These elections remind us that leader ratings and supplementaries are a better predictor of electora

System

These elections remind us that leader ratings and supplementaries are a better predictor of electoral outcomes than voting intention – politicalbetting.com

How well or badly do you think the following are doing at their jobs? (% of adults in Wales) MARK DRAKEFORD57% well / 34% badly BORIS JOHNSON39% well / 54% badlyhttps://t.co/QkWuB7oO4D pic.twitter.com/b8GkaRDTGH

Read the full story here

swing_voter

First? Like Alba's destruction as a political party?

CarlottaVance

Second! Like Unionists in Scotland:

CarlottaVance

On topic did autocorrect change “magnificent” to “munificent”?

Also given both Drakeford and Sturgeon were well rated, why did only the former significantly outperform the polls?

Cocky_cockney

I see that Railings and Thrasher have computed the national votes shares as Cons 40% Lab 30%. The BBC projected share two days ago looked all wrong to me: they had 'other' on 18% which was clearly skewed by the SNP vote.

So a 10% tory lead. YouGov were right then.

CarlottaVance

Opinium on their Wales poll performance:

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1391028419245268994?s=20

Cocky_cockney

In terms of this thesis, I 'think' it's probably broadly true but I don't think it's 'proof' that it is. There will be circumstances for example where a wildly popular leader is nevertheless part of an underperforming party, and the opposite where a party outperforms an unpopular leader. Local factors also come into play, especially in local, regional and mayoral elections. It's a good and useful idea to add to the armoury but not to be treated as cast-iron.

And as below, YouGov were spot on. The tories won with a projected national 10% lead (Railings & Thrasher).

swing_voter

Interesting re the Opinium, am I right in thinking the Tory vote was lower than their predictions (by 4%?) any ideas why that happened? I used to think Wales had shy Tory voters who said Labour but voted blue?

rcs1000

Rumor of the day: the Emergent Bioscience AZ and J&J vaccines that have not been FDA approved due to contamination have been shipped to Canada, Japan and the EU in contravention of US export controls and are waiting on dispensation from the US before becoming available.

SeaShantyIrish2

CarlottaVance said:

On topic did autocorrect change “magnificent” to “munificent”?

Also given both Drakeford and Sturgeon were well rated, why did only the former significantly outperform the polls?

Fishgate?

That is, the epic struggle / soap opera of current Queen Fish vs former King Fish.

SeaShantyIrish2

Have come to the conclusion, that the Party is in desperate need of new, proven leadership.

The Official Monster Raving Loony Party.

And based on his smashing electoral performance, in the face of an entrenched Labour machine AND a rising Tory tide, the right & proper person to lead OMRLP into the future is obvious:

Count Binface.

Beyond receiving (I think) the highest total vote every recorded for a (official) Loony, Binface shares a key attribute with the late great Screaming Lord Sutch - nobility!

SeaShantyIrish2

rcs1000 said:

Rumor of the day: the Emergent Bioscience AZ and J&J vaccines that have not been FDA approved due to contamination have been shipped to Canada, Japan and the EU in contravention of US export controls and are waiting on dispensation from the US before becoming available.

"In contravention of US export controls"

Ain't that a federal offense? Assume it rarely happens, at least with pharma.

Is that true? And if so, why not?

tlg86

I think @isam deserves a lot of credit. He said Starmer was useless and so it has proven to be.

The only question now is can Labour do anything about it before the next GE?

MarqueeMark

swing_voter said:

Interesting re the Opinium, am I right in thinking the Tory vote was lower than their predictions (by 4%?) any ideas why that happened? I used to think Wales had shy Tory voters who said Labour but voted blue?

Wales has a strong muscle memory of its Labour-voting heritage. The pencil poises over Conservative - then reverts to putting an X against Labour. Still, the Blues had their best result in Wales on Thursday. Just at the expense of UKIP, LibDems and PC rather than Labour.

MarqueeMark

Cocky_cockney said:

In terms of this thesis, I 'think' it's probably broadly true but I don't think it's 'proof' that it is. There will be circumstances for example where a wildly popular leader is nevertheless part of an underperforming party, and the opposite where a party outperforms an unpopular leader. Local factors also come into play, especially in local, regional and mayoral elections. It's a good and useful idea to add to the armoury but not to be treated as cast-iron.

And as below, YouGov were spot on. The tories won with a projected national 10% lead (Railings & Thrasher).

And that was a sound basis for my saying a week before the voting that Labour losses could be 200-250. In the end, I was overly generous to Labour - they have now gone past 300. My calculation was set out on 30th April:

"Those seats last fought in 2016 could prove to be horrible for Labour, where they actually finished one point ahead of the Tories on 31%, Tories on 30%, LibDems 15%, UKIP 12%. Looking at projections for these seats - where they won 1326 Councillors to the Tories' 842 - may be where the gloom in Labour's internal machine is coming from."

MarqueeMark

rcs1000 said:

Rumor of the day: the Emergent Bioscience AZ and J&J vaccines that have not been FDA approved due to contamination have been shipped to Canada, Japan and the EU in contravention of US export controls and are waiting on dispensation from the US before becoming available.

So they are shipping out contaminated vaccines? Or the "contamination" was political?

rcs1000

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

Rumor of the day: the Emergent Bioscience AZ and J&J vaccines that have not been FDA approved due to contamination have been shipped to Canada, Japan and the EU in contravention of US export controls and are waiting on dispensation from the US before becoming available.

So they are shipping out contaminated vaccines? Or the "contamination" was political?

I think they're going with "if the US never approves these vaccines, then we're not breaking export restrictions. And there are people in other countries who'd pay good money for these vaccines, even if they might be a little contaminated."

Sandpit

tlg86 said:

I think @isam deserves a lot of credit. He said Starmer was useless and so it has proven to be.

The only question now is can Labour do anything about it before the next GE?

Doing something about it requires both a backbone from the MPs, and an alternative candidate for the membership to vote for.

Who’s that alternative candidate?

I think he stays until the next election, which will probably be spring 2024 despite the FTPA repeal being in the Queen’s Speech next week. The PM will want voters to see the result of infrastructure investment and an economy on the rise, which may not be the case in 2023 - against a 2019 GDP baseline anyway, it’s easy to get 6% ‘growth’ this year when we lost 9% last year!

MarqueeMark

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

Rumor of the day: the Emergent Bioscience AZ and J&J vaccines that have not been FDA approved due to contamination have been shipped to Canada, Japan and the EU in contravention of US export controls and are waiting on dispensation from the US before becoming available.

So they are shipping out contaminated vaccines? Or the "contamination" was political?

I think they're going with "if the US never approves these vaccines, then we're not breaking export restrictions. And there are people in other countries who'd pay good money for these vaccines, even if they might be a little contaminated."

Will people be told they will be having a vaccine that "might be a little contaminated"?

Sounds like a sure fire way to give the anti-vaxxers a shot in the arm....

Sandpit

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

Rumor of the day: the Emergent Bioscience AZ and J&J vaccines that have not been FDA approved due to contamination have been shipped to Canada, Japan and the EU in contravention of US export controls and are waiting on dispensation from the US before becoming available.

So they are shipping out contaminated vaccines? Or the "contamination" was political?

I think they're going with "if the US never approves these vaccines, then we're not breaking export restrictions. And there are people in other countries who'd pay good money for these vaccines, even if they might be a little contaminated."

Presumably they’re not actually contaminated vaccines, but rather the output of the factory which had an earlier problem with handling of vaccine ingredients.

rcs1000

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

Rumor of the day: the Emergent Bioscience AZ and J&J vaccines that have not been FDA approved due to contamination have been shipped to Canada, Japan and the EU in contravention of US export controls and are waiting on dispensation from the US before becoming available.

So they are shipping out contaminated vaccines? Or the "contamination" was political?

I think they're going with "if the US never approves these vaccines, then we're not breaking export restrictions. And there are people in other countries who'd pay good money for these vaccines, even if they might be a little contaminated."

Presumably they’re not actually contaminated vaccines, but rather the output of the factory which had an earlier problem with handling of vaccine ingredients.

Yes, I think that's a fair summary.

Still, not a great look for the Olympic games if it turns out the Japanese vaccine supply comes from a plant that couldn't get its vaccines approved due to contamination.

Scott_xP

...

DecrepiterJohnL

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Have come to the conclusion, that the Party is in desperate need of new, proven leadership.

The Official Monster Raving Loony Party.

And based on his smashing electoral performance, in the face of an entrenched Labour machine AND a rising Tory tide, the right & proper person to lead OMRLP into the future is obvious:

Count Binface.

Beyond receiving (I think) the highest total vote every recorded for a (official) Loony, Binface shares a key attribute with the late great Screaming Lord Sutch - nobility!

More importantly, Count Binface secured 24,775 first preference votes, thus diminishing Shadsy's Christmas fund to the benefit of PBers who backed the noble lord to receive more than 20,000 votes.

MarqueeMark

Scott_xP said:

...

There's good potential for a cartoonist to habitually draw Starmer as an undertaker.....

CarlottaVance

Worth a read - Sir John Curtice:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/newe.12228

Labour emerged from the December 2019 general election badly battered and bruised. In the wake of a contest whose principal purpose was to bring an end to the seemingly endless debate about how Brexit should be settled, it found itself with fewer MPs than at any time since 1935. It is little wonder that the party is debating how it can improve its fortunes now that Brexit has been resolved.

The search for an answer is, however, less straightforward than many in the party seem to appreciate. Although a dominant narrative as to the way forward seems to have emerged, there is an alternative perspective that raises questions about the viability of this approach.

IanB2

MarqueeMark said:

swing_voter said:

Interesting re the Opinium, am I right in thinking the Tory vote was lower than their predictions (by 4%?) any ideas why that happened? I used to think Wales had shy Tory voters who said Labour but voted blue?

Wales has a strong muscle memory of its Labour-voting heritage. The pencil poises over Conservative - then reverts to putting an X against Labour. Still, the Blues had their best result in Wales on Thursday. Just at the expense of UKIP, LibDems and PC rather than Labour.

That doesn’t really wash as an explanation, given that the same could have been said of areas like the North East.

The explanation is that voters didn’t feel like giving governments a kicking when said governments were in the middle of potentially saving their lives through the vaccination programme.

Morris_Dancer

FPT:
Good morning, everyone.

Cheers to Mr. Away, for his Count Binface tips.

CarlottaVance

Looks like Scotland's drug crisis is not getting better anytime soon:

If anything sums up the state of Scottish politics it is today’s result in Dundee West. A city hit hard by the country’s drug crisis, re-electing a man sacked from government for failing to tackle the drugs crisis, with an increased majority. Just depressing.

https://twitter.com/kevwodonnell/status/1390714475972603917?s=20

IanB2

CarlottaVance said:

Worth a read - Sir John Curtice:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/newe.12228

Labour emerged from the December 2019 general election badly battered and bruised. In the wake of a contest whose principal purpose was to bring an end to the seemingly endless debate about how Brexit should be settled, it found itself with fewer MPs than at any time since 1935. It is little wonder that the party is debating how it can improve its fortunes now that Brexit has been resolved.

The search for an answer is, however, less straightforward than many in the party seem to appreciate. Although a dominant narrative as to the way forward seems to have emerged, there is an alternative perspective that raises questions about the viability of this approach.

Buried in that article is a key fact that underpins Labour’s dilemma, and one that is often ignored as commentators (and certain PB’ers) rush to label “Leave seats”:

..nearly two‐thirds (64 per cent) of Labour's support in 2017 in pro‐Leave seats that elected a Labour MP came from those who had voted Remain. In short, any success in winning back red wall seats will be heavily reliant on retaining the support of Remain voters in these seats

IanB2

And from the same article: Moreover, while Labour might want the [Brexit] issue to fall off the political agenda, it is not clear that its political opponents will take the same view. Rather, the party might find itself isolated in its reluctance to talk about the subject. The Conservatives will wish to try to keep their new political coalition together by extolling the benefits that Brexit has brought and, under their stewardship at least, will continue to deliver. Meanwhile, having voted against the trade deal, both the Liberal Democrats and the SNP will be keen to argue the very opposite case – and in so doing hope to erode Labour's support

OldKingCole

IanB2 said:

MarqueeMark said:

swing_voter said:

Interesting re the Opinium, am I right in thinking the Tory vote was lower than their predictions (by 4%?) any ideas why that happened? I used to think Wales had shy Tory voters who said Labour but voted blue?

Wales has a strong muscle memory of its Labour-voting heritage. The pencil poises over Conservative - then reverts to putting an X against Labour. Still, the Blues had their best result in Wales on Thursday. Just at the expense of UKIP, LibDems and PC rather than Labour.

That doesn’t really wash as an explanation, given that the same could have been said of areas like the North East.

The explanation is that voters didn’t feel like giving governments a kicking when said governments were in the middle of potentially saving their lives through the vaccination programme.

Good morning. And a better one than yesterday, although it certainly cleared up here later on. Excellent 'birthday' lunch, too...... takeaway from a new(-ish) Italian restaurant.
And three bottles of promising-looking red wine as presents.

On topic, I think that, while Mr B2 is generally speaking correct, Labour hasn't broken back through with the clear message that it had in, say, 1945 and 1997. And, TBH, the rather brutal dropping of Angela Rayner isn't going to heal wounds.

MarqueeMark

IanB2 said:

MarqueeMark said:

swing_voter said:

Interesting re the Opinium, am I right in thinking the Tory vote was lower than their predictions (by 4%?) any ideas why that happened? I used to think Wales had shy Tory voters who said Labour but voted blue?

Wales has a strong muscle memory of its Labour-voting heritage. The pencil poises over Conservative - then reverts to putting an X against Labour. Still, the Blues had their best result in Wales on Thursday. Just at the expense of UKIP, LibDems and PC rather than Labour.

That doesn’t really wash as an explanation, given that the same could have been said of areas like the North East.

The explanation is that voters didn’t feel like giving governments a kicking when said governments were in the middle of potentially saving their lives through the vaccination programme.

I that is so, it should worry Labour. Having lost Scotland, the loss of Brexit-supporting Wales has simply been deferred until after Covid.

IanB2

OldKingCole said:

IanB2 said:

MarqueeMark said:

swing_voter said:

Interesting re the Opinium, am I right in thinking the Tory vote was lower than their predictions (by 4%?) any ideas why that happened? I used to think Wales had shy Tory voters who said Labour but voted blue?

Wales has a strong muscle memory of its Labour-voting heritage. The pencil poises over Conservative - then reverts to putting an X against Labour. Still, the Blues had their best result in Wales on Thursday. Just at the expense of UKIP, LibDems and PC rather than Labour.

That doesn’t really wash as an explanation, given that the same could have been said of areas like the North East.

The explanation is that voters didn’t feel like giving governments a kicking when said governments were in the middle of potentially saving their lives through the vaccination programme.

Good morning. And a better one than yesterday, although it certainly cleared up here later on. Excellent 'birthday' lunch, too...... takeaway from a new(-ish) Italian restaurant.
And three bottles of promising-looking red wine as presents.

On topic, I think that, while Mr B2 is generally speaking correct, Labour hasn't broken back through with the clear message that it had in, say, 1945 and 1997. And, TBH, the rather brutal dropping of Angela Rayner isn't going to heal wounds.

It is hard to make sense of the Rayner decision unless, as the New Stateman jests, she’s been up to something we don’t know about, behind the scenes.

Perhaps he has someone specific in mind for the job? But even then, he’s sacked her in a brutal, public way, when had he simply wanted a new face he could have eased her out of the way more sensitively.

The only sense I can make of it is that, in his despair, Starmer has been watching Kinnock and Blair speeches to Labour conferences on loop, and leapt up suddenly determined to start his own civil war with the Left.

MarqueeMark

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

Rumor of the day: the Emergent Bioscience AZ and J&J vaccines that have not been FDA approved due to contamination have been shipped to Canada, Japan and the EU in contravention of US export controls and are waiting on dispensation from the US before becoming available.

So they are shipping out contaminated vaccines? Or the "contamination" was political?

I think they're going with "if the US never approves these vaccines, then we're not breaking export restrictions. And there are people in other countries who'd pay good money for these vaccines, even if they might be a little contaminated."

Presumably they’re not actually contaminated vaccines, but rather the output of the factory which had an earlier problem with handling of vaccine ingredients.

Yes, I think that's a fair summary.

Still, not a great look for the Olympic games if it turns out the Japanese vaccine supply comes from a plant that couldn't get its vaccines approved due to contamination.

I thought one of the issues for Japan is that they will not approve vaccines until they have been tested on Japanese and demonstrated to work on Japanese?

MattW

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

Rumor of the day: the Emergent Bioscience AZ and J&J vaccines that have not been FDA approved due to contamination have been shipped to Canada, Japan and the EU in contravention of US export controls and are waiting on dispensation from the US before becoming available.

So they are shipping out contaminated vaccines? Or the "contamination" was political?

I think they're going with "if the US never approves these vaccines, then we're not breaking export restrictions. And there are people in other countries who'd pay good money for these vaccines, even if they might be a little contaminated."

Presumably they’re not actually contaminated vaccines, but rather the output of the factory which had an earlier problem with handling of vaccine ingredients.

Yes, I think that's a fair summary.

Still, not a great look for the Olympic games if it turns out the Japanese vaccine supply comes from a plant that couldn't get its vaccines approved due to contamination.

I thought one of the issues for Japan is that they will not approve vaccines until they have been tested on Japanese and demonstrated to work on Japanese?

The 15m contaminated batch was J&J, into which AZ ingredients had been mixed.

Presumably QC could identify and clear non-contaminated batches.

rcs1000

IanB2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Worth a read - Sir John Curtice:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/newe.12228

Labour emerged from the December 2019 general election badly battered and bruised. In the wake of a contest whose principal purpose was to bring an end to the seemingly endless debate about how Brexit should be settled, it found itself with fewer MPs than at any time since 1935. It is little wonder that the party is debating how it can improve its fortunes now that Brexit has been resolved.

The search for an answer is, however, less straightforward than many in the party seem to appreciate. Although a dominant narrative as to the way forward seems to have emerged, there is an alternative perspective that raises questions about the viability of this approach.

Buried in that article is a key fact that underpins Labour’s dilemma, and one that is often ignored as commentators (and certain PB’ers) rush to label “Leave seats”:

..nearly two‐thirds (64 per cent) of Labour's support in 2017 in pro‐Leave seats that elected a Labour MP came from those who had voted Remain. In short, any success in winning back red wall seats will be heavily reliant on retaining the support of Remain voters in these seats

Well that highlights their problem, surely. How do they attract leave voters, without frightening away remainers?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 1000, accept we're out of the EU but say the current deal isn't good enough and Britain deserves better?

DecrepiterJohnL

Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)



The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:-
(a) Unmarked 18,071
(b) Uncertain 8,672
(c) Voting for too many 87,214
(d) Writing identifying voter 167
(e) Want of official mark 77
Total 114,201

The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:-
(a) Uncertain 965
(b) Voting for too many 7,037
Total 8,002

In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.

In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.

Nemtynakht

MarqueeMark said:

swing_voter said:

Interesting re the Opinium, am I right in thinking the Tory vote was lower than their predictions (by 4%?) any ideas why that happened? I used to think Wales had shy Tory voters who said Labour but voted blue?

Wales has a strong muscle memory of its Labour-voting heritage. The pencil poises over Conservative - then reverts to putting an X against Labour. Still, the Blues had their best result in Wales on Thursday. Just at the expense of UKIP, LibDems and PC rather than Labour.

What the Welsh Tories need is their own charismatic leader. For a party led by the despised Johnson, I think Ross has more to thank Davidson for on the STories voting numbers, as she broke through there. What should worry labour is that local known leadership seems to have as yet prevented the breakdown of Labour vote outside of cities in Wales and North West. There is no reason to think that it won't happen in future to some extent .

tlg86

IanB2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Worth a read - Sir John Curtice:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/newe.12228

Labour emerged from the December 2019 general election badly battered and bruised. In the wake of a contest whose principal purpose was to bring an end to the seemingly endless debate about how Brexit should be settled, it found itself with fewer MPs than at any time since 1935. It is little wonder that the party is debating how it can improve its fortunes now that Brexit has been resolved.

The search for an answer is, however, less straightforward than many in the party seem to appreciate. Although a dominant narrative as to the way forward seems to have emerged, there is an alternative perspective that raises questions about the viability of this approach.

Buried in that article is a key fact that underpins Labour’s dilemma, and one that is often ignored as commentators (and certain PB’ers) rush to label “Leave seats”:

..nearly two‐thirds (64 per cent) of Labour's support in 2017 in pro‐Leave seats that elected a Labour MP came from those who had voted Remain. In short, any success in winning back red wall seats will be heavily reliant on retaining the support of Remain voters in these seats

It’s a fair point, though I wonder how many voted remain because that’s what Labour was telling them to do.

Ultimately I think Labour needs to choose between going after its old voters and effectively take for granted its current core vote or going after remainers in places like Woking. Personally I think the first of those is the way to go.

CarlottaVance

The Prime Minister is warning Australia's international borders will remain closed for the foreseeable future, as his Treasurer notes this week's federal budget assumes Australia will remain locked off to the rest of the world until at least 2022

https://twitter.com/maxwalden_/status/1391275043166973956?s=20

MattW

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)



The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:-
(a) Unmarked 18,071
(b) Uncertain 8,672
(c) Voting for too many 87,214
(d) Writing identifying voter 167
(e) Want of official mark 77
Total 114,201

The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:-
(a) Uncertain 965
(b) Voting for too many 7,037
Total 8,002

In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.

In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.

Yes - awful ergonomics.

You actually have to vote twice across two different "column A"s. My quick reaction is that the biggest columns on the page are A and B.

How are these things designed / regulated? Is this another Electoral Commission fail, or is it designed by the Authority "Elections Department"?

Morris_Dancer

Betting Post

F1: this week's money-burning exercise is 2.1 on there being 17.5 classified finishers. That's happened both in two-thirds of recent races* and two-thirds of 2021 races.

https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2021/05/spain-pre-race-2021.html

Edited extra bit: *in Spain.

DecrepiterJohnL

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

IanB2 said:

MarqueeMark said:

swing_voter said:

Interesting re the Opinium, am I right in thinking the Tory vote was lower than their predictions (by 4%?) any ideas why that happened? I used to think Wales had shy Tory voters who said Labour but voted blue?

Wales has a strong muscle memory of its Labour-voting heritage. The pencil poises over Conservative - then reverts to putting an X against Labour. Still, the Blues had their best result in Wales on Thursday. Just at the expense of UKIP, LibDems and PC rather than Labour.

That doesn’t really wash as an explanation, given that the same could have been said of areas like the North East.

The explanation is that voters didn’t feel like giving governments a kicking when said governments were in the middle of potentially saving their lives through the vaccination programme.

Good morning. And a better one than yesterday, although it certainly cleared up here later on. Excellent 'birthday' lunch, too...... takeaway from a new(-ish) Italian restaurant.
And three bottles of promising-looking red wine as presents.

On topic, I think that, while Mr B2 is generally speaking correct, Labour hasn't broken back through with the clear message that it had in, say, 1945 and 1997. And, TBH, the rather brutal dropping of Angela Rayner isn't going to heal wounds.

It is hard to make sense of the Rayner decision unless, as the New Stateman jests, she’s been up to something we don’t know about, behind the scenes.

Perhaps he has someone specific in mind for the job? But even then, he’s sacked her in a brutal, public way, when had he simply wanted a new face he could have eased her out of the way more sensitively.

The only sense I can make of it is that, in his despair, Starmer has been watching Kinnock and Blair speeches to Labour conferences on loop, and leapt up suddenly determined to start his own civil war with the Left.

Or Starmer has been listening to Lord Mandelson, which he has, or he has seen it advocated on PB, though perhaps not by people whose first concern is returning a Labour government.

YBarddCwsc

I think his opponents did underestimate the Drake, & I myself thought he would lose some seats. To match Rhodri at his peak is a great achievement.

However, the Drake has two enormous pieces of luck.

1. The Welsh Tory leader 'RT' is abysmal, and the standard of the Welsh Tories in the Senedd is low (even by the prostrate, stomach on the floor standard in the Senedd).

2. Plaid Cymru is riven with factionalism. In all the three PC target seats from 2016 (Llanelli, Blaenau Gwent, Cardiff West), the Plaid Cymru hierarchy has quarrelled with the local party. In fact, McEvoy and Copner (the candidates who came close in Cardiff West and BG in 2016) are no longer even in Plaid Cymru. You should nurse your target seats, not argue with them.

Like Sturgeon, the Drake also benefits from a split opposition -- eg Wrecsam would have fallen if the opposition had not been so neatly divided.

So, I am not sure that there are wider lessons for Labour from the good performance in Wales.

As in all Senedd elections, the party that really won is the Didn't Vote Party. Turnout was again lower than 50 per cent.

tlg86

My dad wasn’t going to bother voting in the PCC election anyway, but he said that the ballot paper put him off and he wouldn’t bother with something as complicated as that.

I showed him the London mayoral ballot and he said he thought that it was rigged!

I think AV would be better and clearly the deposit needs to go up substantially in London.

OldKingCole

tlg86 said:

IanB2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Worth a read - Sir John Curtice:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/newe.12228

Labour emerged from the December 2019 general election badly battered and bruised. In the wake of a contest whose principal purpose was to bring an end to the seemingly endless debate about how Brexit should be settled, it found itself with fewer MPs than at any time since 1935. It is little wonder that the party is debating how it can improve its fortunes now that Brexit has been resolved.

The search for an answer is, however, less straightforward than many in the party seem to appreciate. Although a dominant narrative as to the way forward seems to have emerged, there is an alternative perspective that raises questions about the viability of this approach.

Buried in that article is a key fact that underpins Labour’s dilemma, and one that is often ignored as commentators (and certain PB’ers) rush to label “Leave seats”:

..nearly two‐thirds (64 per cent) of Labour's support in 2017 in pro‐Leave seats that elected a Labour MP came from those who had voted Remain. In short, any success in winning back red wall seats will be heavily reliant on retaining the support of Remain voters in these seats

It’s a fair point, though I wonder how many voted remain because that’s what Labour was telling them to do.

Ultimately I think Labour needs to choose between going after its old voters and effectively take for granted its current core vote or going after remainers in places like Woking. Personally I think the first of those is the way to go.

I don't get the feeling that Remain/Rejoin is giving up any time soon. Meanwhile Leave/Stay out is wrapped in the Union Flag/Global Britain.

I think that the 'deal' with India, where people can go either way for two years might blow up in the Government's face; there are a lot more jobs here that young Indians would be willing to do than the other way around.

CarlottaVance

Nicola Sturgeon wants a second Scottish referendum – but will she get one?
The First Minister faces two obstacles to a fresh vote: Boris Johnson and the Scottish people’s own caution.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2021/05/nicola-sturgeon-wants-second-scottish-referendum-will-she-get-one

YBarddCwsc

CarlottaVance said:

On topic did autocorrect change “magnificent” to “munificent”?

Also given both Drakeford and Sturgeon were well rated, why did only the former significantly outperform the polls?

Drakeford did not successfully outperform the late polls.

There was a steady movement in the polling throughout the Spring towards Labour.

That was -- at least in part -- the vaccine rollout. After a slow start, the Drake the took the lead in the Vaccine Four Nations contest.

Theuniondivvie

Agree largely with the header though Sarwar and Ross provide somewhat contradictory evidence for the theory. I wonder if the figures for voters not knowing much about the subject play into it? From memory large numbers in polling didn’t know much about either, possibly this was a disadvantage for the positively rated former, an advantage for the negatively rated latter.
Of course pretty much everyone and their aunty know who Salmond is..

RochdalePioneers

Morning all! The Conference of the Nation's looks like it could be quite fruity:

The UK is now self-evidently 4 nations. The topic of the day is the all-dominance of the Tories but that is in England and only in England. Wales has just handed Labour as much power and as many seats as it's ever had. Scotland has just given the SNP its biggest ever vote and elected a comfortable majority of independence MSPs.

And then we have NornIron where it's casting away from being an integral part of the UK has seen the downfall of Come on Arlene and a resumption of rioting.

None of the other home nations are going to agree with Boris Johnson blustering away that we are all one happy United Kingdom under him with a massive Tory mandate. That is only true in England.

It's time for Boris to step up and seize the opportunity. If he recognises that his power only exists in England and that the other nations have different ideas, he can remake the UK fit for the future and be a legend. Or, he can thump the conference table as he does the dispatch box, demand fealty and be the loser who breaks up the UK.

Morris_Dancer

King Cole, if that's accurate, it's going to be a serious problem for the Government.

OldKingCole

Morris_Dancer said:

King Cole, if that's accurate, it's going to be a serious problem for the Government.

Agreed; others may know the details better, and I'd be happy to be advised.

CarlottaVance

Labour lose control of Durham Council heartland for first time in a century

https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1391279496280563713?s=20

Cocky_cockney

Nemtynakht said:

MarqueeMark said:

swing_voter said:

Interesting re the Opinium, am I right in thinking the Tory vote was lower than their predictions (by 4%?) any ideas why that happened? I used to think Wales had shy Tory voters who said Labour but voted blue?

Wales has a strong muscle memory of its Labour-voting heritage. The pencil poises over Conservative - then reverts to putting an X against Labour. Still, the Blues had their best result in Wales on Thursday. Just at the expense of UKIP, LibDems and PC rather than Labour.

What the Welsh Tories need is their own charismatic leader. For a party led by the despised Johnson

What an absolute load of rubbish.

Welsh Conservatives celebrated its best ever Senedd election, winning 16 seats, a gain of 6.

The Conservatives came second, pushing Plaid Cymru into third place.

Expressing your own dislike of Johnson is fine but don't project it onto spurious nonsense on behalf of the rest of the Welsh electorate.

Ta.

Cocky_cockney

RochdalePioneers said:

Scotland has just given the SNP its biggest ever vote

No it wasn't. In 2011 Alex Salmond won an outright SNP majority.

The SNP this time fell short, gaining only 1 seat, and more Scottish people voted for unionist parties than independence.

Another example of a poster projecting their own wishful thinking on behalf of the electorate and failing to read what has actually happened.

The SNP failed in their objective to win an outright majority. The Sunday Telegraph today is right: the pressure on Scottish independence is now off. There won't be one.

This was a triumphant election for the union. Welsh Labour, an avowedly unionist party, won with the Welsh Conservatives, an avowedly unionist party, second. Plaid were a poor third.

Unionism won across the whole UK by a clear and convincing majority.

Carnyx

CarlottaVance said:

Nicola Sturgeon wants a second Scottish referendum – but will she get one?
The First Minister faces two obstacles to a fresh vote: Boris Johnson and the Scottish people’s own caution.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2021/05/nicola-sturgeon-wants-second-scottish-referendum-will-she-get-one

Hmm, that's already out of date - SNP on "63".

DecrepiterJohnL

MattW said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)



The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:-
(a) Unmarked 18,071
(b) Uncertain 8,672
(c) Voting for too many 87,214
(d) Writing identifying voter 167
(e) Want of official mark 77
Total 114,201

The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:-
(a) Uncertain 965
(b) Voting for too many 7,037
Total 8,002

In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.

In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.

Yes - awful ergonomics.

You actually have to vote twice across two different "column A"s. My quick reaction is that the biggest columns on the page are A and B.

How are these things designed / regulated? Is this another Electoral Commission fail, or is it designed by the Authority "Elections Department"?

I'm not sure who is responsible for designing the ballot paper. It might even have been signed off by the major parties for all I know. One fix would have been simply to place each candidate's party label on the same line as their name, rather than underneath. This would allow all the candidates to fit in the same column.

And why use A and B to describe the first and second preference boxes?

Depending whether you include the voters who made the same first and second choices, the error rate was somewhere between 4 and 14 per cent.

TheScreamingEagles

CarlottaVance said:

On topic did autocorrect change “magnificent” to “munificent”?

Also given both Drakeford and Sturgeon were well rated, why did only the former significantly outperform the polls?

No, I chose munificent for a specific reason.

Munificent is a synonym for 'princely' and we all know Drakeford is the true Prince of Wales.

squareroot2

IanB2 said:

And from the same article: Moreover, while Labour might want the [Brexit] issue to fall off the political agenda, it is not clear that its political opponents will take the same view. Rather, the party might find itself isolated in its reluctance to talk about the subject. The Conservatives will wish to try to keep their new political coalition together by extolling the benefits that Brexit has brought and, under their stewardship at least, will continue to deliver. Meanwhile, having voted against the trade deal, both the Liberal Democrats and the SNP will be keen to argue the very opposite case – and in so doing hope to erode Labour's support

Brexit us NOT going to fall off the agenda . The UK Govt can engineer any number of arguments with the EU eg The British Sausage.. just to remind voters how perfidious the fecking EU are

Carnyx

Theuniondivvie said:

Agree largely with the header though Sarwar and Ross provide somewhat contradictory evidence for the theory. I wonder if the figures for voters not knowing much about the subject play into it? From memory large numbers in polling didn’t know much about either, possibly this was a disadvantage for the positively rated former, an advantage for the negatively rated latter.
Of course pretty much everyone and their aunty know who Salmond is..

And Mr Johnson too. Who is almost as unpopular as Mr Salmond in Scotland. Either Mr Ross managed to get the metaphorical air freshener out in time, or there was a lot of nose-holding.

RochdalePioneers

Cocky_cockney said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scotland has just given the SNP its biggest ever vote and elected a comfortable majority of independence MSPs.

No it wasn't. In 2011 Alex Salmond won an outright SNP majority.

The SNP this time fell short, gaining only 1 seat, and more Scottish people voted for unionist parties than independence.

Another example of a poster projecting their own wishful thinking on behalf of the electorate and failing to read what has actually happened.

The SNP failed in their objective to win an outright majority. The Sunday Telegraph today is right: the pressure on Scottish independence is now off. There won't be one.

This was a triumphant election for the union. Welsh Labour, an avowedly unionist party, won with the Welsh Conservatives, an avowedly unionist party, second. Plaid were a poor third.

Unionism won across the whole UK by a clear and convincing majority.

So I said "The SNP has just been given its biggest ever vote" and you said no, that was 2011.

In 2021 the SNP gained 2.386m votes
In 2011 the SNP gained 1.779m votes

I think I am projecting my ability to count...

CarlottaVance

Will Hutton:

After Thatcherism and Corbynism, welcome to Houchenism, the doctrine of Tees Valley mayor, Ben Houchen, and endorsed by a whopping 73% of Teesside voters. This 34-year-old northern loyalist is the Tory party’s contemporary version of Michael Heseltine, the lone standard bearer at Thatcher’s zenith of a willingness to intervene “at breakfast, lunch and supper”. Houchen is today’s Tory carrying the Heseltine torch, intervening to reinvent Teesside with the massive backing of his electorate. And a generation later, this Heseltine de nos jours has the backing, not the loathing, of the prime minister. It will not have escaped Boris Johnson’s notice, a self-described Brexity Hezza, that Houchen’s intervention is working big time, economically and politically.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/08/houchenism-the-brand-of-can-do-tory-threatening-the-left-and-right-old-guard

kle4

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

LostPassword said:

dixiedean said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Been at the pub and a few drinks down so bear with me.

It seems to me that Starmer has concluded a public fight with the left is the way to go, based on Mandelson's column I can only assume he is involved.

But Rayner isn't the left. Nor is Nandy. They are both from one of the few areas they've done well too.
And Burnham suggests he's picking a fight with everyone.

Yes. It's Blairism by numbers, but he's got the paint pots mixed up, and it's so amateurish and self-defeating that it's embarassing.

Yep. He has Burnham and McDonnell speaking with one voice. Quite an achievement.

He is looking to unify the party...against him!

Making himself the sacrifice to bring together the two factions who are currently imolwcsbly opposed. Very selfless.

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Betting Post

F1: this week's money-burning exercise is 2.1 on there being 17.5 classified finishers. That's happened both in two-thirds of recent races* and two-thirds of 2021 races.

https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2021/05/spain-pre-race-2021.html

Edited extra bit: *in Spain.

Interesting bet, that I hadn’t considered. Maybe a cover bet of seeing the safety car, which will likely happen if two cars collide and are eliminated?

I’m thinking this one will have the top three run away into the distance, but be the usual bunfight behind them for the minor points positions. Last year was a two-stop race, but it was hotter in August.

Perez in the RB is quickly suffering from Albon’s problem last season, that he’s not close enough to Max to stop the Dutchman getting played by two Mercs on the race strategy.

Jonathan

Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.

In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.

Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.

Cocky_cockney

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Agree largely with the header though Sarwar and Ross provide somewhat contradictory evidence for the theory. I wonder if the figures for voters not knowing much about the subject play into it? From memory large numbers in polling didn’t know much about either, possibly this was a disadvantage for the positively rated former, an advantage for the negatively rated latter.
Of course pretty much everyone and their aunty know who Salmond is..

And Mr Johnson too. Who is almost as unpopular as Mr Salmond in Scotland.

Another wild exaggeration.

I am sorry that those on here who hate Johnson didn't get the results they wanted but please try to step back and have a little objectivity. You will continue to make mistakes and call the wrong results if you are myopic. Successful Psephology and political betting means bracketing one's own desires and seeing a thing for what it actually is, not what one wishes were the case.

In the words of Marcus Aurelius, “This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material?”

YBarddCwsc

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

LostPassword said:

dixiedean said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Been at the pub and a few drinks down so bear with me.

It seems to me that Starmer has concluded a public fight with the left is the way to go, based on Mandelson's column I can only assume he is involved.

But Rayner isn't the left. Nor is Nandy. They are both from one of the few areas they've done well too.
And Burnham suggests he's picking a fight with everyone.

Yes. It's Blairism by numbers, but he's got the paint pots mixed up, and it's so amateurish and self-defeating that it's embarassing.

Yep. He has Burnham and McDonnell speaking with one voice. Quite an achievement.

He is looking to unify the party...against him!

Making himself the sacrifice to bring together the two factions who are currently imolwcsbly opposed. Very selfless.

Terrible optics.

Lord knows, I never rated Starmer, but I did not think he would be this bad this quickly.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sandpit, nice idea but the odds don't line up. I forget what they were for seeing one, but no safety car was 2.4.

At times Perez seems to have the pace. I think the problem's psychological, which doesn't speak well of Red Bull that it keeps happening (and that two good drivers, Vettel and Ricciardo, chose to leave).

kle4

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Agree largely with the header though Sarwar and Ross provide somewhat contradictory evidence for the theory. I wonder if the figures for voters not knowing much about the subject play into it? From memory large numbers in polling didn’t know much about either, possibly this was a disadvantage for the positively rated former, an advantage for the negatively rated latter.
Of course pretty much everyone and their aunty know who Salmond is..

And Mr Johnson too. Who is almost as unpopular as Mr Salmond in Scotland. Either Mr Ross managed to get the metaphorical air freshener out in time, or there was a lot of nose-holding.

Is it perhaps because while Sslmod reentering the fray was new hes been prominent for so long his ratings dampened any support Alba could have had, whereas while Ross rates badly next to Sarwar the latter has been actual leader so briefly his better rating didn't have time to really lock in a better vote? People have mentally been preparing to hold their nose for SCON for some time after all

RochdalePioneers

As posters seem determined to set aside the seats won in Scotland in favour of votes cast, do we do the same for the 2019 UK general election? Despite the Tories winning an 80 seat majority, more people voted for remain parties than leave parties.

Are the people saying "no total vote majority, no mandate for Independence" also taking their logic and saying "no total vote majority for Brexit, we stay in the EU"?

No? Shame...

The electoral results are clear. If a minority of voters get to give a clear electoral mandate to the Tories to get Brexit done, that same electoral mandate is there for Scottish Independence. Unless (a) the posters think a different set of rules apply to Scotland which is the exact point the SNP are making to pick up their record votes tally or (b) you're just screaming hypocrites.

TheScreamingEagles

Theuniondivvie said:

Agree largely with the header though Sarwar and Ross provide somewhat contradictory evidence for the theory. I wonder if the figures for voters not knowing much about the subject play into it? From memory large numbers in polling didn’t know much about either, possibly this was a disadvantage for the positively rated former, an advantage for the negatively rated latter.
Of course pretty much everyone and their aunty know who Salmond is..

I did cut a section from the thread header about that, the gist of it covers your thoughts, the other issue that probably had an impact was the most recent thing people associated Salmond with was non political stuff, the trial and his evidence of Holyrood which were very high profile and the latter was recent.

I'm guessing it is a Jeremy Thorpe effect, guilty or not guilty it is a very poor narrative to lead and campaign from.

I think you and I discussed on here that Salmond was highly rated in this year's polls by Scottish Conservatives, people who would never vote for him, that support was mainly due to him causing difficulties for the Sturgeon/The SNP/Scottish independence.

Foxy

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 1000, accept we're out of the EU but say the current deal isn't good enough and Britain deserves better?

That is the current Labour position, communicated with Starmers usual competence.

However it is also the Tory position and indeed the Lib Dem one. The three parties differ on what they see as "better".

Carnyx

Cocky_cockney said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Agree largely with the header though Sarwar and Ross provide somewhat contradictory evidence for the theory. I wonder if the figures for voters not knowing much about the subject play into it? From memory large numbers in polling didn’t know much about either, possibly this was a disadvantage for the positively rated former, an advantage for the negatively rated latter.
Of course pretty much everyone and their aunty know who Salmond is..

And Mr Johnson too. Who is almost as unpopular as Mr Salmond in Scotland.

Another wild exaggeration.

I am sorry that those on here who hate Johnson didn't get the results they wanted but please try to step back and have a little objectivity. You will continue to make mistakes and call the wrong results if you are myopic. Successful Psephology and political betting means bracketing one's own desires and seeing a thing for what it actually is, not what one wishes were the case.

In the words of Marcus Aurelius, “This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material?”

It's not me who is saying that. It's the graph at the top.

-54 Johnson. -60 Salmond.

The point I am making is that the relationship to the vote is not simple.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Pioneers, your question does rather disregard the fact that votes have been specifically held on both the EU and Scotland leaving the UK.

RochdalePioneers

Jonathan said:

Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.

In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.

Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.

The best thing Labour can do now is to break up what's left of the UK party and found fraternal national parties. Labour does very well in Wales and very badly in England and Scotland. Create wholly separate registrations and let the parties do their own thing.

As long as there is a compact to have one whip in Westminster, they will be able to win more seats by saying different things to the different electorates.

kle4

CarlottaVance said:

On topic did autocorrect change “magnificent” to “munificent”?

Also given both Drakeford and Sturgeon were well rated, why did only the former significantly outperform the polls?

As the SNP were already at or near their ceiling of support? So the effect is lessened and you can even disappoint.

Cocky_cockney

RochdalePioneers said:

Cocky_cockney said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scotland has just given the SNP its biggest ever vote and elected a comfortable majority of independence MSPs.

No it wasn't. In 2011 Alex Salmond won an outright SNP majority.

The SNP this time fell short, gaining only 1 seat, and more Scottish people voted for unionist parties than independence.

Another example of a poster projecting their own wishful thinking on behalf of the electorate and failing to read what has actually happened.

The SNP failed in their objective to win an outright majority. The Sunday Telegraph today is right: the pressure on Scottish independence is now off. There won't be one.

This was a triumphant election for the union. Welsh Labour, an avowedly unionist party, won with the Welsh Conservatives, an avowedly unionist party, second. Plaid were a poor third.

Unionism won across the whole UK by a clear and convincing majority.

So I said "The SNP has just been given its biggest ever vote" and you said no, that was 2011.

In 2021 the SNP gained 2.386m votes
In 2011 the SNP gained 1.779m votes

I think I am projecting my ability to count...

The second half of your sentence boldly proclaimed about MSPs and I'm pointing out to you that you are wrong. In 2011 Alex Salmond's SNP won an outright majority. Sturgeon failed to do the same.

Populations grow and turnouts vary so the Trump 'I won more votes' argument is a poor one.

Fishing

Re the Curtice article:

I am more and more convinced that Labour is suffering from the same identity crisis that has hit centre-left parties all over the democratic world since the deindustrialisation and the collapse of Communism. However, that was masked to a large extent in the 90s and 00s for Labour by the political genius of Tony Blair and the Conservative mistakes that he ruthlessly exploited.

From that, it follows that Labour's best strategy is to find another political genius, and wait for the Conservatives to screw up. Not a very satisfying one, and maybe very long-term, but maybe more effective than targeting whatever micro-sliver of the electoral is fashionable that week.

Carnyx

kle4 said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Agree largely with the header though Sarwar and Ross provide somewhat contradictory evidence for the theory. I wonder if the figures for voters not knowing much about the subject play into it? From memory large numbers in polling didn’t know much about either, possibly this was a disadvantage for the positively rated former, an advantage for the negatively rated latter.
Of course pretty much everyone and their aunty know who Salmond is..

And Mr Johnson too. Who is almost as unpopular as Mr Salmond in Scotland. Either Mr Ross managed to get the metaphorical air freshener out in time, or there was a lot of nose-holding.

Is it perhaps because while Sslmod reentering the fray was new hes been prominent for so long his ratings dampened any support Alba could have had, whereas while Ross rates badly next to Sarwar the latter has been actual leader so briefly his better rating didn't have time to really lock in a better vote? People have mentally been preparing to hold their nose for SCON for some time after all

Mr Sarwar's been around and fairly prominent for a long time but you may well be right. People do have difficulty remembering who the current leader of SLAB is. On the other hand he did get some exposure oin the media during the election campaign.

THat's certainly one definition of tactical voting! And there was quite a bit on both sides, especially if one includes the difference between constituency and list votes.

kle4

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

Rumor of the day: the Emergent Bioscience AZ and J&J vaccines that have not been FDA approved due to contamination have been shipped to Canada, Japan and the EU in contravention of US export controls and are waiting on dispensation from the US before becoming available.

So they are shipping out contaminated vaccines? Or the "contamination" was political?

I think they're going with "if the US never approves these vaccines, then we're not breaking export restrictions. And there are people in other countries who'd pay good money for these vaccines, even if they might be a little contaminated."

They used to sell bags of broken biscuits, but this seems an odd thing to operate the same principle.

Jonathan

RochdalePioneers said:

Jonathan said:

Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.

In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.

Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.

The best thing Labour can do now is to break up what's left of the UK party and found fraternal national parties. Labour does very well in Wales and very badly in England and Scotland. Create wholly separate registrations and let the parties do their own thing.

As long as there is a compact to have one whip in Westminster, they will be able to win more seats by saying different things to the different electorates.

It needs to solve the problem in England. There are plenty of regions that do not have a voice. For example, the south fully taken for granted by the Tories for decades is ripe for the plucking. There is a southern identity.

MattW

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)



The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:-
(a) Unmarked 18,071
(b) Uncertain 8,672
(c) Voting for too many 87,214
(d) Writing identifying voter 167
(e) Want of official mark 77
Total 114,201

The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:-
(a) Uncertain 965
(b) Voting for too many 7,037
Total 8,002

In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.

In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.

So the number of rejected ballots in the Mayoral Election was a lot.

This is not the first time. There were 500k rejected ballots across Mayoral and Assembly elections in 2004.

Source:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/jun/12/uk.london1

And there were 142k rejected ballots in the 2007 Holyrood Elections.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6637387.stm

Anyone know what steps were taken after the other times?

It seems that in London the lesson of 2004 was not learnt. Unless there was a huge "spoil your vote" campaign.

How many votes were rejected in Scotland this time, and have lessons been learnt there from 2007?

Carnyx

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

On topic did autocorrect change “magnificent” to “munificent”?

Also given both Drakeford and Sturgeon were well rated, why did only the former significantly outperform the polls?

As the SNP were already at or near their ceiling of support? So the effect is lessened and you can even disappoint.

Also the Scottish voting system - the SNP were at the point where increase in votes get very little extra seats. It's highly nonlinear.

RochdalePioneers

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pioneers, your question does rather disregard the fact that votes have been specifically held on both the EU and Scotland leaving the UK.

Not at all - they were in previous parliaments. My point here is simple.

In 2019 Brexit was not settled. The Tories campaigned on Get Brexit Done. They won a majority of 80 despite a majority of votes being cast for parties who wanted to stop Brexit

In 2021 the union is not settled. The SNP and Greens campaigned for independence and won a majority of 8 despite a majority of votes being cast for unionist parties.

The same principle either applies to both of it is not a principle at all. The Tories clearly won the 2019 election. The pro-indy parties clearly won the 2021 election. The people who support "seats count not votes" argue the reverse north of the border. I am just enquiring as to if they are English supremacists or hypocrites.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jonathan, carving England into bits is a wretched idea.

MarqueeMark

CarlottaVance said:

Opinium on their Wales poll performance:

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1391028419245268994?s=20

Except, you need to check your self-congratulatory press releases when trumpeting your success - not put out a number that shows you were 12% off!!!

"And a similar story with the regional list vote as well
Lab 38% / 26%"

It was 38% / 36%.....

kle4

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)



The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:-
(a) Unmarked 18,071
(b) Uncertain 8,672
(c) Voting for too many 87,214
(d) Writing identifying voter 167
(e) Want of official mark 77
Total 114,201

The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:-
(a) Uncertain 965
(b) Voting for too many 7,037
Total 8,002

In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.

In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.

That seems like a massive number of rejected votes even in a city its size.

MarqueeMark

Carnyx said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

On topic did autocorrect change “magnificent” to “munificent”?

Also given both Drakeford and Sturgeon were well rated, why did only the former significantly outperform the polls?

As the SNP were already at or near their ceiling of support? So the effect is lessened and you can even disappoint.

Also the Scottish voting system - the SNP were at the point where increase in votes get very little extra seats. It's highly nonlinear.

At least that part of Blair's gerrymandering worked....

RochdalePioneers

Cocky_cockney said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Cocky_cockney said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scotland has just given the SNP its biggest ever vote and elected a comfortable majority of independence MSPs.

No it wasn't. In 2011 Alex Salmond won an outright SNP majority.

The SNP this time fell short, gaining only 1 seat, and more Scottish people voted for unionist parties than independence.

Another example of a poster projecting their own wishful thinking on behalf of the electorate and failing to read what has actually happened.

The SNP failed in their objective to win an outright majority. The Sunday Telegraph today is right: the pressure on Scottish independence is now off. There won't be one.

This was a triumphant election for the union. Welsh Labour, an avowedly unionist party, won with the Welsh Conservatives, an avowedly unionist party, second. Plaid were a poor third.

Unionism won across the whole UK by a clear and convincing majority.

So I said "The SNP has just been given its biggest ever vote" and you said no, that was 2011.

In 2021 the SNP gained 2.386m votes
In 2011 the SNP gained 1.779m votes

I think I am projecting my ability to count...

The second half of your sentence boldly proclaimed about MSPs and I'm pointing out to you that you are wrong. In 2011 Alex Salmond's SNP won an outright majority. Sturgeon failed to do the same.

Populations grow and turnouts vary so the Trump 'I won more votes' argument is a poor one.

Love, it is literally the argument I made which you said wasn't true. It is true. You can move on to try and make a second argument - that growth in votes doesn't count - and that's fine but my point was a simple and demonstrable fact not open to debate.

So, your second argument. That seats count and not votes. There is an 8 seat majority for independence. You say seats won count and not votes cast. Great - 72 seats is a majority for independence in a parliament of 129.

So there is a mandate according to your own argument made to try and claim there is no mandate

You and I do not want an Independence referendum. I personally campaigned for candidates to stop it. We lost, they won. Here in the NE region we lost a LibDem MSP - pro union - for a Green MSP - pro independence.

I have the basic principle that democratic mandates always apply whether you like the result or not. What is your principle?

Carnyx

MattW said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)



The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:-
(a) Unmarked 18,071
(b) Uncertain 8,672
(c) Voting for too many 87,214
(d) Writing identifying voter 167
(e) Want of official mark 77
Total 114,201

The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:-
(a) Uncertain 965
(b) Voting for too many 7,037
Total 8,002

In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.

In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.

So the number of rejected ballots in the Mayoral Election was a lot.

This is not the first time. There were 500k rejected ballots across Mayoral and Assembly elections in 2004.

Source:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/jun/12/uk.london1

And there were 142k rejected ballots in the 2007 Holyrood Elections.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6637387.stm

Anyone know what steps were taken after the other times?

It seems that in London the lesson of 2004 was not learnt. Unless there was a huge "spoil your vote" campaign.

How many votes were rejected in Scotland this time, and have lessons been learnt there from 2007?

Was a lot simpler in Scotland. Only Holyrood this time. No local gmt vote to get cross-confused with. Don't know thje figures, though.

YBarddCwsc

Fishing said:

Re the Curtice article:

I am more and more convinced that Labour is suffering from the same identity crisis that has hit centre-left parties all over the democratic world since the deindustrialisation and the collapse of Communism. However, that was masked to a large extent in the 90s and 00s for Labour by the political genius of Tony Blair and the Conservative mistakes that he ruthlessly exploited.

From that, it follows that Labour's best strategy is to find another political genius, and wait for the Conservatives to screw up. Not a very satisfying one, and maybe very long-term, but maybe more effective than targeting whatever micro-sliver of the electoral is fashionable that week.

Blair is a 'once in a century' phenomenon.

Early Blair -- with his boyish good looks, his nous, his ability to project warmth and compassion, his powerful communication skills, his intelligence & his articulacy -- was just a political magician. We'll never see his like again ...

Of course, he went mad.

Jonathan

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jonathan, carving England into bits is a wretched idea.

Who said anything about carving? Different parts of England already have distinct identities. Even you talk disparagingly about London. The Tories have found new ways to exploit this. Why not Labour?

Carnyx

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2021/05/alex-salmond-has-handed-nicola-sturgeon-parting-gift

Interesting thesis by Ailbhe Rea -

"But the result is even better news for the First Minister than is immediately apparent. Thanks to Alba, some of Sturgeon’s most vocal critics are no longer SNP members, and have not been admitted to the Scottish parliament. That not only applies to Alex Salmond himself, but [...] The same applies for a number of Sturgeon’s greatest critics: they are no longer members of the SNP and won’t be readmitted.

If Alex Salmond had set out to give his rival and former mentee a way to purge the members of her party who cause her the most trouble, he couldn’t have designed it better."

squareroot2

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f0aa852a-af4a-11eb-b844-593e41a4a1a5?shareToken=399de1fd183c57048a4060018603667f

Whats the point of the Labour Party.. woke gets a mention.....

Nemtynakht

Cocky_cockney said:

Nemtynakht said:

MarqueeMark said:

swing_voter said:

Interesting re the Opinium, am I right in thinking the Tory vote was lower than their predictions (by 4%?) any ideas why that happened? I used to think Wales had shy Tory voters who said Labour but voted blue?

Wales has a strong muscle memory of its Labour-voting heritage. The pencil poises over Conservative - then reverts to putting an X against Labour. Still, the Blues had their best result in Wales on Thursday. Just at the expense of UKIP, LibDems and PC rather than Labour.

What the Welsh Tories need is their own charismatic leader. For a party led by the despised Johnson

What an absolute load of rubbish.

Welsh Conservatives celebrated its best ever Senedd election, winning 16 seats, a gain of 6.

The Conservatives came second, pushing Plaid Cymru into third place.

Expressing your own dislike of Johnson is fine but don't project it onto spurious nonsense on behalf of the rest of the Welsh electorate.

Ta.

Well firstly the second part is the start of a sentence that refers to Scotland where Johnson is despised. Secondly the collapse of Ukip and the gravitation of votes to the Tories seems to be the sum of the increase. Where popular and energetic metro mayor's like Houchen and Street have been visible and supportive of the locality positively within government that has paid rewards. In Bristol close to me the anonymous Tim Bowles has led to a subsequent labour administration.

My point stands then that if the Tories could find someone charismatic it could be a significant long term boost.

kle4

Jonathan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Jonathan said:

Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.

In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.

Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.

The best thing Labour can do now is to break up what's left of the UK party and found fraternal national parties. Labour does very well in Wales and very badly in England and Scotland. Create wholly separate registrations and let the parties do their own thing.

As long as there is a compact to have one whip in Westminster, they will be able to win more seats by saying different things to the different electorates.

It needs to solve the problem in England. There are plenty of regions that do not have a voice. For example, the south fully taken for granted by the Tories for decades is ripe for the plucking. There is a southern identity.

Is there? Other than jokes between the two I've never noticed much actual difference between north and south identities (the midlands tends to get overlooked). More locally focused ones perhaps, in the north, less so in the south.

Agreed it's taken for granted, but if that is going to bite them I dont think it will for awhile.

We seem to be on the hunt for differences rather than similarities these days, and of course if you go searching for it you will find it where none was before. Tell people they are different and they come to believe it - even Scotland and England are not as far apart on most issues as each suggests.

MattW

Carnyx said:

MattW said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)



The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:-
(a) Unmarked 18,071
(b) Uncertain 8,672
(c) Voting for too many 87,214
(d) Writing identifying voter 167
(e) Want of official mark 77
Total 114,201

The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:-
(a) Uncertain 965
(b) Voting for too many 7,037
Total 8,002

In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.

In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.

So the number of rejected ballots in the Mayoral Election was a lot.

This is not the first time. There were 500k rejected ballots across Mayoral and Assembly elections in 2004.

Source:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/jun/12/uk.london1

And there were 142k rejected ballots in the 2007 Holyrood Elections.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6637387.stm

Anyone know what steps were taken after the other times?

It seems that in London the lesson of 2004 was not learnt. Unless there was a huge "spoil your vote" campaign.

How many votes were rejected in Scotland this time, and have lessons been learnt there from 2007?

Was a lot simpler in Scotland. Only Holyrood this time. No local gmt vote to get cross-confused with. Don't know thje figures, though.

I remember the 3.5% rejection in the 2007 Holyrood Election seeming to be huge, as I was blogging daily at the time and wrote about it.

Alanbrooke

Carnyx said:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2021/05/alex-salmond-has-handed-nicola-sturgeon-parting-gift

Interesting thesis by Ailbhe Rea -

"But the result is even better news for the First Minister than is immediately apparent. Thanks to Alba, some of Sturgeon’s most vocal critics are no longer SNP members, and have not been admitted to the Scottish parliament. That not only applies to Alex Salmond himself, but [...] The same applies for a number of Sturgeon’s greatest critics: they are no longer members of the SNP and won’t be readmitted.

If Alex Salmond had set out to give his rival and former mentee a way to purge the members of her party who cause her the most trouble, he couldn’t have designed it better."

Maybe. But theyll just campaign from the outside and run a guerilla war against her. This is her zenith after a bit of a boost from fighting Boris and the economy recovering it's all down hill from here.

A split party, failures on running Scotland and a better organised opposition will start to wear her down.

Jonathan

kle4 said:

Jonathan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Jonathan said:

Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.

In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.

Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.

The best thing Labour can do now is to break up what's left of the UK party and found fraternal national parties. Labour does very well in Wales and very badly in England and Scotland. Create wholly separate registrations and let the parties do their own thing.

As long as there is a compact to have one whip in Westminster, they will be able to win more seats by saying different things to the different electorates.

It needs to solve the problem in England. There are plenty of regions that do not have a voice. For example, the south fully taken for granted by the Tories for decades is ripe for the plucking. There is a southern identity.

Is there? Other than jokes between the two I've never noticed much actual difference between north and south identities (the midlands tends to get overlooked). More locally focused ones perhaps, in the north, less so in the south.

Agreed it's taken for granted, but if that is going to bite them I dont think it will for awhile.

There are some lovely green shoots. In truest, of true blue Worthing, Labour took half of the county seats this week.

kle4

Carnyx said:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2021/05/alex-salmond-has-handed-nicola-sturgeon-parting-gift

Interesting thesis by Ailbhe Rea -

"But the result is even better news for the First Minister than is immediately apparent. Thanks to Alba, some of Sturgeon’s most vocal critics are no longer SNP members, and have not been admitted to the Scottish parliament. That not only applies to Alex Salmond himself, but [...] The same applies for a number of Sturgeon’s greatest critics: they are no longer members of the SNP and won’t be readmitted.

If Alex Salmond had set out to give his rival and former mentee a way to purge the members of her party who cause her the most trouble, he couldn’t have designed it better."

Yes, if there was any disappointment at the outcome at all, who would have challenged her? Already gone.