up a lot of trouble for the longer term.
Politics is more cultural now not class based so I suspect it will actually
Then the Tories are absolutely buggered. They have always relied on people becoming more economically self-interested as they got older. Cultural values are much less likely to change. And the cultural values that drive the current Tory vote are not those of the under 50s.
Which again is rubbish, people always get culturally more conservative as they get older, it is human nature and the Tories will still adapt and accept cultural change if necessary eg on gay marriage (plus even YouGov has Boris leading Corbyn 32% to 23% with 25 to 49s).
However cultural values is not just an age thing, the Tories now poll as well with the working class as they do with the middle class, indeed the latest YouGov has the Tories doing slightly better with the working class than middle class, on 33% with C2DEs to 30% with ABC1s. It is more a class change as much as an age change, the Tories have always polled better with the old than the young so no change there, what has changed is their is now no difference in their support with working class and middle class voters even when the Tories are ahead in the polls whereas in 1992 and 1997 for example the Tories tended to perform best with middle class voters and Labour had a clear lead with working class voters.
Now with the LDs winning more middle class voters, on 26% with them with Yougov and the Brexit Party winning more working class voters, on 17% with them with YouGov, the Tories are no longer the party of the middle class and Labour are no longer the party of the working class, indeed Labour are on just 24% with C2DEs in the same poll. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8i9x45cenq/TheTimes_190806_VI_Trackers_w.pdf
It would be letting the law take effect, even if that is stupid it's not treacherous.
It just amazes me that not one of the 498 mps who voted for A50 did not understand at the time that each and everyone of them created no deal by default in both UK and EU law
It would be letting the law take effect, even if that is stupid it's not treacherous.
It just amazes me that not one of the 498 mps who voted for A50 did not understand at the time that each and everyone of them created no deal by default in both UK and EU law
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
Nope, see my third paragraph
Not sure how the 3rd para shows you have taken it onboard and the 1st para shows you definitely haven't.
Starting with 'All very well...' which I interpret as I am going to ignore all this evidence and then promptly prove that by the contents of the rest of your sentence shows your reply to me should have been 'Yep' and not 'Nope'
What evidence? If third parties rise in the polls they also rise in seats on electoral calculus, so it is pointless saying falling voteshare for the 2 main parties means electoral calculus etc should be ignored unless you rely heavily on tactical voting which as I said mainly applies to the most highly educated voters ie a minority
You really don't read what people write do you? Or you don't understand it.
Nothing you have written has anything to do with the discussion. Where tactical voting came into it I don't know.
Quoting you from above 'If third parties rise in the polls they also rise in seats on electoral calculus,...'. Now read the article and the comments by Ian and me and realise how bonkers it was to start a sentence with those words.
The whole point of the discussion was on whether UNS should apply (it was just a discussion so nobody is saying who is right or wrong), but you started your argument by applying the thing we were discussing whether we should apply or not. Just crazy.
Morning Malc, trust the turnips weathered the storm yesterday.
What's the WTO tariff on a turnip?
Morning , I think I have webbed feet, still raining. Mind you I did have an hour or two in the garden yesterday as it goes from summer to winter alternatively. We had little wind here mind you , a gentle breeze. Currently horsing it down.
Neigh, say it ain't so!
Anyway, I have to go and play with my eight foot horn. Have a good morning.
Shadow rail minister her only qualification it would seem being MP for York and having visited the railway museum. I’m probably wrong and she will be a former rail union official.
She is not, alas, an ex train driver - probably could not drive a train if her life depended on it - but she did have a real job before politics.A physiotherapist in the NHS.
Do people really think Johnson would want to hold a general election exactly a week or exactly a fortnight after a No Deal Brexit? Even the loopiest Brexiteers admit there may be some short-term disruption immediately after such a Brexit. It would be incredibly risky to schedule an election for the time when that disruption was at its height, when people couldn't help noticing it, and when the opposition parties could so easily argue that it was the beginning of catastrophe.
Surely the date that would appeal is Brexit Day itself, 31 October?
Then again, it would be a brave man (which Johnson is not) who would bet against panic buying in the week or so before Brexit Day.
A general election with no food on the supermarket shelves?
Do people really think Johnson would want to hold a general election exactly a week or exactly a fortnight after a No Deal Brexit? Even the loopiest Brexiteers admit there may be some short-term disruption immediately after such a Brexit. It would be incredibly risky to schedule an election for the time when that disruption was at its height, when people couldn't help noticing it, and when the opposition parties could so easily argue that it was the beginning of catastrophe.
Surely the date that would appeal is Brexit Day itself, 31 October?
Only if you are confident that the state can run a challenging transition and a general election simultaneously. It's a heck of a gamble. But yes- a GE before Brexit leaves him vulnerable to Farage, and one afterwards leaves him vulnerable to something going badly wrong.
Quick physics conclusion: there isn't a good time for a general election for the government.
The Tory’s have twice thought it a good idea to have major change rather than focus on running the country 2017 GE wasting time during the two year A50 period and recently having a leadership election so they are quite capable of thinking they can do both one can only wait and see.
Morning Malc, trust the turnips weathered the storm yesterday.
Morning ydoethur, weather is shocking for Augiust. My wife is not happy that all her flowers are getting battered. We have had little wind mind you , certainly no more than usual.
Mr. NorthWales, there are two possible explanations.
1) MPs are terminally stupid. 2) Party politics trumps the national interest. It's ok if the nation loses out, because the Evil Tories will get the blame.
Shadow rail minister her only qualification it would seem being MP for York and having visited the railway museum. I’m probably wrong and she will be a former rail union official.
She is not, alas, an ex train driver - probably could not drive a train if her life depended on it - but she did have a real job before politics.A physiotherapist in the NHS.
While I know we all bemoan the lack of MPs with 'real job' experience, and in particular I retain disdain for the route as a spad into a safe seat, sadly there are no shortage of those who show having had a real job does not stop one being an absolute duffer. Cannot say I've heard of this lady before, hopefully just an off day for her.
What a fantastic thread header. Alastair, I applaud you. This is the kind of post that makes pb stand out from the crowd. It's as objective as possible, reasoned, considered and not knee-jerk.
I'm afraid a small handful of posters who don't heed such guidance are ruining this site. I no longer come on here in the evenings as a result. A wide spectrum of political opinion and debate is great. Ill-considered ranting by headbangers isn't. Honestly, they just spew replies out in response to every message they see. It's beyond tiresome and I hope Mike might have a quiet word.
Back to the piece, quite superb Alastair. One to keep and use as a reference point.
Do people really think Johnson would want to hold a general election exactly a week or exactly a fortnight after a No Deal Brexit? Even the loopiest Brexiteers admit there may be some short-term disruption immediately after such a Brexit. It would be incredibly risky to schedule an election for the time when that disruption was at its height, when people couldn't help noticing it, and when the opposition parties could so easily argue that it was the beginning of catastrophe.
Surely the date that would appeal is Brexit Day itself, 31 October?
Only if you are confident that the state can run a challenging transition and a general election simultaneously. It's a heck of a gamble. But yes- a GE before Brexit leaves him vulnerable to Farage, and one afterwards leaves him vulnerable to something going badly wrong.
Quick physics conclusion: there isn't a good time for a general election for the government.
The Tory’s have twice thought it a good idea to have major change rather than focus on running the country 2017 GE wasting time during the two year A50 period and recently having a leadership election so they are quite capable of thinking they can do both one can only wait and see.
Very well put. It might be a bad time for it but their plans lead to one anyway.
I think that trying to predict the next election result will be incredibly difficult. If asked by a pollster who I wanted to be the next Prime Minister I wouldn't say Boris, and who would I vote for, I wouldn't say Tory. But my long-serving local MP is a Conservative, a former minister (until a few months ago), a staunch and unashamed remainer (not Dominic Greive) , a moderate in most matters, a superb constituency MP, and a thoroughly decent man. If he stands next time, I shall vote for him; if he decides to stand down, I almost certainly wouldn't vote for his successor. I think that is a view widely held locally. (To save the guessing, it is Alistair Burt)
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS should be ignored because you believe due to your inbuilt diehard Remainer bias there will be vast LD to Labour tactical voting against the Tories with very little evidence at all
Shadow rail minister her only qualification it would seem being MP for York and having visited the railway museum. I’m probably wrong and she will be a former rail union official.
She is not, alas, an ex train driver - probably could not drive a train if her life depended on it - but she did have a real job before politics.A physiotherapist in the NHS.
Actually an interesting character in that she is very anti brexit and very pro life voting against the extension of abortion rights to NI as well as gay marriage.
Ed Conwy on Sky destroying Rachel Maskell on labours rail nationalisation and Brexit
Cringeworthy and just highlights the utter incompetence and unsuitability for office of so many of our politicians
Who or what is Rachel Maskell?
Shadow rail minister her only qualification it would seem being MP for York and having visited the railway museum. I’m probably wrong and she will be a former rail union official.
Maskell has been a union official but her knowledge on the railways and nationalisation was so inept that my 6 year old grandson would have embarrased her, at least he knows about Thomas the tank engine
The Lib Dems in Scotland lost a shed load of voters in certain seats to Team Ruth. Now that Team Ruth is a shattered husk of a distant memory with Bojo in charge they are well poised to hoover up those previously lost votes.
Tories on 23% in latest Yougov in Scotland, LDs on 14% and Slab on 12%
Only the two Borders seats look safe on those numbers. And farming seats like that are just the sort where there'll be fear about no deal Brexit, just like Brecon.
I'd say Kincardine would be held. Of course the LD don't look too safe anywhere in Scotland if Opinium is to be accurate.
Morning Malc, trust the turnips weathered the storm yesterday.
What's the WTO tariff on a turnip?
Morning , I think I have webbed feet, still raining. Mind you I did have an hour or two in the garden yesterday as it goes from summer to winter alternatively. We had little wind here mind you , a gentle breeze. Currently horsing it down.
Neigh, say it ain't so!
Anyway, I have to go and play with my eight foot horn. Have a good morning.
Meanwhile, we have learned this weekend that No Deal Brexit = Business bailouts, emergency airlifts and higher prices. The Tories are stuck in the low 30s in the polls while all this is abstract, not real. They cannot wait too long for a general election. They need one in early November at the very latest.
They need the Tsipras strategy, take the GE before the real pain hits.
Britain Trump is no Tsipras. He's preparing for a GE by unlimited spending because he knows one may be forced upon him but he won't do one by choice.
Yes, it’s a good article, with perhaps two weaknesses. It doesn’t say anything about the changing drivers of voting =es as a straight swing (after all, in the LibDem’s case it didn’t depart as one).
An undercommented o seats across a broad swathe of the south.
A further the same as the one that always eluded the LibDems coming from below.
If Project Fear is even partly true, Bozo may get to explore that for himself.
The concentration i=onservative Remain seats.
Conservativese for the longer term.
Politics is more cultural now not class based so I suspect it will actually
Then the Tories are absolutely buggered. They have always relied on people becoming more economically self-interested as they got older. Cultural values are much less likely to change. And the cultural values that drive the current Tory vote are not those of the under 50s.
Which again is rubbish, people always get culturally more conservative as they get older, it is human nature and the Tories will still adapt and accept cultural change if necessary eg on gay marriage (plus even YouGov has Boris leading Corbyn 32% to 23% with 25 to 49s).
However cultural values is not just an age thing, the Tories now poll as well with the working class as they do with the middle class, indeed the latest YouGov has the Tories doing slightly better with the working class than middle class, on 33% with C2DEs to 30% with ABC1s. It is more a class change as much as an age change, the Tories have always polled better with the old than the young so no change there, what has changed is their is now no difference in their support with working class and middle class voters even when the Tories are ahead in the polls whereas in 1992 and 1997 for example the Tories tended to perform best with middle class voters and Labour had a clear lead with working class voters.
Now with the LDs winning more middle class voters, on 26% with them with Yougov and the Brexit Party winning more working class voters, on 17% with them with YouGov, the Tories are no longer the party of the middle class and Labour are no longer the party of the working class, indeed Labour are on just 24% with C2DEs in the same poll. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8i9x45cenq/TheTimes_190806_VI_Trackers_w.pdf
In what way do people get culturally more conservative as they get older? The rest of your post doesn’t really add much to anything. The stories currently have the support of people of whatever class who support Brexit. The discussion is what happens post-Brexit.
It would be letting the law take effect, even if that is stupid it's not treacherous.
It just amazes me that not one of the 498 mps who voted for A50 did not understand at the time that each and everyone of them created no deal by default in both UK and EU law
She didn’t.
Fine, but that doesnt make the consequence of the law treacherous. And if she thinks it does she needs to have some words with the many people in her ranks who did vote for that to be the law.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS should be ignored because you believe due to your inbuilt diehard Remainer bias there will be vast LD to Labour tactical voting against the Tories with very little evidence at all
What if you are wrong, though? Like PM JRM, PM Farage, election called in July, NI referendum wrong?
What a fantastic thread header. Alastair, I applaud you. This is the kind of post that makes pb stand out from the crowd. It's as objective as possible, reasoned, considered and not knee-jerk.
I'm afraid a small handful of posters who don't heed such guidance are ruining this site. I no longer come on here in the evenings as a result. A wide spectrum of political opinion and debate is great. Ill-considered ranting by headbangers isn't. Honestly, they just spew replies out in response to every message they see. It's beyond tiresome and I hope Mike might have a quiet word.
Back to the piece, quite superb Alastair. One to keep and use as a reference point.
Good, off to the Guardian then with you if you cannot take a contrary view and while he is obviously bright if you think Alistair is objective rather than fanatically anti Brexit you better think again
Yes, it’s a good article, with perhaps two weaknesses. It doesn’t say anything about the changing drivers of voting behaviour, and doesn’t give the latest models enough credit for at least trying to adapt UNS to something more appropriate. Flavible in particular are trying to solve the very problem the lead is expounding. And a third issue is the possibility of alliances between at least some of the parties (or among at least some of their voters).
The Liberals did exceptionally well in 1974 (esp February - indeed Feb 74 remains the third party high water mark in many southern seats), yet, not having a core constituency beyond the then-called Celtic fringe, their seat tally was barely into double figures.
An undercommented observation on recent polling is that, just as the Conservatives lose their base in the middle class of all ages and move toward a more evenly spread vote across the census categories, the LibDems are acquiring a base of educated working age people which has some of the same geographical characteristics. At vote shares into the 20%s, this ought to offer a sounder basis for winning seats across a broad swathe of the south.
A further feature of the more even distribution of Conservative support is that, at lower vote shares, they start to run into similar problems as the LibDems. This was beginning to show in some of the polls prior to the ascent of Bozo, which gave significant Labour seat leads for relatively small vote leads. There is a tipping point opening up beneath the Conservatives in the high 20%s-30% that is broadly the same as the one that always eluded the LibDems coming from below.
If Project Fear is even partly true, Bozo may get to explore that for himself.
The concentration in Conservative support is not based on income, now, but on support/opposition to Brexit. Yougov has 14% of Remainers voting Conservative, compared to 51% of Leavers. By and large, I don't think many Conservative seats that voted Leave are in danger (bar a handful where TBP will challenge). The danger comes in Conservative Remain seats.
And age (and to some extent uneducation) has replaced income.
'Tories the party for old thickos'. It has got a certain ring to it.
Try substituting age with sex/colour/ethnicity/religion and see just how nasty your comments really are.
The last three years have been a miserable time in British politics, but there is one small shining light, the superb header articles on this site, especially by Alistair Meeks, Cyclefree, and David Herdson. They, and others, consistently surpass any other site. Thank you
Shadow rail minister her only qualification it would seem being MP for York and having visited the railway museum. I’m probably wrong and she will be a former rail union official.
She is not, alas, an ex train driver - probably could not drive a train if her life depended on it - but she did have a real job before politics.A physiotherapist in the NHS.
And how does that qualify her to spout nonsense on the railways
Richard Gere and Matteo Salvini clash over migrants.
'Gere, who visited the Open Arms ship in a show of support, joined a news conference on the Italian island of Lampedusa calling for the migrants to be allowed to dock. He made comparisons between Mr Salvini, who is also interior minister and has made repeated efforts to block migrant ships from docking in Italy, and US President Donald Trump, who has faced widespread criticism for his immigration policies...
It didn't take Mr Salvini long to respond. "Given this generous millionaire is voicing concern for the fate of the Open Arms migrants, we thank him: he can take back to Hollywood, on his private plane, all the people aboard and support them in his villas. Thank you Richard!" he said in a statement. Mr Salvini has pushed through sanctions on NGO boats that aim to bring migrants rescued at sea to Italy.'
Mr. NorthWales, there are two possible explanations.
1) MPs are terminally stupid. 2) Party politics trumps the national interest. It's ok if the nation loses out, because the Evil Tories will get the blame.
Do people really think Johnson would want to hold a general election exactly a week or exactly a fortnight after a No Deal Brexit? Even the loopiest Brexiteers admit there may be some short-term disruption immediately after such a Brexit. It would be incredibly risky to schedule an election for the time when that disruption was at its height, when people couldn't help noticing it, and when the opposition parties could so easily argue that it was the beginning of catastrophe.
Surely the date that would appeal is Brexit Day itself, 31 October?
Then again, it would be a brave man (which Johnson is not) who would bet against panic buying in the week or so before Brexit Day.
A general election with no food on the supermarket shelves?
The ram has touched the wall already - theres very little chance to pull it back even if they want to, and as oft noted a GE may occur whatever BoJo wants. Especially since now that Bogdanovic claim that a new parliament could retroactively say we never left, adding more fire to remainers not to fear a GE.
Either way any hardships will be blamed on the EU or called a price worth paying (do or die remember, any price is worth paying according to BoJo, except a backstop he already voted for). Damn risky as you say, but it keeps most of the Tory party together and that is the key when predicting what will happen. As United as possible they either mitigate the damage or they hope win. Any suffering is worth that.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS should be ignored because you believe due to your inbuilt diehard Remainer bias there will be vast LD to Labour tactical voting against the Tories with very little evidence at all
The evidence for the potential for widespread tactical voting is the 40% Labour got in 2017.
What a fantastic thread header. Alastair, I applaud you. This is the kind of post that makes pb stand out from the crowd. It's as objective as possible, reasoned, considered and not knee-jerk.
I'm afraid a small handful of posters who don't heed such guidance are ruining this site. I no longer come on here in the evenings as a result. A wide spectrum of political opinion and debate is great. Ill-considered ranting by headbangers isn't. Honestly, they just spew replies out in response to every message they see. It's beyond tiresome and I hope Mike might have a quiet word.
Back to the piece, quite superb Alastair. One to keep and use as a reference point.
Your presence is not missed, we have enough pompous assholes already. Please whinge elsewhere.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote.
Plus Electoral Calculus reflects the rise of third parties as much as the pollsters if they get a big enough swing
I'm not sure about tactical voting. There's plenty of evidence that in 2017 voters primary motive was to vote against Mrs May's Conservatives rather than for a particular opposition party. The next election if it's soon is likely to see anti Tory/Johnson voting on an unprecedented scale. Where that'll take you is difficult to predict.
Actually that is likely to be less true, only 31% of Remainers back Corbyn over Boris as next PM but 69% of Leavers back Boris over Corbyn as best PM, in fact Boris is more likely to win back former Brexit Party voters on polling day than Corbyn is to win back LD voters
Despite talking about an amorphous mass it's always surprising how voters end up getting what they least don't want. (Binary referendum notwithstanding). The polls show that an overwheming majority (70% approximately) don't want Johnson's proto fascists to be the next government so I suspect they'll find a way to prevent it*
The same might apply to Corbyn's Labour though that appears less obvious particularly as part of a coalition.
Shadow rail minister her only qualification it would seem being MP for York and having visited the railway museum. I’m probably wrong and she will be a former rail union official.
She is not, alas, an ex train driver - probably could not drive a train if her life depended on it - but she did have a real job before politics.A physiotherapist in the NHS.
And how does that qualify her to spout nonsense on the railways
Well being a lying journalist and failed foreign secretary qualifies Johnson to be PM
Do people really think Johnson would want to hold a general election exactly a week or exactly a fortnight after a No Deal Brexit? Even the loopiest Brexiteers admit there may be some short-term disruption immediately after such a Brexit. It would be incredibly risky to schedule an election for the time when that disruption was at its height, when people couldn't help noticing it, and when the opposition parties could so easily argue that it was the beginning of catastrophe.
Surely the date that would appeal is Brexit Day itself, 31 October?
Then again, it would be a brave man (which Johnson is not) who would bet against panic buying in the week or so before Brexit Day.
A general election with no food on the supermarket shelves?
The ram has touched the wall already - theres very little chance to pull it back even if they want to, and as oft noted a GE may occur whatever BoJo wants. Especially since now that Bogdanovic claim that a new parliament could retroactively say we never left, adding more fire to remainers not to fear a GE.
Either way any hardships will be blamed on the EU or called a price worth paying (do or die remember, any price is worth paying according to BoJo, except a backstop he already voted for). Damn risky as you say, but it keeps most of the Tory party together and that is the key when predicting what will happen. As United as possible they either mitigate the damage or they hope win. Any suffering is worth that.
Will a No Deal Brexit keep the Tory party together? I don't think so.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS should be ignored because you believe due to your inbuilt diehard Remainer bias there will be vast LD to Labour tactical voting against the Tories with very little evidence at all
The evidence for the potential for widespread tactical voting is the 40% Labour got in 2017.
When Corbyn had a significantly higher favourable rating than he does now
Only if you are confident that the state can run a challenging transition and a general election simultaneously. It's a heck of a gamble. But yes- a GE before Brexit leaves him vulnerable to Farage, and one afterwards leaves him vulnerable to something going badly wrong.
Quick physics conclusion: there isn't a good time for a general election for the government.
In the spring of 2020 having just got a Brexit deal through. That would be perfect for Johnson. Can't see him losing that.
But can he pull it off? Can he avoid the phony crunch this autumn and buy himself the time he needs to have a serious crack at the negotiated Brexit which is surely what the national interest demands?
Do people really think Johnson would want to hold a general election exactly a week or exactly a fortnight after a No Deal Brexit? Even the loopiest Brexiteers admit there may be some short-term disruption immediately after such a Brexit. It would be incredibly risky to schedule an election for the time when that disruption was at its height, when people couldn't help noticing it, and when the opposition parties could so easily argue that it was the beginning of catastrophe.
Surely the date that would appeal is Brexit Day itself, 31 October?
Imagine waking up on the 1st of November having left the EU and elected a House of Commons committed to rejoining.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS should be ignored because you believe due to your inbuilt diehard Remainer bias there will be vast LD to Labour tactical voting against the Tories with very little evidence at all
What if you are wrong, though? Like PM JRM, PM Farage, election called in July, NI referendum wrong?
I got PM Boris right did I not, have you ever thought what if you are wrong?
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS should be ignored because you believe due to your inbuilt diehard Remainer bias there will be vast LD to Labour tactical voting against the Tories with very little evidence at all
'Your in built diehard Remainer bias' demonstrates your belief that insulting a poster helps win your argument. For your information it does not and tactical voting is a genuine discussion topic in this climate
Meanwhile, we have learned this weekend that No Deal Brexit = Business bailouts, emergency airlifts and higher prices. The Tories are stuck in the low 30s in the polls while all this is abstract, not real. They cannot wait too long for a general election. They need one in early November at the very latest.
They need the Tsipras strategy, take the GE before the real pain hits.
Britain Trump is no Tsipras. He's preparing for a GE by unlimited spending because he knows one may be forced upon him but he won't do one by choice.
Ah but he is, because his going for no deal can only lead to a GE, whether its before or after Brexit. Heck, some think his strategy requires it hence the set the date of GE after Brexit theory. His spending spree is simply the only thing he can do to prepare whether he wants a GE or expects it to be forced on him, and it appearing to be forced on him is part of the plan too I suspect.
On the topic of our American friends, I think that this kind of polling will have an important effect on the Democratic primary (Sanders, Biden lead Trump by 8):
What strikes me is that both of these people are well known national figures who have been subject to the GOP attack machine before and yet are STILL significantly more popular than the Orange Gorilla. I think that'll push Democratic electors towards one or the other, because their primary goal is defenestrating Trump.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS should be ignored because you believe due to your inbuilt diehard Remainer bias there will be vast LD to Labour tactical voting against the Tories with very little evidence at all
The evidence for the potential for widespread tactical voting is the 40% Labour got in 2017.
So true. And not everyone will have worked out what tactic works in their own constituency yet.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote.
Plus Electoral Calculus reflects the rise of third parties as much as the pollsters if they get a big enough swing
I'm not sure about tactical voting. There's plenty of evidence that in 2017 voters primary motive was to vote against Mrs May's Conservatives rather than for a particular opposition party. The next election if it's soon is likely to see anti Tory/Johnson voting on an unprecedented scale. Where that'll take you is difficult to predict.
Actually that is likely to be less true, only 31% of Remainers back Corbyn over Boris as next PM but 69% of Leavers back Boris over Corbyn as best PM, in fact Boris is more likely to win back former Brexit Party voters on polling day than Corbyn is to win back LD voters
Despite talking about an amorphous mass it's always surprising how voters end up getting what they least don't want. (Binary referendum notwithstanding). The polls show that an overwheming majority (70% approximately) don't want Johnson's proto fascists to be the next government so I suspect they'll find a way to prevent it*
The same might apply to Corbyn's Labour though that appears less obvious particularly as part of a coalition.
"proto fascists" - lol! I reckon Boris is more socially liberal than your good self, Roger. I can at least imagine HIM sitting down for a pint with the working class in Hartlepool!
It would be letting the law take effect, even if that is stupid it's not treacherous.
It just amazes me that not one of the 498 mps who voted for A50 did not understand at the time that each and everyone of them created no deal by default in both UK and EU law
It would be letting the law take effect, even if that is stupid it's not treacherous.
It just amazes me that not one of the 498 mps who voted for A50 did not understand at the time that each and everyone of them created no deal by default in both UK and EU law
Yes, it’s a good article, with perhaps two weaknesses. It doesn’t say anything about the changing drivers of voting =es as a straight swing (after all, in the LibDem’s case it didn’t depart as one).
An undercommented o seats across a broad swathe of the south.
A further the same as the one that always eluded the LibDems coming from below.
If Project Fear is even partly true, Bozo may get to explore that for himself.
The concentration i=onservative Remain seats.
Conservativese for the longer term.
Politics is more cultural now not class based so I suspect it will actually
Then the Tories are absolutely buggered. They have always relied on people becoming more economically self-interested as they got older. Cultural values are much less likely to change. And the cultural values that drive the current Tory vote are not those of the under 50s.
Which again is rubbish,ers and Labour had a clear lead with working class voters.
Now with the LDs winning more middle class voters, on 26% with them with Yougov and the Brexit_Trackers_w.pdf
In what way do people get culturally more conservative as they get older? The rest of your post doesn’t really add much to anything. The stories currently have the support of people of whatever class who support Brexit. The discussion is what happens post-Brexit.
More keen to preserve traditions and the way of life they know which is why the Tories have never won the votes of a majority of under 30s since 1983 and Labour have never won the votes of a majority of over 65s since 1997,
People who support Brexit tend to be culturally conservative, inevitably they will be more drawn to a conservative party than voters who are culturally liberal who tend to be Remainers, indeed the biggest problem may be for Labour who are losing their culturally conservative working class voters to the Brexit Party and a lesser extent the Boris led Tories and also losing their culturally liberal middle class voters to the LDs and to a lesser extent the Greens.
Shadow rail minister her only qualification it would seem being MP for York and having visited the railway museum. I’m probably wrong and she will be a former rail union official.
She is not, alas, an ex train driver - probably could not drive a train if her life depended on it - but she did have a real job before politics.A physiotherapist in the NHS.
And how does that qualify her to spout nonsense on the railways
Well being a lying journalist and failed foreign secretary qualifies Johnson to be PM
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS should be ignored because you believe due to your inbuilt diehard Remainer bias there will be vast LD to Labour tactical voting against the Tories with very little evidence at all
'Your in built diehard Remainer bias' demonstrates your belief that insulting a poster helps win your argument. For your information it does not and tactical voting is a genuine discussion topic in this climate
Diehard Remainer isn't an insult. Suggesting one is the opposite conjures up all sorts of grotesque characterisations
Malcolmmg, a tip for your well-being. When you have a disagreement with someone, esp over something trivial like your passionate dislike of Jo Swinson and my support of her, it's a good idea not to let it become cancerous in all other postings. Richard T and I once had a minor disagreement, but in agreeing to disagree I grew to respect him and his considered posts. I get it that you're an ardent nationalist, something I don't actually have a problem with. So drop the bile. It doesn't do you any favours and makes you look a bit of a schmuck.
Only if you are confident that the state can run a challenging transition and a general election simultaneously. It's a heck of a gamble. But yes- a GE before Brexit leaves him vulnerable to Farage, and one afterwards leaves him vulnerable to something going badly wrong.
Quick physics conclusion: there isn't a good time for a general election for the government.
In the spring of 2020 having just got a Brexit deal through. That would be perfect for Johnson. Can't see him losing that.
But can he pull it off? Can he avoid the phony crunch this autumn and buy himself the time he needs to have a serious crack at the negotiated Brexit which is surely what the national interest demands?
I do hope not.
I just dont see how he can hold his coalition of support together to buy himself time. The EU are being stubborn, hes given himself no wriggle room and he cannot allow himself to appear forced into an extension without going for a GE.
I'd love to see if he could get a deal, but I just dont see how he gets there.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS should be ignored because you believe due to your inbuilt diehard Remainer bias there will be vast LD to Labour tactical voting against the Tories with very little evidence at all
The evidence for the potential for widespread tactical voting is the 40% Labour got in 2017.
When Corbyn had a significantly higher favourable rating than he does now
His ratings improved during the campaign if I recall correctly. The Tories had a huge polling lead and lost it. Why? Because millions of voters wanted to stop the Tories winning. I would not rule that out happening again. I think it is less likely, but I would definitely not rule it out. In all the polls from all the companies anti-No Deal parties are on 50%+.
Comments
The chances of them targeting efficiently must be greatly reduced.
There's quite a lot of residual antagonism between the parties probably exacerbated by the Indy ref, I'm sensing it's not at the same pitch between LDs & Plaid.
There's an upcoming Holyrood by election, largely unremarked upon here, in Shetland. I expect the LDs will win comfortably but the vote shares should be a useful straw in the wind.
Of course these are unlikely GE voters
Surely the date that would appeal is Brexit Day itself, 31 October?
Cringeworthy and just highlights the utter incompetence and unsuitability for office of so many of our politicians
The revolution really is starting to eat its children...
Starting with 'All very well...' which I interpret as I am going to ignore all this evidence and then promptly prove that by the contents of the rest of your sentence shows your reply to me should have been 'Yep' and not 'Nope'
Apparently.
Edit... apologies. Resigned over the three line whip on the Withdrawal Bill, and came back as Rail minister.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8i9x45cenq/TheTimes_190806_VI_Trackers_w.pdf
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/10/trucks-full-food-medicines-could-flown-uk-cargo-planes-part/
But honest doubt is a two way street. It means with honest doubt we have to be open to everything HY says as correct.
If parliament are indeed capable of preventing no deal they can only do this from the front foot. Before we get to the end of the recess they should demonstrate they have the votes not only to win a Vonc, but have the votes behind the individual who then commands support in the house and the queen should call. Sort it all out this week.
So armed with the initiative they are saying to Boris, go on, pull that stunt, we are ready for it.
Anything else will prove too reactive.
Shadow rail minister her only qualification it would seem being MP for York and having visited the railway museum. I’m probably wrong and she will be a former rail union official.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
It's like hearing the MP for Burton is not very good at brewing.
Quick physics conclusion: there isn't a good time for a general election for the government.
However cultural values is not just an age thing, the Tories now poll as well with the working class as they do with the middle class, indeed the latest YouGov has the Tories doing slightly better with the working class than middle class, on 33% with C2DEs to 30% with ABC1s. It is more a class change as much as an age change, the Tories have always polled better with the old than the young so no change there, what has changed is their is now no difference in their support with working class and middle class voters even when the Tories are ahead in the polls whereas in 1992 and 1997 for example the Tories tended to perform best with middle class voters and Labour had a clear lead with working class voters.
Now with the LDs winning more middle class voters, on 26% with them with Yougov and the Brexit Party winning more working class voters, on 17% with them with YouGov, the Tories are no longer the party of the middle class and Labour are no longer the party of the working class, indeed Labour are on just 24% with C2DEs in the same poll.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8i9x45cenq/TheTimes_190806_VI_Trackers_w.pdf
Nothing you have written has anything to do with the discussion. Where tactical voting came into it I don't know.
Quoting you from above 'If third parties rise in the polls they also rise in seats on electoral calculus,...'. Now read the article and the comments by Ian and me and realise how bonkers it was to start a sentence with those words.
The whole point of the discussion was on whether UNS should apply (it was just a discussion so nobody is saying who is right or wrong), but you started your argument by applying the thing we were discussing whether we should apply or not. Just crazy.
Anyway, I have to go and play with my eight foot horn. Have a good morning.
A general election with no food on the supermarket shelves?
1) MPs are terminally stupid.
2) Party politics trumps the national interest. It's ok if the nation loses out, because the Evil Tories will get the blame.
They're not mutually exclusive, of course.
I'm afraid a small handful of posters who don't heed such guidance are ruining this site. I no longer come on here in the evenings as a result. A wide spectrum of political opinion and debate is great. Ill-considered ranting by headbangers isn't. Honestly, they just spew replies out in response to every message they see. It's beyond tiresome and I hope Mike might have a quiet word.
Back to the piece, quite superb Alastair. One to keep and use as a reference point.
But my long-serving local MP is a Conservative, a former minister (until a few months ago), a staunch and unashamed remainer (not Dominic Greive) , a moderate in most matters, a superb constituency MP, and a thoroughly decent man. If he stands next time, I shall vote for him; if he decides to stand down, I almost certainly wouldn't vote for his successor. I think that is a view widely held locally.
(To save the guessing, it is Alistair Burt)
'Gere, who visited the Open Arms ship in a show of support, joined a news conference on the Italian island of Lampedusa calling for the migrants to be allowed to dock.
He made comparisons between Mr Salvini, who is also interior minister and has made repeated efforts to block migrant ships from docking in Italy, and US President Donald Trump, who has faced widespread criticism for his immigration policies...
It didn't take Mr Salvini long to respond.
"Given this generous millionaire is voicing concern for the fate of the Open Arms migrants, we thank him: he can take back to Hollywood, on his private plane, all the people aboard and support them in his villas. Thank you Richard!" he said in a statement.
Mr Salvini has pushed through sanctions on NGO boats that aim to bring migrants rescued at sea to Italy.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49309196
Either way any hardships will be blamed on the EU or called a price worth paying (do or die remember, any price is worth paying according to BoJo, except a backstop he already voted for). Damn risky as you say, but it keeps most of the Tory party together and that is the key when predicting what will happen. As United as possible they either mitigate the damage or they hope win. Any suffering is worth that.
The same might apply to Corbyn's Labour though that appears less obvious particularly as part of a coalition.
But can he pull it off? Can he avoid the phony crunch this autumn and buy himself the time he needs to have a serious crack at the negotiated Brexit which is surely what the national interest demands?
I do hope not.
https://www.newsweek.com/biden-sanders-poll-trump-2020-election-1453658
What strikes me is that both of these people are well known national figures who have been subject to the GOP attack machine before and yet are STILL significantly more popular than the Orange Gorilla. I think that'll push Democratic electors towards one or the other, because their primary goal is defenestrating Trump.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1160471815560585216
People who support Brexit tend to be culturally conservative, inevitably they will be more drawn to a conservative party than voters who are culturally liberal who tend to be Remainers, indeed the biggest problem may be for Labour who are losing their culturally conservative working class voters to the Brexit Party and a lesser extent the Boris led Tories and also losing their culturally liberal middle class voters to the LDs and to a lesser extent the Greens.
I'd love to see if he could get a deal, but I just dont see how he gets there.
You can see them in this 2007 documentary, How to be an ex-Prime Minister.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b007r80c/how-to-be-an-exprime-minister