If Chuka is just 6% behind the Tories he can win Cities of London and Westminster with some barcharts to squeeze Labour tactical votes.
Looks like the Tories will easily beat off Nicola Horlick's challenge in Chelsea and Fulham though if they lead the LDs by 23% and looks like Hendon will be a comfortable Tory hold too
If Chuka is just 6% behind the Tories he can win Cities of London and Westminster with some barcharts to squeeze Labour tactical votes.
Looks like the Tories will easily beat off Nicola Horlick's challenge in Chelsea and Fulham though if they lead the LDs by 23% and looks like Hendon will be a comfortable Tory hold too
I doubt it and Tory remainers are coming back home.
Honestly, I get the arguments that the Tory position isn't as strong as it looks. This might not be a 1997 landslide (though it really might). But even if the polls are overstated and tactical voting is up and they struggle in Scotland and Labour squeeze the LD vote a bit in the final weeks...
Who are the markets kidding making a Tory majority only a 1/2 shot?
If 2017 hadn’t happened that price would be 1.2 on the exchanges IMO. Just over 2 weeks out from the election and its been double figure leads in the last 12 polls...
But 2017 DID happen and it also happened very, very late in the campaign.
At what stage might Labour unity fracture and a few home truths be stated by candidates not wholly onboard with the Messiah? Or do we have to wait for election night for that?
The best thing now would be for the obvious Labour collapse to send their voters in the south across to the LibDems in large numbers
Whilst a Hung Parliament with a powerful Lib Dem contingent would clearly be preferable to a Hung Parliament with a tiny Lib Dem presence, any kind of Hung Parliament leads to a Labour minority Government. It's the only way that both Swinson and Sturgeon get their referendums, so they will allow it.
I'm afraid that I must therefore dissent: Corbyn and McDonnell must, if at all possible, be both heavily defeated and denied access to the levers of power.
We are firmly into lesser of two evils territory here and, if the polling evidence is anything like accurate, a very large part of the electorate shares my sentiments: in a straight contest for No.10 between Johnson and Corbyn, sorry, but it has to be Johnson.
You could argue at this juncture that we ought to recoil from backing either of them, and I am sympathetic to this standpoint. I'll be voting Lib Dem, but only because it is safe to do so. If I thought there any chance at all of the second-placed Labour Party catching the sitting Conservative in my constituency (current Con maj: 16,835) then I'd be voting for him like a shot, in an effort to make certain that there was one less Labour MP in the Commons.
The fact that both large parties have submitted sub-optimal leadership candidates for our consideration is not the fault of the people. If we need to back a poor candidate in order to bar the door to a catastrophic one then we're entitled to do so.
I don’t think their is much danger of complacency from Tory (anti-Corbyn) voters because they will want to kill him off totally and utterly. They just simply don’t want the possibility that he, or what he offers, will be resurrected in future. And, who know, Johnson with a massive majority might actually be quite benign...
Swing of 9.5% from Tory to Labour with Opinium, looks like the Labour manifesto has made zero impact this time nor has the first debate. Tories would gain 85 Labour seats on UNS on that swing.
The 19% lead with Opinium now clearly ahead of the 13% Tory lead at the same stage in the 2017 general election campaign
Game over . That Opinium is a shocker for Labour . And also terrible for the Lib Dems
Agreed game over if other polls look anything like this one.
A consistent pattern would be bad for Labour, but not terminal. There's still nearly three weeks left until polling day, and the Tories need to get through their manifesto and another Johnson/Corbyn debate.
That said, they should hopefully have learned their lessons re: the manifesto from last time, and there's no sign as yet of the TV set pieces moving the dial.
If the Tories can avoid any major fuck-ups then they ought to finish comfortably ahead on vote share. Whether this will be enough to translate into a decent majority, or any majority, is still anyone's guess.
For all we know, the strange looking numbers coming out of the model @Barnesian has been floating might transpire to be correct, especially if enough Labour habit voters revert to type in the polling booths in the marginals, the Lib Dem and Green votes collapse to the net benefit of Labour, and there's a substantial amount of Remain tactical voting.
I'm afraid we're all going to have to wait until at least the Exit Poll, and possibly even until four o'clock the following morning, before we've a firm idea of where this election is headed.
I do wonder if this is a repeat of 1992 in that the Exit Poll turns out to be wrong, unlikely but possible I suppose
Worth noting that the exit poll methodology was heavily reworked in 2001/5 and has had no major errors since.
The 'central forecast' was 316 Tory seats, but as the blog explains there's a margin of error of about 10 seats, maybe as many as 20. They were 14 out in 2015, and that's their biggest error yet.
The Tories could well do without these massive poll leads. Many will baulk at the idea of turning Boris into a political deity, so will go to other parties once they're safe in the knowledge that others are keeping Jezza out for them. The Tories need everyone to believe that it's still on a knife edge.
Honestly, I get the arguments that the Tory position isn't as strong as it looks. This might not be a 1997 landslide (though it really might). But even if the polls are overstated and tactical voting is up and they struggle in Scotland and Labour squeeze the LD vote a bit in the final weeks...
Who are the markets kidding making a Tory majority only a 1/2 shot?
If 2017 hadn’t happened that price would be 1.2 on the exchanges IMO. Just over 2 weeks out from the election and its been double figure leads in the last 12 polls...
But 2017 DID happen and it also happened very, very late in the campaign.
It is too heavily weighed as an observation. Taking a longer-term view, 2017 should be bracketed with 2001, 1997, 1987 and 1983 as modern multi-party elections with a large, early polling majority. This sample would only justify 70% with (i) a big down-weight for the historic years and (ii) a very low probability ascribed to slightly-worse polling leads, in spite of outcomes like 2015 and 2005.
Honestly, I get the arguments that the Tory position isn't as strong as it looks. This might not be a 1997 landslide (though it really might). But even if the polls are overstated and tactical voting is up and they struggle in Scotland and Labour squeeze the LD vote a bit in the final weeks...
Who are the markets kidding making a Tory majority only a 1/2 shot?
it's a 2/3 shot . It's about 70% probability
Is it though? We've been campaigning for 3/4 weeks and there's been no sign of a rapid move to Labour. The polling average is now probably 5% above what the Tories need to win a majority and seems to be growing. Either the polls are wrong or Labour are surely much less than 30% likely to even hold the Tories to a hung parliament?
The Tories could well do without these massive poll leads. Many will baulk at the idea of turning Boris into a political deity, so will go to other parties once they're safe in the knowledge that others are keeping Jezza out for them. The Tories need everyone to believe that it's still on a knife edge.
People know what happened in 2017. They won’t trust the polls.
Honestly, I get the arguments that the Tory position isn't as strong as it looks. This might not be a 1997 landslide (though it really might). But even if the polls are overstated and tactical voting is up and they struggle in Scotland and Labour squeeze the LD vote a bit in the final weeks...
Who are the markets kidding making a Tory majority only a 1/2 shot?
If 2017 hadn’t happened that price would be 1.2 on the exchanges IMO. Just over 2 weeks out from the election and its been double figure leads in the last 12 polls...
But 2017 DID happen and it also happened very, very late in the campaign.
Not this late, the shift was very visible by now. And the loss of control of the media narrative generally.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Surely 47% less than 20 days before the election = home and hosed. Even a grotesque error would make this 40-32. Course, it's no guarantee of social peace if the vote is mainly about keeping Corbyn out, but choosing a leadership is the main point of elections - and then you reward or punish the government for its policies.
The EU must be delighted. It will either be deal shafting NI unionists, or a no-deal that is clearly the fault of the UK. Compare to another cobbled-together minority looking for another 153 special clauses and conditions and opt-ins. Just get them out and let the shock happen, would be the thinking there.
It might lead to complacency amongst Tory supporters.
It might also lead to a bandwagon where usual Tory supporters think there is no point lodging a protest vote. So seats like Beaconsfield, Cities of London and Westminster, St Albans, Dumfries get saved. Just a speculation. Point is even an 8-point lead would be enough. I know PB is full of smart, mainly conservative people, good probabilistic thinkers looking for all the possible angles and nervous about a repeat of 2017. But, as the man himself might say, "dudes", it's 19 points.
" I know PB is full of smart, mainly conservative people," You have to be joking surely. I would put Anti-Tories on PB.com as being at least twice the number of Tories on this site. Higher still if you include the likes of Nabavi and Herdson as being in the former camp. :
Honestly, I get the arguments that the Tory position isn't as strong as it looks. This might not be a 1997 landslide (though it really might). But even if the polls are overstated and tactical voting is up and they struggle in Scotland and Labour squeeze the LD vote a bit in the final weeks...
Who are the markets kidding making a Tory majority only a 1/2 shot?
it's a 2/3 shot . It's about 70% probability
Is it though? We've been campaigning for 3/4 weeks and there's been no sign of a rapid move to Labour. The polling average is now probably 5% above what the Tories need to win a majority and seems to be growing. Either the polls are wrong or Labour are surely much less than 30% likely to even hold the Tories to a hung parliament?
The 70% is from the betting on Betfair. It is the collective wisdom of punters.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
You assume that all of these will be Labour voters, why?
The Tories could well do without these massive poll leads. Many will baulk at the idea of turning Boris into a political deity, so will go to other parties once they're safe in the knowledge that others are keeping Jezza out for them. The Tories need everyone to believe that it's still on a knife edge.
Once the lead is above 10% it does not really matter, all tactical voting can do is reduce the Tories majority, not stop it
Honestly, I get the arguments that the Tory position isn't as strong as it looks. This might not be a 1997 landslide (though it really might). But even if the polls are overstated and tactical voting is up and they struggle in Scotland and Labour squeeze the LD vote a bit in the final weeks...
Who are the markets kidding making a Tory majority only a 1/2 shot?
If 2017 hadn’t happened that price would be 1.2 on the exchanges IMO. Just over 2 weeks out from the election and its been double figure leads in the last 12 polls...
I think that's right.
It's an opportunity for gamblers though. This election is different.
Think there are more polls at 7? If they are anything like Opinium then we can all pack up and go home. Knowing British politics’ taste for banter, there will probably be a Tory lead of 4.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Nothing's ever impossible.
And I'm speaking as a Tory voter who re-registered recently due to having recently moved home.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
You assume that all of these will be Labour voters, why?
The majority I believe are under 35, who swing to Labour by about 55%+, I think with the Lib Dems and Greens added in it's 75%. Tory is something like 10-15% at most.
If they vote intelligently - and I think they can - they can absolutely stop a Tory majority.
These massive leads encourage them to vote, it means more is on the line.
Surely 47% less than 20 days before the election = home and hosed. Even a grotesque error would make this 40-32. Course, it's no guarantee of social peace if the vote is mainly about keeping Corbyn out, but choosing a leadership is the main point of elections - and then you reward or punish the government for its policies.
The EU must be delighted. It will either be deal shafting NI unionists, or a no-deal that is clearly the fault of the UK. Compare to another cobbled-together minority looking for another 153 special clauses and conditions and opt-ins. Just get them out and let the shock happen, would be the thinking there.
It might lead to complacency amongst Tory supporters.
It might also lead to a bandwagon where usual Tory supporters think there is no point lodging a protest vote. So seats like Beaconsfield, Cities of London and Westminster, St Albans, Dumfries get saved. Just a speculation. Point is even an 8-point lead would be enough. I know PB is full of smart, mainly conservative people, good probabilistic thinkers looking for all the possible angles and nervous about a repeat of 2017. But, as the man himself might say, "dudes", it's 19 points.
" I know PB is full of smart, mainly conservative people," You have to be joking surely. I would put Anti-Tories on PB.com as being at least twice the number of Tories on this site. Higher still if you include the likes of Nabavi and Herdson as being in the former camp. :
Small-c, general politics and disposition, and even the anti-Tories are often scorned former workers in the garden. I mean, not radicals, or people likely to overstate outcomes, or forget history.
Looking at previous Opinium polling this fieldwork is likely to have been conducted on the 20th to the 22nd the same as the Panelbase which showed a ten point lead for the Tories .
That’s the emergency straw clutching that’s needed for Labour tonight .
Opinium shows an unchanged lead of 16 on a like for like basis with an additional 3pp from the technical change of dropping the Brexit party, which at that kind of lead will have more or less zero effect as the Tories wouldn't be losing many seats, if any, even if BXP were standing in Tory held seats. It goes without saying that if Opinium is right then Labour are fucked, but that has always been the case as this is the least favourable pollster for them, IIRC. The really bad news for Labour is that the underlying lead isn't shrinking, as it was by this stage in 2017. As a Labour supporter that is what depresses me, not the absolute size of the lead.
A big Tory lead is surely the last thing that Tories want to see right now. Can i remind you just how hated Johnson and his cabinet are? Even by some Tories? A Tory landslide gives life long Tory hate what the ERG/BXP pincer move has done voters permission to go vote LibDem or independent. They don't have to hold their nose to fend off Jezbollah because he's finished.
We also have the looming event of the Tory manifesto launch. Plenty of time for Tories to hang themselves with Hubristic bluster. What do swing voters hate almost as much as the shadow cabinet? Born to rule Tory types sneering at them.
Honestly, I get the arguments that the Tory position isn't as strong as it looks. This might not be a 1997 landslide (though it really might). But even if the polls are overstated and tactical voting is up and they struggle in Scotland and Labour squeeze the LD vote a bit in the final weeks...
Who are the markets kidding making a Tory majority only a 1/2 shot?
it's a 2/3 shot . It's about 70% probability
Is it though? We've been campaigning for 3/4 weeks and there's been no sign of a rapid move to Labour. The polling average is now probably 5% above what the Tories need to win a majority and seems to be growing. Either the polls are wrong or Labour are surely much less than 30% likely to even hold the Tories to a hung parliament?
The 70% is from the betting on Betfair. It is the collective wisdom of punters.
I know, that's where I got my 1/2 figure from. I'm saying the market is wrong for the reasons above. That's precisely my contention.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Can you explain why ?
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
If the polls continue to be this bad for Labour, expect Labour to come out swinging in the coming days in an attempt to reel things in. The Tories should remember the old soldiering phrase about the enemy fighting hardest with its backs to the wall. Expect this election to get very dirty indeed.
Think there are more polls at 7? If they are anything like Opinium then we can all pack up and go home. Knowing British politics’ taste for banter, there will probably be a Tory lead of 4.
I don't think we will see any more polls with leads below 7 for the rest of the campaign.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
You assume that all of these will be Labour voters, why?
The majority I believe are under 35, who swing to Labour by about 55%+, I think with the Lib Dems and Greens added in it's 75%. Tory is something like 10-15% at most.
If they vote intelligently - and I think they can - they can absolutely stop a Tory majority.
These massive leads encourage them to vote, it means more is on the line.
You are now pulling out magic voters from your arse. Desperation.
A big Tory lead is surely the last thing that Tories want to see right now. Can i remind you just how hated Johnson and his cabinet are? Even by some Tories? A Tory landslide gives life long Tory hate what the ERG/BXP pincer move has done voters permission to go vote LibDem or independent. They don't have to hold their nose to fend off Jezbollah because he's finished.
We also have the looming event of the Tory manifesto launch. Plenty of time for Tories to hang themselves with Hubristic bluster. What do swing voters hate almost as much as the shadow cabinet? Born to rule Tory types sneering at them.
So Tories should be worried about being so far ahead in the polls?
Panelbase - Con +10 YouGov - Con +12 Opinium - Con +19 Survation (North + Midlands) - Con +11.5 (implied)
So Opinium is the outlier - overall Con lead very little changed.
What do you mean by Survation? Is that 11.5% from North+Midlands only?
If it is, then given Labour's relative advantage in the North that could imply a larger overall advantage surely? Or does any poll excluding London deflate Labour?
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
CHB (or Justin, whatever), I cannot help but admire your unflinching optimism despite a great deal of evidence going against your desired result. This site would be in total meltdown if the polling was reversed. So, hats off to you for that, but you are starting to sound a little like Hitler in 'Downfall', shuffling imaginary divisions around a map.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Can you explain why ?
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.
Panelbase - Con +10 YouGov - Con +12 Opinium - Con +19 Survation (North + Midlands) - Con +11.5 (implied)
So Opinium is the outlier - overall Con lead very little changed.
Indeed, not much changed in the course of the campaign. We political junkies like to imagine movement, but actually there is little or none. This is bad for Labour though.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Can you explain why ?
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.
How do you know they aren't leave voters registering to avoid a second referendum? Or Sun reading builders registering to avoid punitive dividend taxes?
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
You assume that all of these will be Labour voters, why?
The majority I believe are under 35, who swing to Labour by about 55%+, I think with the Lib Dems and Greens added in it's 75%. Tory is something like 10-15% at most.
If they vote intelligently - and I think they can - they can absolutely stop a Tory majority.
These massive leads encourage them to vote, it means more is on the line.
You are now pulling out magic voters from your arse. Desperation.
>Amongst young voters, Labour clearly has the edge, increasing by 13 percentage points amongst 18 to 29 year olds since the start of October from 38% to 51%. But this still falls short of the 60% share it enjoyed in 2017.
So I was a bit over, my apologies. Although in 2017 it was higher than my estimate.
>The Lib Dems have increased their share of under 10% the youth vote in 2017 to 14% now, while the Greens have moved from 2% to 7%.
14% + 51% + 7% = 72%, so not far off what I said at all, is it?
Panelbase - Con +10 YouGov - Con +12 Opinium - Con +19 Survation (North + Midlands) - Con +11.5 (implied)
So Opinium is the outlier - overall Con lead very little changed.
What do you mean by Survation? Is that 11.5% from North+Midlands only?
If it is, then given Labour's relative advantage in the North that could imply a larger overall advantage surely? Or does any poll excluding London deflate Labour?
Survation poll was North + Midlands only.
It showed 4.5% swing.
Applying that swing nationally gives implied Con national lead of 11.5%.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Can you explain why ?
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Can you explain why ?
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.
It could mean that a Conservative majority is 50 instead of 60 or 100 instead of 110.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Can you explain why ?
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.
How do you know they aren't leave voters registering to avoid a second referendum? Or Sun reading builders registering to avoid punitive dividend taxes?
Well I don't - but the profile of the average 18-35 voter is being more pro-Labour and pro second referendum on average.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Can you explain why ?
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.
All 461 will have to be new registrations (not duplicates) and all 461 will have to vote for the party vest placed to beat the Tories. Oh and all 461 will actually have to vote.
Strange things happen in politics when a large party gets a bad reputation that its core supporters don't know or care about. The UK's nearest neighbour gave the same party the most votes for 75 years.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Can you explain why ?
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.
All 461 will have to be new registrations (not duplicates) and all 461 will have to vote for the party vest placed to beat the Tories. Oh and all 461 will actually have to vote.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Can you explain why ?
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.
13 seats have a Tory majority less than 461. So if the polls do (unlikely now I guess) get closer, Johnson can quickly lose seats.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Can you explain why ?
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.
All 461 will have to be new registrations (not duplicates) and all 461 will have to vote for the party vest placed to beat the Tories. Oh and all 461 will actually have to vote.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
You assume that all of these will be Labour voters, why?
The majority I believe are under 35, who swing to Labour by about 55%+, I think with the Lib Dems and Greens added in it's 75%. Tory is something like 10-15% at most.
If they vote intelligently - and I think they can - they can absolutely stop a Tory majority.
These massive leads encourage them to vote, it means more is on the line.
A big Tory lead is surely the last thing that Tories want to see right now. Can i remind you just how hated Johnson and his cabinet are? Even by some Tories? A Tory landslide gives life long Tory hate what the ERG/BXP pincer move has done voters permission to go vote LibDem or independent. They don't have to hold their nose to fend off Jezbollah because he's finished.
We also have the looming event of the Tory manifesto launch. Plenty of time for Tories to hang themselves with Hubristic bluster. What do swing voters hate almost as much as the shadow cabinet? Born to rule Tory types sneering at them.
What proportion of the electorate follows the polls, and what fraction of that fraction is influenced by them in their choices? Has any work ever been done to assess this?
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Can you explain why ?
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.
13 seats have a Tory majority less than 461. So if the polls do (unlikely now I guess) get closer, Johnson can quickly lose seats.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Can you explain why ?
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.
It could mean that a Conservative majority is 50 instead of 60 or 100 instead of 110.
Indeed - so a smaller majority than some expect.
In my mind it will either be a small Tory majority or a Hung Parliament.
Honestly, I get the arguments that the Tory position isn't as strong as it looks. This might not be a 1997 landslide (though it really might). But even if the polls are overstated and tactical voting is up and they struggle in Scotland and Labour squeeze the LD vote a bit in the final weeks...
Who are the markets kidding making a Tory majority only a 1/2 shot?
If 2017 hadn’t happened that price would be 1.2 on the exchanges IMO. Just over 2 weeks out from the election and its been double figure leads in the last 12 polls...
But 2017 DID happen and it also happened very, very late in the campaign.
Not this late, the shift was very visible by now. And the loss of control of the media narrative generally.
Well, up to a point Lord Copper...
The Tories had poll leads of 20%, 20% and 18% as late as 25 and 24 days ahead of GE17.
We are now 19 days out from GE19. By the same stage in GE17 a series of polls with Tory leads in the 9%-13% range had landed.
The GE17 Tory manifesto was launched on 18th May, 21 days before the election and coincident with the start of the polling lead drop.
For the record I don't think the Tory lead decilne of 2017 is going to be repeated but I'd wait until the manifesto has landed safely before counting your chickens.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Can you explain why ?
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.
13 seats have a Tory majority less than 461. So if the polls do (unlikely now I guess) get closer, Johnson can quickly lose seats.
If the polls continue to be this bad for Labour, expect Labour to come out swinging in the coming days in an attempt to reel things in. The Tories should remember the old soldiering phrase about the enemy fighting hardest with its backs to the wall. Expect this election to get very dirty indeed.
Or Labour might fracture with desperate Labour candidates disowning Corbyn and the Labour manifesto
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Can you explain why ?
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.
13 seats have a Tory majority less than 461. So if the polls do (unlikely now I guess) get closer, Johnson can quickly lose seats.
Game over . That Opinium is a shocker for Labour . And also terrible for the Lib Dems
Agreed game over if other polls look anything like this one.
A consistent pattern would be bad for Labour, but not terminal. There's still nearly three weeks left until polling day, and the Tories need to get through their manifesto and another Johnson/Corbyn debate.
That said, they should hopefully have learned their lessons re: the manifesto from last time, and there's no sign as yet of the TV set pieces moving the dial.
If the Tories can avoid any major fuck-ups then they ought to finish comfortably ahead on vote share. Whether this will be enough to translate into a decent majority, or any majority, is still anyone's guess.
For all we know, the strange looking numbers coming out of the model @Barnesian has been floating might transpire to be correct, especially if enough Labour habit voters revert to type in the polling booths in the marginals, the Lib Dem and Green votes collapse to the net benefit of Labour, and there's a substantial amount of Remain tactical voting.
I'm afraid we're all going to have to wait until at least the Exit Poll, and possibly even until four o'clock the following morning, before we've a firm idea of where this election is headed.
I do wonder if this is a repeat of 1992 in that the Exit Poll turns out to be wrong, unlikely but possible I suppose
I'm wondering that, too. As I recall, it was said that loads of voters intending to vote one way changed their minds in the voting booth.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Can you explain why ?
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.
13 seats have a Tory majority less than 461. So if the polls do (unlikely now I guess) get closer, Johnson can quickly lose seats.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Can you explain why ?
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.
It could mean that a Conservative majority is 50 instead of 60 or 100 instead of 110.
Indeed - so a smaller majority than some expect.
In my mind it will either be a small Tory majority or a Hung Parliament.
So why did you say it would make a Conservative majority impossible ?
Again LD can take it if Labour voters are tactical
In many of these urban constituencies something-teen per cent of the Labour vote is ethnic bloc that supports the local political network, Brexit or no Brexit.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Can you explain why ?
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.
All 461 will have to be new registrations (not duplicates) and all 461 will have to vote for the party vest placed to beat the Tories. Oh and all 461 will actually have to vote.
Shall we say - roughly none then?
Surely anyone registering at this point is certain to vote?
Fox jr has just registered in his new constituency, a Labour defence in London, as he will vote there rather than here. He met the Lab MP canvassing, and rather liked him. Previously he was pretty apolitical.
I just wonder, even at this very late stage, if Labour, the LDs, the SNP, could somehow try to cobble together a mad electoral pact in their utter desperation to stop Brexit. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they did something along those lines, and to hell with the consequences.
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Can you explain why ?
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.
It could mean that a Conservative majority is 50 instead of 60 or 100 instead of 110.
Indeed - so a smaller majority than some expect.
In my mind it will either be a small Tory majority or a Hung Parliament.
So why did you say it would make a Conservative majority impossible ?
If the Tories lose 13 seats from where they are now, then that would make a majority impossible?
I didn't mean in the case Johnson wins a massive majority that it would make a difference. Obviously then it wouldn't of course.
It depends on how you project things to happen, I guess I'm on a losing side and I'm "clutching at straws" and that's fine.
If the Tories just pile up votes in their safe seats but in the marginals like these the new voters swing things the other way, you could end up with a situation where Johnson doesn't really move forward very much. That is what I think will happen, hence a small majority or a Hung Parliament.
A Tory lead over ten points into polling day should see them home with a decent majority .
Any lead under that is risky because of the BP skew and Labour picking up some Lib Dem and Green votes on the day , also a big unknown re tactical voting . At the last election Labour turnout was under estimated , they found 3 points from that aswell .
The polls are terrible for Labour and the above only helps them if they get that lead down to sub ten which at this point is still looking like a tall order .
Comments
Looks like the Tories will easily beat off Nicola Horlick's challenge in Chelsea and Fulham though if they lead the LDs by 23% and looks like Hendon will be a comfortable Tory hold too
Honestly.
And with that, I must be off.
https://twitter.com/PoliSciJack/status/1197218677772427264
I'm afraid that I must therefore dissent: Corbyn and McDonnell must, if at all possible, be both heavily defeated and denied access to the levers of power.
We are firmly into lesser of two evils territory here and, if the polling evidence is anything like accurate, a very large part of the electorate shares my sentiments: in a straight contest for No.10 between Johnson and Corbyn, sorry, but it has to be Johnson.
You could argue at this juncture that we ought to recoil from backing either of them, and I am sympathetic to this standpoint. I'll be voting Lib Dem, but only because it is safe to do so. If I thought there any chance at all of the second-placed Labour Party catching the sitting Conservative in my constituency (current Con maj: 16,835) then I'd be voting for him like a shot, in an effort to make certain that there was one less Labour MP in the Commons.
The fact that both large parties have submitted sub-optimal leadership candidates for our consideration is not the fault of the people. If we need to back a poor candidate in order to bar the door to a catastrophic one then we're entitled to do so.
The 19% lead with Opinium now clearly ahead of the 13% Tory lead at the same stage in the 2017 general election campaign
Or are we still too early for that?
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
It's an opportunity for gamblers though. This election is different.
And I'm speaking as a Tory voter who re-registered recently due to having recently moved home.
If they vote intelligently - and I think they can - they can absolutely stop a Tory majority.
These massive leads encourage them to vote, it means more is on the line.
We also have the looming event of the Tory manifesto launch. Plenty of time for Tories to hang themselves with Hubristic bluster. What do swing voters hate almost as much as the shadow cabinet? Born to rule Tory types sneering at them.
Panelbase - Con +10
YouGov - Con +12
Opinium - Con +19
Survation (North + Midlands) - Con +11.5 (implied)
So Opinium is the outlier - overall Con lead very little changed.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
Con Lab LD
England 311 196 25
Wales 15 20 1
Scotland 7 1 5
TOTAL 333 217 31
Tory majority extends to 16
Note the EMA gives 10% weight to the latest poll.
If I put the raw Opinium numbers in to the model it gives
Con Lab LD
England 344 167 21
Wales 17 19 1
Scotland 7 1 5
TOTAL 368 187 27
Tory majority of 86
It’s a view...
If it is, then given Labour's relative advantage in the North that could imply a larger overall advantage surely? Or does any poll excluding London deflate Labour?
So I was a bit over, my apologies. Although in 2017 it was higher than my estimate.
>The Lib Dems have increased their share of under 10% the youth vote in 2017 to 14% now, while the Greens have moved from 2% to 7%.
14% + 51% + 7% = 72%, so not far off what I said at all, is it?
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/22/general-election-who-will-win-youth-vote
It showed 4.5% swing.
Applying that swing nationally gives implied Con national lead of 11.5%.
CON: 39% (-8)
LDEM: 33% (+22)
LAB: 26% (-12)
GRN: 1% (-1)
via @DeltapollUK, 14 - 21 Nov
Chgs. w/ GE2017
But I'm unable to believe any party could be so far ahead in these times.
The forced choice question in 1992 and 2015 were very good in predicting the Tories to do well.
Unless there’s a lot of tactical voting then some hugely Remain seats are going to end up with a Tory Leaver.
Also this is interesting:
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1198316331948486656
If Labour voters get tactical, the LDs can take this seat.
And all have the Conservatives leading ?
Perhaps tells you something
In my mind it will either be a small Tory majority or a Hung Parliament.
The Tories had poll leads of 20%, 20% and 18% as late as 25 and 24 days ahead of GE17.
We are now 19 days out from GE19. By the same stage in GE17 a series of polls with Tory leads in the 9%-13% range had landed.
The GE17 Tory manifesto was launched on 18th May, 21 days before the election and coincident with the start of the polling lead drop.
For the record I don't think the Tory lead decilne of 2017 is going to be repeated but I'd wait until the manifesto has landed safely before counting your chickens.
Again LD can take it if Labour voters are tactical
Britain Elects
@britainelects
2 minutes ago
Chelsea & Fulham, constituency voting intention:
CON: 48% (-5)
LDEM: 25% (+14)
LAB: 24% (-9)
via @DeltapollUK, 14 - 21 Nov
Chgs. w/ GE2017
Is it possible Boris will do much better in london than we think?
Corbyn’s communist manifesto must surely help him in the wealthier areas.
Good evening, everyone.
Electoral Calculus gives
Con 436
Lab 144
LD 13
Majority 222
Don't think that will happen as don't expect a 19% lead but there's no way a 19% lead would lead to Tories just 38 seats up on 2015.
Fox jr has just registered in his new constituency, a Labour defence in London, as he will vote there rather than here. He met the Lab MP canvassing, and rather liked him. Previously he was pretty apolitical.
It's a split Remain vote leading to a Johnson win, not because he's just that good.
@britainelects
47 seconds ago
Hendon, constituency voting intention:
CON: 51% (+3)
LAB: 33% (-13)
LDEM: 12% (+8)
GRN: 1% (-)
via @DeltapollUK, 14 - 20 Nov
Chgs. w/ GE2017
https://mobile.twitter.com/britainelects/status/1198318017869996032
Con 412
Lab 154
SNP 41
LD 21
I didn't mean in the case Johnson wins a massive majority that it would make a difference. Obviously then it wouldn't of course.
It depends on how you project things to happen, I guess I'm on a losing side and I'm "clutching at straws" and that's fine.
If the Tories just pile up votes in their safe seats but in the marginals like these the new voters swing things the other way, you could end up with a situation where Johnson doesn't really move forward very much. That is what I think will happen, hence a small majority or a Hung Parliament.
It could, and should, just say the words "Get Brexit done, dudes" on one page.
It would be better received than Labour or 2017, and Johnson probably cares about nothing anyway (except perhaps a US trade deal).
Er. Because Seamus and Murphy wont let him?
Another one
Any lead under that is risky because of the BP skew and Labour picking up some Lib Dem and Green votes on the day , also a
big unknown re tactical voting . At the last election Labour turnout was under estimated , they found 3 points from that aswell .
The polls are terrible for Labour and the above only helps them if they get that lead down to sub ten which at this point is still looking like a tall order .