Did we ever get the answer to the baby termination policy in labours manifesto?
My request to the Labour Party for clarification has been sent to the relevant team and they will reply. I will forward on what I receive.
My question was to quote the relevant statement on page 48 of the manifesto (in full) and then ask whether this applied throughout the pregnancy i.e. whether there would be any term limits.
Let’s see what reply I get.
I'm amazed they could not very quickly answer that question.
It was Friday afternoon and the office closed at 4:30 pm. Maybe that’s why.
“You are 215,546th in our queue and we will get to you shortly....”
Will be the customer service under Commie Cable Co...
The dog is the least stupid living thing in this picture.
They have no Brexit Party candidate in Christchurch.
They'll all be voting Tory.
Lymington consists entirely of retired white men?
They may not be quite so set in their ways as some might wish. In 1993 the Lib Dems won Christchurch in a by-election with more than 62% of the vote. The person elected wasn't even male.
The constant attacks on the Lib Dems by Labour are not going to help win round staunch Libs in Red/Blue battlegrounds. Possibly will win a few wavering remainers who aren’t solid Lib Dems though.
Just surprises me that Momentum appear to hate Swinson more than Boris. Or perhaps it’s all a tactic as they know they’re win more Lib to Lab switchers than Tory ones.
My question is the same as before. There was a systematic error in polling in 2017 which resulted in the Tory lead being overstated by about 5 points. Was the cause of that error definitely identified and corrected by the pollsters?
If not, we should be saying the lead is perhaps between 6 and 17 points, with two and a half weeks to go. Bearing in mind that last time the lead diminished by about 4 points over the last two and a half weeks of the campaign.
You are conveniently ignoring that the trend is completely different this time.
I'm ignoring nothing.
Just cautioning people against blind trust in the polls this time, unless they're satisfied that the systematic error last time has been identified and corrected.
I note that you don't have anything to say about that.
The dog is the least stupid living thing in this picture.
They have no Brexit Party candidate in Christchurch.
They'll all be voting Tory.
Lymington consists entirely of retired white men?
They may not be quite so set in their ways as some might wish. In 1993 the Lib Dems won Christchurch in a by-election with more than 62% of the vote. The person elected wasn't even male.
Lymington is in the New Forest constituency.
Which must have some women, working age people, young people and ethnic minorities living there?
The constant attacks on the Lib Dems by Labour are not going to help win round staunch Libs in Red/Blue battlegrounds. Possibly will win a few wavering remainers who aren’t solid Lib Dems though.
Just surprises me that Momentum appear to hate Swinson more than Boris. Or perhaps it’s all a tactic as they know they’re win more Lib to Lab switchers than Tory ones.
Tories are the people who take power during the (long) intervals between Labour governments. LibDems are the people aiming to put Labour out of business.
Those who want to put an end to Corbyn and his ilk would be wise to take a long term view and vote LibDem.
The dog is the least stupid living thing in this picture.
They have no Brexit Party candidate in Christchurch.
They'll all be voting Tory.
Lymington consists entirely of retired white men?
They may not be quite so set in their ways as some might wish. In 1993 the Lib Dems won Christchurch in a by-election with more than 62% of the vote. The person elected wasn't even male.
But not since they raised a citizen's militia.....armed and equipped by JackW's Speciality Pie Company.
I am fully expecting at least one bad poll for the Tories tonight. So far they haven't had one during the entire campaign, probability / sampling would say regardless of if Labour manifesto is a big hit or not, we must be due one to cause the Tories to have a brown trouser moment.
The dog is the least stupid living thing in this picture.
They have no Brexit Party candidate in Christchurch.
They'll all be voting Tory.
Lymington consists entirely of retired white men?
They may not be quite so set in their ways as some might wish. In 1993 the Lib Dems won Christchurch in a by-election with more than 62% of the vote. The person elected wasn't even male.
My question is the same as before. There was a systematic error in polling in 2017 which resulted in the Tory lead being overstated by about 5 points. Was the cause of that error definitely identified and corrected by the pollsters?
If not, we should be saying the lead is perhaps between 6 and 17 points, with two and a half weeks to go. Bearing in mind that last time the lead diminished by about 4 points over the last two and a half weeks of the campaign.
You are conveniently ignoring that the trend is completely different this time.
I'm ignoring nothing.
Just cautioning people against blind trust in the polls this time, unless they're satisfied that the systematic error last time has been identified and corrected.
I note that you don't have anything to say about that.
Their Leader couldn't change them.
Their Manifesto couldn't change them.
But the Party Faithful had One Last Hope.
Systematic Polling Error.
In their favour.
Don't forget late voter registrations and the dont knows breaking heavily for Labour.
My question is the same as before. There was a systematic error in polling in 2017 which resulted in the Tory lead being overstated by about 5 points. Was the cause of that error definitely identified and corrected by the pollsters?
If not, we should be saying the lead is perhaps between 6 and 17 points, with two and a half weeks to go. Bearing in mind that last time the lead diminished by about 4 points over the last two and a half weeks of the campaign.
You are conveniently ignoring that the trend is completely different this time.
I'm ignoring nothing.
Just cautioning people against blind trust in the polls this time, unless they're satisfied that the systematic error last time has been identified and corrected.
I note that you don't have anything to say about that.
Their Leader couldn't change them.
Their Manifesto couldn't change them.
But the Party Faithful had One Last Hope.
Systematic Polling Error.
In their favour.
You really are not very bright, are you?
Just read my earlier post again, and - with the help of a numerate friend if necessary - try to work out whether I am assuming polling error is necessary in Labour's favour.
Or whether I am just advocating caution in general about the accuracy of the polls in general.
Everybody is getting hung up on the Jezza "neutral stance". The thing that pisses of Leave voters (and increasingly soft Remain) is the delay and uncertainty. People just want it sorted. Labour's policy of re-re-re-negotiation and then another vote in another 9-12 months does nothing for that.
I was taken aback at dinner last night by a lifelong Red Team / Remain voter. Their reaction to Labour approach was unprintable. They just want a MPs to make a decision and now.
Yes and the idea a referendum will take place in six months is for the birds
A new deal has to go through the 27 and the EU commission, then the HOC. The legislation for a referendum will be tortuous and take months then 22 weeks to campaign
2020 will be a dead year and no certainty at the end of it
6 months is hard but nine months is doable. There's no certainty next year with the Johnson deal anyway, we immediately get into the question of the transition and into a very tough FTA negotiation. Only the terminally gullible think that Brexit will get "done" next year. Nobody in the markets thinks it will, I can tell you that.
We’ll be facing the same no deal v extension crisis with a whole bunch of Tories that BigG has helped to elect arguing for no deal.
No deal is the most likely outcome. Front load the pain and have four years for it to fade.
My question is the same as before. There was a systematic error in polling in 2017 which resulted in the Tory lead being overstated by about 5 points. Was the cause of that error definitely identified and corrected by the pollsters?
If not, we should be saying the lead is perhaps between 6 and 17 points, with two and a half weeks to go. Bearing in mind that last time the lead diminished by about 4 points over the last two and a half weeks of the campaign.
You are conveniently ignoring that the trend is completely different this time.
I'm ignoring nothing.
Just cautioning people against blind trust in the polls this time, unless they're satisfied that the systematic error last time has been identified and corrected.
I note that you don't have anything to say about that.
Their Leader couldn't change them.
Their Manifesto couldn't change them.
But the Party Faithful had One Last Hope.
Systematic Polling Error.
In their favour.
Don't forget late voter registrations and the dont knows breaking heavily for Labour.
Wondering if a chunk of those late registrations are students covering the base of home and Uni, not knowing where they will be on 12th? Might have left, might not.
My question is the same as before. There was a systematic error in polling in 2017 which resulted in the Tory lead being overstated by about 5 points. Was the cause of that error definitely identified and corrected by the pollsters?
If not, we should be saying the lead is perhaps between 6 and 17 points, with two and a half weeks to go. Bearing in mind that last time the lead diminished by about 4 points over the last two and a half weeks of the campaign.
You are conveniently ignoring that the trend is completely different this time.
I'm ignoring nothing.
Just cautioning people against blind trust in the polls this time, unless they're satisfied that the systematic error last time has been identified and corrected.
I note that you don't have anything to say about that.
Their Leader couldn't change them.
Their Manifesto couldn't change them.
But the Party Faithful had One Last Hope.
Systematic Polling Error.
In their favour.
You really are not very bright, are you?
Just read my earlier post again, and - with the help of a numerate friend if necessary - try to work out whether I am assuming polling error is necessary in Labour's favour.
Or whether I am just advocating caution in general about the accuracy of the polls in general.
Bright enough to spot Olympic-quality Straw-clutching talent at work when I see it.
Stick with me kid, I'll get you a podium finish and a medal round your neck....
As I said earlier, every one that would did so last time. The question this time is the degree of unwind.
Some Labour previous voters in Con/Lab marginals will have switched to the LDs because they don't like Corbyn or perhaps they prefer the LD approach to Remain. These will be reflected in the increased LD national vote share. The question is how many of these will hold their nose and vote Lab again against the Tories in seats where the LDs stand no chance. It's not just about previous LD voters.
I assume the LD swing will be higher than the national LD swing in LD target seats and lower in non-target seats such as Con/Lab marginals. It won't be a uniform national swing.
In many ways that’s the best poll the Tories have had this campaign. Includes manifesto period. Would be delighted if all the others showed Lab around 30.
My question is the same as before. There was a systematic error in polling in 2017 which resulted in the Tory lead being overstated by about 5 points. Was the cause of that error definitely identified and corrected by the pollsters?
If not, we should be saying the lead is perhaps between 6 and 17 points, with two and a half weeks to go. Bearing in mind that last time the lead diminished by about 4 points over the last two and a half weeks of the campaign.
You are conveniently ignoring that the trend is completely different this time.
I'm ignoring nothing.
Just cautioning people against blind trust in the polls this time, unless they're satisfied that the systematic error last time has been identified and corrected.
I note that you don't have anything to say about that.
Their Leader couldn't change them.
Their Manifesto couldn't change them.
But the Party Faithful had One Last Hope.
Systematic Polling Error.
In their favour.
Don't forget late voter registrations and the dont knows breaking heavily for Labour.
Wondering if a chunk of those late registrations are students covering the base of home and Uni, not knowing where they will be on 12th? Might have left, might not.
It is possible that some of them are realising that they won't be at University and so are trying to register at 'home'. I have said it before (and so I'll say it again) that the controls designed to prevent students voting twice appear to be non-existent. And the security around polling cards in some halls of residents is very good and in others - well, not so good.
My question is the same as before. There was a systematic error in polling in 2017 which resulted in the Tory lead being overstated by about 5 points. Was the cause of that error definitely identified and corrected by the pollsters?
If not, we should be saying the lead is perhaps between 6 and 17 points, with two and a half weeks to go. Bearing in mind that last time the lead diminished by about 4 points over the last two and a half weeks of the campaign.
You are conveniently ignoring that the trend is completely different this time.
I'm ignoring nothing.
Just cautioning people against blind trust in the polls this time, unless they're satisfied that the systematic error last time has been identified and corrected.
I note that you don't have anything to say about that.
Their Leader couldn't change them.
Their Manifesto couldn't change them.
But the Party Faithful had One Last Hope.
Systematic Polling Error.
In their favour.
You really are not very bright, are you?
Just read my earlier post again, and - with the help of a numerate friend if necessary - try to work out whether I am assuming polling error is necessary in Labour's favour.
Or whether I am just advocating caution in general about the accuracy of the polls in general.
Listening to one podcast or another someone who should know (it might have been Times Red Box talking to sir John Curtice) said that most of the stuff that was done for 2017 by the pollsters have been taken out. There will always be some polling error out there though, the trick is not to trust any one poll.
The constant attacks on the Lib Dems by Labour are not going to help win round staunch Libs in Red/Blue battlegrounds. Possibly will win a few wavering remainers who aren’t solid Lib Dems though.
Just surprises me that Momentum appear to hate Swinson more than Boris. Or perhaps it’s all a tactic as they know they’re win more Lib to Lab switchers than Tory ones.
Tories are the people who take power during the (long) intervals between Labour governments. LibDems are the people aiming to put Labour out of business.
Those who want to put an end to Corbyn and his ilk would be wise to take a long term view and vote LibDem.
While I disagree entirely with the revoke policy it does seem the aims and views of those campaigning for the Libs are fundamentally more decent than a lot of the Labour activists and canvassers that I have seen on TV and social media. I warmed to Swinson last night, I think she did fine in incredibly difficult circumstances.
My question is the same as before. There was a systematic error in polling in 2017 which resulted in the Tory lead being overstated by about 5 points. Was the cause of that error definitely identified and corrected by the pollsters?
If not, we should be saying the lead is perhaps between 6 and 17 points, with two and a half weeks to go. Bearing in mind that last time the lead diminished by about 4 points over the last two and a half weeks of the campaign.
You are conveniently ignoring that the trend is completely different this time.
I'm ignoring nothing.
Just cautioning people against blind trust in the polls this time, unless they're satisfied that the systematic error last time has been identified and corrected.
I note that you don't have anything to say about that.
Their Leader couldn't change them.
Their Manifesto couldn't change them.
But the Party Faithful had One Last Hope.
Systematic Polling Error.
In their favour.
You really are not very bright, are you?
Just read my earlier post again, and - with the help of a numerate friend if necessary - try to work out whether I am assuming polling error is necessary in Labour's favour.
Or whether I am just advocating caution in general about the accuracy of the polls in general.
Bright enough to spot Olympic-quality Straw-clutching talent at work when I see it.
The constant attacks on the Lib Dems by Labour are not going to help win round staunch Libs in Red/Blue battlegrounds. Possibly will win a few wavering remainers who aren’t solid Lib Dems though.
Just surprises me that Momentum appear to hate Swinson more than Boris. Or perhaps it’s all a tactic as they know they’re win more Lib to Lab switchers than Tory ones.
On the surface my Labour contacts are very dismissive of the LibDems. Then once the crowd isn't listening sotto voce start explaining how they're getting a lot of LibDem support on doors supposed to be red. So when they go piling in to attack Swinson (SHES A TORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) I have to assume that we're having more of an impact on Labour voters than the surface headlines suggest
My question is the same as before. There was a systematic error in polling in 2017 which resulted in the Tory lead being overstated by about 5 points. Was the cause of that error definitely identified and corrected by the pollsters?
If not, we should be saying the lead is perhaps between 6 and 17 points, with two and a half weeks to go. Bearing in mind that last time the lead diminished by about 4 points over the last two and a half weeks of the campaign.
You are conveniently ignoring that the trend is completely different this time.
I'm ignoring nothing.
Just cautioning people against blind trust in the polls this time, unless they're satisfied that the systematic error last time has been identified and corrected.
I note that you don't have anything to say about that.
Their Leader couldn't change them.
Their Manifesto couldn't change them.
But the Party Faithful had One Last Hope.
Systematic Polling Error.
In their favour.
Don't forget late voter registrations and the dont knows breaking heavily for Labour.
Wondering if a chunk of those late registrations are students covering the base of home and Uni, not knowing where they will be on 12th? Might have left, might not.
It is possible that some of them are realising that they won't be at University and so are trying to register at 'home'. I have said it before (and so I'll say it again) that the controls designed to prevent students voting twice appear to be non-existent. And the security around polling cards in some halls of residents is very good and in others - well, not so good.
Do we know how many people have registered to vote during the campaign and compared it to 2017? I seem to remember quite a few people were registered at the same point last time.
My question is the same as before. There was a systematic error in polling in 2017 which resulted in the Tory lead being overstated by about 5 points. Was the cause of that error definitely identified and corrected by the pollsters?
If not, we should be saying the lead is perhaps between 6 and 17 points, with two and a half weeks to go. Bearing in mind that last time the lead diminished by about 4 points over the last two and a half weeks of the campaign.
You are conveniently ignoring that the trend is completely different this time.
I'm ignoring nothing.
Just cautioning people against blind trust in the polls this time, unless they're satisfied that the systematic error last time has been identified and corrected.
I note that you don't have anything to say about that.
Their Leader couldn't change them.
Their Manifesto couldn't change them.
But the Party Faithful had One Last Hope.
Systematic Polling Error.
In their favour.
You really are not very bright, are you?
Just read my earlier post again, and - with the help of a numerate friend if necessary - try to work out whether I am assuming polling error is necessary in Labour's favour.
Or whether I am just advocating caution in general about the accuracy of the polls in general.
Listening to one podcast or another someone who should know (it might have been Times Red Box talking to sir John Curtice) said that most of the stuff that was done for 2017 by the pollsters have been taken out. There will always be some polling error out there though, the trick is not to trust any one poll.
Obviously, if there's a systematic error, the trick is not to trust any of them!
Your impression may be right of course, but before I'd put money on the error having been corrected, I'd want something more definite that "most of the stuff that was done for 2017 by the pollsters have been taken out." Some idea of what "stuff" it was, and why they thought it should be taken out.
Whatever the moral arguments, such an approach is politically tin eared.It runs the very real risk of alienating those opposed to abortion while not encouraging those in favour of it to vote Labour.
Very possibly true. The reception does seem to suggest so. However the "right to have an" abortion would be a better way of expressing it. There are few in favour of the process itself. It is a deeply traumatic experience which almost every woman would dread and hope never to go through. The idea is to remove the default criminality but with an attendant framework which will mean that in practice there will be no material change to term limits. It is a symbolic change more than anything else. Virtue signalling if you like. The virtuous view being signaled (rightly IMO) is that a woman's body belongs to her. Under the current law, the default is that abortion is illegal unless certain conditions are met. This implies that a woman must demonstrate to the state that her body is her own. With the change, this is the default. Now it is for the state to demonstrate otherwise - which will be the case in certain exceptions. This is the point of it. The absence of a denial of a lurid take in the Catholic Herald is not of great relevance or import.
In many ways that’s the best poll the Tories have had this campaign. Includes manifesto period. Would be delighted if all the others showed Lab around 30.
My question is the same as before. There was a systematic error in polling in 2017 which resulted in the Tory lead being overstated by about 5 points. Was the cause of that error definitely identified and corrected by the pollsters?
If not, we should be saying the lead is perhaps between 6 and 17 points, with two and a half weeks to go. Bearing in mind that last time the lead diminished by about 4 points over the last two and a half weeks of the campaign.
You are conveniently ignoring that the trend is completely different this time.
I'm ignoring nothing.
Just cautioning people against blind trust in the polls this time, unless they're satisfied that the systematic error last time has been identified and corrected.
I note that you don't have anything to say about that.
Their Leader couldn't change them.
Their Manifesto couldn't change them.
But the Party Faithful had One Last Hope.
Systematic Polling Error.
In their favour.
You really are not very bright, are you?
Just read my earlier post again, and - with the help of a numerate friend if necessary - try to work out whether I am assuming polling error is necessary in Labour's favour.
Or whether I am just advocating caution in general about the accuracy of the polls in general.
Listening to one podcast or another someone who should know (it might have been Times Red Box talking to sir John Curtice) said that most of the stuff that was done for 2017 by the pollsters have been taken out. There will always be some polling error out there though, the trick is not to trust any one poll.
Obviously, if there's a systematic error, the trick is not to trust any of them!
Your impression may be right of course, but before I'd put money on the error having been corrected, I'd want something more definite that "most of the stuff that was done for 2017 by the pollsters have been taken out." Some idea of what "stuff" it was, and why they thought it should be taken out.
As I say it could have been another podcast but I think it was this one. John Curtice does go into how the exit poll works in more detail than I remember being done before.
In many ways that’s the best poll the Tories have had this campaign. Includes manifesto period. Would be delighted if all the others showed Lab around 30.
Adding in YouGov gives
Con 41.5% Lab 29.4% LD 15.2% BXP 5.4% Grn 3.0%
330/220/31/0/1
I'm definitely not "herding"!
I'd be very, very surprised if a Con lead of 12% gives a majority of just 10 seats.
I was expecting something much more radical re sports rights.
The Labour manifesto is quite weird in that regards. They want to reshape the whole economy at huge cost, but don't seem to want to implement some policies that would be free / revenue plus e.g. sports rights, legalized medical cannabis.
It would cost Labour nothing to promise huge amounts of sport free to air. I mean it would suck money out of loads of those sports, but that doesn't seem to worry them in other businesses.
One fairly significant advantage of this election - even if the choice before us is of a party led by a racist scumbag who’s lying about his tax plans, or one led by Jeremy Corbyn* - is that it seems to have put a more less final end to the political career of Nigel Farage.
One fairly significant advantage of this election - even if the choice before us is of a party led by a racist scumbag who’s lying about his tax plans, or one led by Jeremy Corbyn* - is that it seems to have put a more less final end to the political career of Nigel Farage.
In many ways that’s the best poll the Tories have had this campaign. Includes manifesto period. Would be delighted if all the others showed Lab around 30.
Adding in YouGov gives
Con 41.5% Lab 29.4% LD 15.2% BXP 5.4% Grn 3.0%
330/220/31/0/1
I'm definitely not "herding"!
I'd be very, very surprised if a Con lead of 12% gives a majority of just 10 seats.
I know one of the guys who did the seat modelling for one of the parties.
It is possible, if the Lib Dem surge (and doubling your vote share since last time counts as a surge) is uniform across Great Britain then a 12% lead puts you into landslide territory.
If the Lib Dem surge is focussed in Con held Remain leaning seats then a 12% lead could equal a small majority/Con largest party in a hung parliament.
Remember the Boris Johnson strategy is to sacrifice Tory held seats in Remania to win Labour Leave seats.
Now personally I think the Lib Dem surge will be uniform and the Lib Dems will win an awful lot of second places which is good news for the Tories.
You are conveniently ignoring that the trend is completely different this time.
I'm ignoring nothing.
Just cautioning people against blind trust in the polls this time, unless they're satisfied that the systematic error last time has been identified and corrected.
I note that you don't have anything to say about that.
Their Leader couldn't change them.
Their Manifesto couldn't change them.
But the Party Faithful had One Last Hope.
Systematic Polling Error.
In their favour.
You really are not very bright, are you?
Just read my earlier post again, and - with the help of a numerate friend if necessary - try to work out whether I am assuming polling error is necessary in Labour's favour.
Or whether I am just advocating caution in general about the accuracy of the polls in general.
Listening to one podcast or another someone who should know (it might have been Times Red Box talking to sir John Curtice) said that most of the stuff that was done for 2017 by the pollsters have been taken out. There will always be some polling error out there though, the trick is not to trust any one poll.
Obviously, if there's a systematic error, the trick is not to trust any of them!
Your impression may be right of course, but before I'd put money on the error having been corrected, I'd want something more definite that "most of the stuff that was done for 2017 by the pollsters have been taken out." Some idea of what "stuff" it was, and why they thought it should be taken out.
As I say it could have been another podcast but I think it was this one. John Curtice does go into how the exit poll works in more detail than I remember being done before.
I don't wish to sound ungrateful, but if you're not even sure that's the right podcast, I'm afraid I don't think I can spare the half hour to listen through it on spec!
I think the point I'm making is that unless people are confident the error last time has been corrected, they should be factoring in a large degree of uncertainty.
Should point out in the run up to GE2015 most people thought the Tories needed a 10% lead to get a majority, but the Lib Dem collapse turned that theory on its head.
In many ways that’s the best poll the Tories have had this campaign. Includes manifesto period. Would be delighted if all the others showed Lab around 30.
Adding in YouGov gives
Con 41.5% Lab 29.4% LD 15.2% BXP 5.4% Grn 3.0%
330/220/31/0/1
I'm definitely not "herding"!
I'd be very, very surprised if a Con lead of 12% gives a majority of just 10 seats.
I know one of the guys who did the seat modelling for one of the parties.
It is possible, if the Lib Dem surge (and doubling your vote share since last time counts as a surge) is uniform across Great Britain then a 12% lead puts you into landslide territory.
If the Lib Dem surge is focussed in Con held Remain leaning seats then a 12% lead could equal a small majority/Con largest party in a hung parliament.
Remember the Boris Johnson strategy is to sacrifice Tory held seats in Remania to win Labour Leave seats.
Now personally I think the Lib Dem surge will be uniform and the Lib Dems will win an awful lot of second places which is good news for the Tories.
Yes, I'm inclined to a agree, in 2015 we saw the national swing was much more important than any local factors, same as 2010 as well.
In many ways that’s the best poll the Tories have had this campaign. Includes manifesto period. Would be delighted if all the others showed Lab around 30.
Adding in YouGov gives
Con 41.5% Lab 29.4% LD 15.2% BXP 5.4% Grn 3.0%
330/220/31/0/1
I'm definitely not "herding"!
I'd be very, very surprised if a Con lead of 12% gives a majority of just 10 seats.
I know one of the guys who did the seat modelling for one of the parties.
It is possible, if the Lib Dem surge (and doubling your vote share since last time counts as a surge) is uniform across Great Britain then a 12% lead puts you into landslide territory.
If the Lib Dem surge is focussed in Con held Remain leaning seats then a 12% lead could equal a small majority/Con largest party in a hung parliament.
Remember the Boris Johnson strategy is to sacrifice Tory held seats in Remania to win Labour Leave seats.
Now personally I think the Lib Dem surge will be uniform and the Lib Dems will win an awful lot of second places which is good news for the Tories.
If the Tories really do break through in loads of these working class Northern seats it will really be quite something. I still remain doubtful that it will happen in a way that leads to a landslide. There are just too many people who have voted Labour all their life (same with the Tories but for this argument, just mentioning Labour) and their daddy and their daddies daddy did too.
They might hate Corbyn, they might want Brexit, but will convince themselves that their local Labour MP is one of the good sort and need them in parliament. Also, its Boris as PM, rather than say an Eric Pickles type who they identify with.
One fairly significant advantage of this election - even if the choice before us is of a party led by a racist scumbag who’s lying about his tax plans, or one led by Jeremy Corbyn* - is that it seems to have put a more less final end to the political career of Nigel Farage.
*Be honest, I had you going there, didn’t I?
Do you mean Lord Farage of High Horse?
He didn’t make it to the Last ditch...
Edit - fun fact - the tallest horse ever to win the Grand National was indeed Party Politics.
My question is the same as before. There was a systematic error in polling in 2017 which resulted in the Tory lead being overstated by about 5 points. Was the cause of that error definitely identified and corrected by the pollsters?
If not, we should be saying the lead is perhaps between 6 and 17 points, with two and a half weeks to go. Bearing in mind that last time the lead diminished by about 4 points over the last two and a half weeks of the campaign.
You are conveniently ignoring that the trend is completely different this time.
I'm ignoring nothing.
Just cautioning people against blind trust in the polls this time, unless they're satisfied that the systematic error last time has been identified and corrected.
I note that you don't have anything to say about that.
Their Leader couldn't change them.
Their Manifesto couldn't change them.
But the Party Faithful had One Last Hope.
Systematic Polling Error.
In their favour.
Don't forget late voter registrations and the dont knows breaking heavily for Labour.
Wondering if a chunk of those late registrations are students covering the base of home and Uni, not knowing where they will be on 12th? Might have left, might not.
It is possible that some of them are realising that they won't be at University and so are trying to register at 'home'. I have said it before (and so I'll say it again) that the controls designed to prevent students voting twice appear to be non-existent. And the security around polling cards in some halls of residents is very good and in others - well, not so good.
Do we know how many people have registered to vote during the campaign and compared it to 2017? I seem to remember quite a few people were registered at the same point last time.
Thought I would answer my own question with eh help of Google, it seems form a quick scan of headlines,
2 million people registered to voted during the last campaign, 1.5 million have done so this time. so far,
People can still registers, and its probable that the 2 million finger will be matched or even beat, but I would think probably not by much, so I don't think it will have a big impact, (compared to 2017)
In many ways that’s the best poll the Tories have had this campaign. Includes manifesto period. Would be delighted if all the others showed Lab around 30.
Adding in YouGov gives
Con 41.5% Lab 29.4% LD 15.2% BXP 5.4% Grn 3.0%
330/220/31/0/1
I'm definitely not "herding"!
I'd be very, very surprised if a Con lead of 12% gives a majority of just 10 seats.
I know one of the guys who did the seat modelling for one of the parties.
It is possible, if the Lib Dem surge (and doubling your vote share since last time counts as a surge) is uniform across Great Britain then a 12% lead puts you into landslide territory.
If the Lib Dem surge is focussed in Con held Remain leaning seats then a 12% lead could equal a small majority/Con largest party in a hung parliament.
Remember the Boris Johnson strategy is to sacrifice Tory held seats in Remania to win Labour Leave seats.
Now personally I think the Lib Dem surge will be uniform and the Lib Dems will win an awful lot of second places which is good news for the Tories.
If the Tories really do break through in loads of these working class Northern seats it will really be quite something. I still remain doubtful that it will happen in a way that leads to a landslide. There are just too many people who have voted Labour all their life (same with the Tories but for this argument, just mentioning Labour) and their daddy and their daddies daddy did too.
They might hate Corbyn, they might want Brexit, but will convince themselves that their local Labour MP is one of the good sort and need them in parliament.
My question is the same as before. There was a systematic error in polling in 2017 which resulted in the Tory lead being overstated by about 5 points. Was the cause of that error definitely identified and corrected by the pollsters?
If not, we should be saying the lead is perhaps between 6 and 17 points, with two and a half weeks to go. Bearing in mind that last time the lead diminished by about 4 points over the last two and a half weeks of the campaign.
You are conveniently ignoring that the trend is completely different this time.
I'm ignoring nothing.
Just cautioning people against blind trust in the polls this time, unless they're satisfied that the systematic error last time has been identified and corrected.
I note that you don't have anything to say about that.
Their Leader couldn't change them.
Their Manifesto couldn't change them.
But the Party Faithful had One Last Hope.
Systematic Polling Error.
In their favour.
Don't forget late voter registrations and the dont knows breaking heavily for Labour.
Wondering if a chunk of those late registrations are students covering the base of home and Uni, not knowing where they will be on 12th? Might have left, might not.
It is possible that some of them are realising that they won't be at University and so are trying to register at 'home'. I have said it before (and so I'll say it again) that the controls designed to prevent students voting twice appear to be non-existent. And the security around polling cards in some halls of residents is very good and in others - well, not so good.
Do we know how many people have registered to vote during the campaign and compared it to 2017? I seem to remember quite a few people were registered at the same point last time.
Thought I would answer my own question with eh help of Google, it seems form a quick scan of headlines,
2 million people registered to voted during the last campaign, 1.5 million have done so this time. so far,
People can still registers, and its probable that the 2 million finger will be matched or even beat, but I would think probably not by much, so I don't think it will have a big impact, (compared to 2017)
The way the registration basically seems to be 4 big single day spikes and pretty much all online suggests to me a lot of that is automatic uni systems sending in the applications.
My question is the same as before. There was a systematic error in polling in 2017 which resulted in the Tory lead being overstated by about 5 points. Was the cause of that error definitely identified and corrected by the pollsters?
If not, we should be saying the lead is perhaps between 6 and 17 points, with two and a half weeks to go. Bearing in mind that last time the lead diminished by about 4 points over the last two and a half weeks of the campaign.
You are conveniently ignoring that the trend is completely different this time.
I'm ignoring nothing.
Just cautioning people against blind trust in the polls this time, unless they're satisfied that the systematic error last time has been identified and corrected.
I note that you don't have anything to say about that.
Their Leader couldn't change them.
Their Manifesto couldn't change them.
But the Party Faithful had One Last Hope.
Systematic Polling Error.
In their favour.
Don't forget late voter registrations and the dont knows breaking heavily for Labour.
Wondering if a chunk of those late registrations are students covering the base of home and Uni, not knowing where they will be on 12th? Might have left, might not.
It is possible that some of them are realising that they won't be at University and so are trying to register at 'home'. I have said it before (and so I'll say it again) that the controls designed to prevent students voting twice appear to be non-existent. And the security around polling cards in some halls of residents is very good and in others - well, not so good.
Do we know how many people have registered to vote during the campaign and compared it to 2017? I seem to remember quite a few people were registered at the same point last time.
Thought I would answer my own question with eh help of Google, it seems form a quick scan of headlines,
2 million people registered to voted during the last campaign, 1.5 million have done so this time. so far,
People can still registers, and its probable that the 2 million finger will be matched or even beat, but I would think probably not by much, so I don't think it will have a big impact, (compared to 2017)
In many ways that’s the best poll the Tories have had this campaign. Includes manifesto period. Would be delighted if all the others showed Lab around 30.
Adding in YouGov gives
Con 41.5% Lab 29.4% LD 15.2% BXP 5.4% Grn 3.0%
330/220/31/0/1
I'm definitely not "herding"!
I'd be very, very surprised if a Con lead of 12% gives a majority of just 10 seats.
I know one of the guys who did the seat modelling for one of the parties.
It is possible, if the Lib Dem surge (and doubling your vote share since last time counts as a surge) is uniform across Great Britain then a 12% lead puts you into landslide territory.
If the Lib Dem surge is focussed in Con held Remain leaning seats then a 12% lead could equal a small majority/Con largest party in a hung parliament.
Remember the Boris Johnson strategy is to sacrifice Tory held seats in Remania to win Labour Leave seats.
Now personally I think the Lib Dem surge will be uniform and the Lib Dems will win an awful lot of second places which is good news for the Tories.
If the Tories really do break through in loads of these working class Northern seats it will really be quite something. I still remain doubtful that it will happen in a way that leads to a landslide. There are just too many people who have voted Labour all their life (same with the Tories but for this argument, just mentioning Labour) and their daddy and their daddies daddy did too.
They might hate Corbyn, they might want Brexit, but will convince themselves that their local Labour MP is one of the good sort and need them in parliament.
In many ways that’s the best poll the Tories have had this campaign. Includes manifesto period. Would be delighted if all the others showed Lab around 30.
Adding in YouGov gives
Con 41.5% Lab 29.4% LD 15.2% BXP 5.4% Grn 3.0%
330/220/31/0/1
I'm definitely not "herding"!
I'd be very, very surprised if a Con lead of 12% gives a majority of just 10 seats.
I know one of the guys who did the seat modelling for one of the parties.
It is possible, if the Lib Dem surge (and doubling your vote share since last time counts as a surge) is uniform across Great Britain then a 12% lead puts you into landslide territory.
If the Lib Dem surge is focussed in Con held Remain leaning seats then a 12% lead could equal a small majority/Con largest party in a hung parliament.
Remember the Boris Johnson strategy is to sacrifice Tory held seats in Remania to win Labour Leave seats.
Now personally I think the Lib Dem surge will be uniform and the Lib Dems will win an awful lot of second places which is good news for the Tories.
If the Tories really do break through in loads of these working class Northern seats it will really be quite something. I still remain doubtful that it will happen in a way that leads to a landslide. There are just too many people who have voted Labour all their life (same with the Tories but for this argument, just mentioning Labour) and their daddy and their daddies daddy did too.
They might hate Corbyn, they might want Brexit, but will convince themselves that their local Labour MP is one of the good sort and need them in parliament.
Huge numbers of people had only ever voted Tory.
Until they voted for Tony Blair.
But that's my point. Blair was a Labour PM who lots of centre right types thought well he is kinda of like one of us, in the way Eric Pickles is for the Tories e.g. Crewe and Nantwich, I remember people from back home telling me how much they liked him when he was about in the town centre.
In many ways that’s the best poll the Tories have had this campaign. Includes manifesto period. Would be delighted if all the others showed Lab around 30.
Adding in YouGov gives
Con 41.5% Lab 29.4% LD 15.2% BXP 5.4% Grn 3.0%
330/220/31/0/1
I'm definitely not "herding"!
I'd be very, very surprised if a Con lead of 12% gives a majority of just 10 seats.
I know one of the guys who did the seat modelling for one of the parties.
It is possible, if the Lib Dem surge (and doubling your vote share since last time counts as a surge) is uniform across Great Britain then a 12% lead puts you into landslide territory.
If the Lib Dem surge is focussed in Con held Remain leaning seats then a 12% lead could equal a small majority/Con largest party in a hung parliament.
Remember the Boris Johnson strategy is to sacrifice Tory held seats in Remania to win Labour Leave seats.
Now personally I think the Lib Dem surge will be uniform and the Lib Dems will win an awful lot of second places which is good news for the Tories.
If the Tories really do break through in loads of these working class Northern seats it will really be quite something. I still remain doubtful that it will happen in a way that leads to a landslide. There are just too many people who have voted Labour all their life (same with the Tories but for this argument, just mentioning Labour) and their daddy and their daddies daddy did too.
They might hate Corbyn, they might want Brexit, but will convince themselves that their local Labour MP is one of the good sort and need them in parliament. Also, its Boris as PM, rather than say an Eric Pickles type who they identify with.
If Northern Leave seats swing Tory, and Southern Remain seats in and around London switch away from Labour, then what a masterclass in political strategy we have had from Milne, McCluskey, Corbyn, Murphy and so on.
In many ways that’s the best poll the Tories have had this campaign. Includes manifesto period. Would be delighted if all the others showed Lab around 30.
Adding in YouGov gives
Con 41.5% Lab 29.4% LD 15.2% BXP 5.4% Grn 3.0%
330/220/31/0/1
I'm definitely not "herding"!
I'd be very, very surprised if a Con lead of 12% gives a majority of just 10 seats.
I know one of the guys who did the seat modelling for one of the parties.
It is possible, if the Lib Dem surge (and doubling your vote share since last time counts as a surge) is uniform across Great Britain then a 12% lead puts you into landslide territory.
If the Lib Dem surge is focussed in Con held Remain leaning seats then a 12% lead could equal a small majority/Con largest party in a hung parliament.
Remember the Boris Johnson strategy is to sacrifice Tory held seats in Remania to win Labour Leave seats.
Now personally I think the Lib Dem surge will be uniform and the Lib Dems will win an awful lot of second places which is good news for the Tories.
If the Tories really do break through in loads of these working class Northern seats it will really be quite something. I still remain doubtful that it will happen in a way that leads to a landslide. There are just too many people who have voted Labour all their life (same with the Tories but for this argument, just mentioning Labour) and their daddy and their daddies daddy did too.
They might hate Corbyn, they might want Brexit, but will convince themselves that their local Labour MP is one of the good sort and need them in parliament. Also, its Boris as PM, rather than say an Eric Pickles type who they identify with.
Labour majorities have been tumbling for years, in ex-mining seats, and smaller urban areas in the North and Midlands. It's because those majorities were so huge to begin with, and they have voted Labour for so long, that we find it hard to believe that they are in play.
It's the reverse of the way that urban upper middle class constituencies that had been Conservative for decades trended left after 1979.
Doesn’t look like the manifesto has had much of an impact.
"Ungrateful bastards! We chuck trillions of quid at everything they say they want - and what de we get in return? Nothing! Nada. Zip. Bugger all.
And then Johnson will say "here's a tiny tiny tiny piece of largesse for the workers from the bosses' stash of gold "- and the bastards will give him a five point rise. Bastards. We need a new electorate...."
In many ways that’s the best poll the Tories have had this campaign. Includes manifesto period. Would be delighted if all the others showed Lab around 30.
Adding in YouGov gives
Con 41.5% Lab 29.4% LD 15.2% BXP 5.4% Grn 3.0%
330/220/31/0/1
I'm definitely not "herding"!
I'd be very, very surprised if a Con lead of 12% gives a majority of just 10 seats.
I know one of the guys who did the seat modelling for one of the parties.
It is possible, if the Lib Dem surge (and doubling your vote share since last time counts as a surge) is uniform across Great Britain then a 12% lead puts you into landslide territory.
If the Lib Dem surge is focussed in Con held Remain leaning seats then a 12% lead could equal a small majority/Con largest party in a hung parliament.
Remember the Boris Johnson strategy is to sacrifice Tory held seats in Remania to win Labour Leave seats.
Now personally I think the Lib Dem surge will be uniform and the Lib Dems will win an awful lot of second places which is good news for the Tories.
If the Tories really do break through in loads of these working class Northern seats it will really be quite something. I still remain doubtful that it will happen in a way that leads to a landslide. There are just too many people who have voted Labour all their life (same with the Tories but for this argument, just mentioning Labour) and their daddy and their daddies daddy did too.
They might hate Corbyn, they might want Brexit, but will convince themselves that their local Labour MP is one of the good sort and need them in parliament. Also, its Boris as PM, rather than say an Eric Pickles type who they identify with.
If Northern Leave seats swing Tory, and Southern Remain seats in and around London switch away from Labour, then what a masterclass in political strategy we have had from Milne, McCluskey, Corbyn, Murphy and so on.
Indeed yes. They will have proved the Thatcher deep state actually worked.
Should point out in the run up to GE2015 most people thought the Tories needed a 10% lead to get a majority, but the Lib Dem collapse turned that theory on its head.
Including OGH. It’s fair to say that there’s a lot more uncertainty around a 12 point lead for the Tories. Roles reversed and Labour would be certain if a 140+ seat landslide.
It's not my baseline but it's certainly a plausible scenario. Only upside for me personally will be it will turbocharge Scottish independence, followed by me getting my EU passport back.
I don't really buy this. Brexit and the Tories make nats angry, and likely to call for independence. But that's already what they are, and do. Nats gonna nat. In reality Brexit makes leaving the UK more awkward, and less sellable. That's the only definite outcome of it.
Brexit has certainly broadened the audience for independence. I used to be a Unionist, no more (although I don't have a vote I know plenty of Scottish residents who have had a similar conversion). Brexit is basically Scotland being pissed on from a great height.
It has not really.
In 2015 before the Brexit vote the SNP got 50%, the latest polls after the Brexit vote only have the SNP on about 43%
I think there are people who like independence more than the SNP, probably a growing number. Presumably there is polling on this.
I find that extremely unlikely.
I would agree with poster and also that I doubt there is any polling on it. I vote SNP for two reasons, main one is independence and fact that there is absolutely no sane opposition you could vote for otherwise. They would have no guarantee of my vote after independence if a decent centre right opposition party emerged. I much preferred Alex Salmond's SNP.
SNP support may be polled at 43%, but don't ignore SGreen support (currently polling 4%) which takes it to about 47%. Of course not every vote is Indy based, there are Green and SNP voters who are not pro Indy, but far less proportion - there are 30% Lab voters who say they support Indy.
great post , good to see some unbiased posting on here.
Except for the strange omission of the % of SNP voters who don’t support Indy?
I didn't omit the issue; the 'strangeness' is that I couldn't include a figure as I couldn't find one anywhere for SNP voters who are not Indy supporters; though it could reasonably assumed to be fairly low in the absence of other information given the plethora of other parties (unless they're tactical voting). If you or anyone knows a figure that'd be most welcome.
My question is the same as before. There was a systematic error in polling in 2017 which resulted in the Tory lead being overstated by about 5 points. Was the cause of that error definitely identified and corrected by the pollsters?
The cause of the error in 2017 is that they overcorrected for the 2015 error. They have identified this error and will try to do better. But that's all they can do.
Pollsters (by definition) fight the last war. Judging voting intention is one thing, but judging voting activity requires estimates to be made of turnout. If turnout behavior is unexpected, as it was for EU16, US04 and UK17, then that will mess up the prediction. And it is difficult to know beforehand.
Should point out in the run up to GE2015 most people thought the Tories needed a 10% lead to get a majority, but the Lib Dem collapse turned that theory on its head.
Including OGH. It’s fair to say that there’s a lot more uncertainty around a 12 point lead for the Tories. Roles reversed and Labour would be certain if a 140+ seat landslide.
That’s an artefact of FPTP and outdated boundaries.
We saw in 2005 a small Lab lead give a decent majority of 66.
The Tories had a bigger lead in 2010 and just short of a majority.
Hopefully the Tories will see the light and ditch FPTP and go for AV.
The Barnesian model has Labour holding Grimsby even when the Tories have a 12 point polling lead. Seems like nonsense.
And the seat-specific polling showed it to be a goner - by a sizeable margin.
Even without. Look at the trend, Labour majority in that seat has come down from 20-30% to single digits over the years. With all the factors in play, it seems highly improbable Labour are going to be reversing that trend in % terms.
As I say it could have been another podcast but I think it was this one. John Curtice does go into how the exit poll works in more detail than I remember being done before.
"Ungrateful bastards! We chuck trillions of quid at everything they say they want - and what de we get in return? Nothing! Nada. Zip. Bugger all.
And then Johnson will say "here's a tiny tiny tiny piece of largesse for the workers from the bosses' stash of gold "- and the bastards will give him a five point rise. Bastards. We need a new electorate...."
Hard-Left Jewish activists are knocking on doors to tell voters that Labour’s anti-Semitism crisis has been cooked up by the media.
The pro-Corbyn Jewish Voice for Labour group, which claims the party does not have a problem with anti-Semitism, has put together a guide for canvassers.
The document says claims that Labour has a problem with anti-Jewish racism reflect ‘unremitting mainstream media bias’.
The Barnesian model has Labour holding Grimsby even when the Tories have a 12 point polling lead. Seems like nonsense.
And the seat-specific polling showed it to be a goner - by a sizeable margin.
Even without. Look at the trend, Labour majority in that seat has come down from 20-30% to single digits over the years. With all the factors in play, it seems highly improbable Labour are going to be reversing that trend in % terms.
There's a lot of house building going on around that part of the country too. Affordable housing (because even nice Georgian detatched mansions with big gardens are affordable compared to almost anywhere else). It is not the place it was 20 or 30 years ago.
Something I notice in many of the seats Labour has lost in hthe Midlands in recent years. They aren't coming back to them.
In many ways that’s the best poll the Tories have had this campaign. Includes manifesto period. Would be delighted if all the others showed Lab around 30.
Adding in YouGov gives
Con 41.5% Lab 29.4% LD 15.2% BXP 5.4% Grn 3.0%
330/220/31/0/1
I'm definitely not "herding"!
I'd be very, very surprised if a Con lead of 12% gives a majority of just 10 seats.
Comments
Just surprises me that Momentum appear to hate Swinson more than Boris. Or perhaps it’s all a tactic as they know they’re win more Lib to Lab switchers than Tory ones.
Their Manifesto couldn't change them.
But the Party Faithful had One Last Hope.
Systematic Polling Error.
In their favour.
Those who want to put an end to Corbyn and his ilk would be wise to take a long term view and vote LibDem.
https://www.nasuwt.org.uk/article-listing/trade-dispute-lodged-with-the-welsh-government.html
(Nor a Pirate this time.)
I seem to recall that somewhere in the Times yesterday it said this would affect about 1 million people. I assume that's 500,000 couples.
Just read my earlier post again, and - with the help of a numerate friend if necessary - try to work out whether I am assuming polling error is necessary in Labour's favour.
Or whether I am just advocating caution in general about the accuracy of the polls in general.
Stick with me kid, I'll get you a podium finish and a medal round your neck....
My coat?
I assume the LD swing will be higher than the national LD swing in LD target seats and lower in non-target seats such as Con/Lab marginals. It won't be a uniform national swing.
https://mobile.twitter.com/harrytlambert/status/1198224664704802818
https://es.pn/2pCJPj0
Only difference LDs on 16% and SDP Liberal Alliance were on 22% then
Your impression may be right of course, but before I'd put money on the error having been corrected, I'd want something more definite that "most of the stuff that was done for 2017 by the pollsters have been taken out." Some idea of what "stuff" it was, and why they thought it should be taken out.
Con 41.5% Lab 29.4% LD 15.2% BXP 5.4% Grn 3.0%
330/220/31/0/1
I'm definitely not "herding"!
https://play.acast.com/s/timesredbox/db4500e5-371d-4100-a951-6824c52281eb
As I say it could have been another podcast but I think it was this one. John Curtice does go into how the exit poll works in more detail than I remember being done before.
The Labour manifesto is quite weird in that regards. They want to reshape the whole economy at huge cost, but don't seem to want to implement some policies that would be free / revenue plus e.g. sports rights, legalized medical cannabis.
It would cost Labour nothing to promise huge amounts of sport free to air. I mean it would suck money out of loads of those sports, but that doesn't seem to worry them in other businesses.
*Be honest, I had you going there, didn’t I?
Do you mean Lord Farage of High Horse?
It is possible, if the Lib Dem surge (and doubling your vote share since last time counts as a surge) is uniform across Great Britain then a 12% lead puts you into landslide territory.
If the Lib Dem surge is focussed in Con held Remain leaning seats then a 12% lead could equal a small majority/Con largest party in a hung parliament.
Remember the Boris Johnson strategy is to sacrifice Tory held seats in Remania to win Labour Leave seats.
Now personally I think the Lib Dem surge will be uniform and the Lib Dems will win an awful lot of second places which is good news for the Tories.
I think the point I'm making is that unless people are confident the error last time has been corrected, they should be factoring in a large degree of uncertainty.
They might hate Corbyn, they might want Brexit, but will convince themselves that their local Labour MP is one of the good sort and need them in parliament. Also, its Boris as PM, rather than say an Eric Pickles type who they identify with.
Edit - fun fact - the tallest horse ever to win the Grand National was indeed Party Politics.
2 million people registered to voted during the last campaign,
1.5 million have done so this time. so far,
People can still registers, and its probable that the 2 million finger will be matched or even beat, but I would think probably not by much, so I don't think it will have a big impact, (compared to 2017)
Until they voted for Tony Blair.
It's the reverse of the way that urban upper middle class constituencies that had been Conservative for decades trended left after 1979.
And then Johnson will say "here's a tiny tiny tiny piece of largesse for the workers from the bosses' stash of gold "- and the bastards will give him a five point rise. Bastards. We need a new electorate...."
A bit confusing because normally that one doesn’t appear till much later in the evening.
Pollsters (by definition) fight the last war. Judging voting intention is one thing, but judging voting activity requires estimates to be made of turnout. If turnout behavior is unexpected, as it was for EU16, US04 and UK17, then that will mess up the prediction. And it is difficult to know beforehand.
BBC One 9.55pm to 9am with Huw Edwards
BBC One 9am - 1.00pm with Emily Maitlis
BBC Two 2pm - 6pm with Emily Maitlis
We saw in 2005 a small Lab lead give a decent majority of 66.
The Tories had a bigger lead in 2010 and just short of a majority.
Hopefully the Tories will see the light and ditch FPTP and go for AV.
The pro-Corbyn Jewish Voice for Labour group, which claims the party does not have a problem with anti-Semitism, has put together a guide for canvassers.
The document says claims that Labour has a problem with anti-Jewish racism reflect ‘unremitting mainstream media bias’.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7716881/Hard-left-Jewish-activists-claim-Labour-no-anti-Semitism-problem.html
Something I notice in many of the seats Labour has lost in hthe Midlands in recent years. They aren't coming back to them.
Harry Kane deserved more than a yellow for that foul on Snodgrass.