politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Fingering the index. A proposed technical change that is hugel

Byronic said:

KentRising said:

Byronic said:

dyedwoolie said:

Byronic said:

edmundintokyo said:

YBarddCwsc said:

To change the present electoral system, you have to win under FPTP.

All parties that win under FPTP become enamoured of its great merits.

For example, suppose the meltdown continues and the LibDems end up with 35 per cent of the vote and a 50 seat majority against Corby and Boris on 25 per cent each at the next election

My bet is that the LibDems will suddenly see the great advantages of FPTP.

Yup, this is why FPTP is really hard to change. But hypothetically, what if you had a bunch of parties that were in opposition having a hard time with FPTP, but the government first ran amok with the prerogative powers in a way that brought these disparate parties together, and then conducted a purge which handed a large chunk of his MPs over to the opposition side, resulting in the said opposition unexpectedly getting a temporary parliamentary majority?

Terrible confession. A little bit of me wants the Lib Dems to cut through and win an amazing surprise victory. Why?

1. just the bantz. What an incredible denouement that would be. All the writers of Britain, 2014-2019, a Docudrama would get Emmys

2. the Lib Dems would simply revoke. Yes this would come at a terrible cost, and it would roil the country in horrible ways, but.... then at least the paralysing political nightmare would be over. Done. Finished (yes yes I know this is glib - but I am talking about private fantasies).

3. It would be good for London property prices

Once Brexit is sorted one way or the other I'll give them a look, they are turning into something new. Get rid of the sandalistas and let's see what they have to offer! Once idiots like Cable and co are out of the way and probably after Swinson they might just be the future

After Brexit is done, however it is done, I wonder if we might see a vicious pendulum swingback - to the centre.

Britain is still a pragmatic, small c conservative country. We're having a civil war kinda moment, but this won't last for ever. History teaches us that a healing Charles II figure comes after a divisive Oliver Cromwell. After the Revolution, Restoration.

The Lib Dems could benefit greatly if we all decide to be sensible and centrist after our dalliance with radicalism.

Charles II had everyone still surviving who signed his father's death warrant tracked down, imprisoned, and hung, drawn and quartered.

The sandalista equivalent will be intense coffee mornings of Truth and Reconciliation, with free chocolate hobnobs

Jo and luciana having a national mum hug

dyedwoolie said:

AlastairMeeks said:

dyedwoolie said:

Revoke, deal, no deal all have chunks of support. Delay is a wildly unpopular choice. That needs factoring in to any betting thoughts on any election. MPs are forcing a delay, that is not a popular choice ergo......
I think the rebel alliance are mistaking the vocal and commendably dedicated activism of say 20% committed to revoke as more beneficial to them than the quiet anger, frustration and keenness to move on to other concerns of a larger number

No one’s policy will be delay at the next election. The number of people who think the decision to Leave was the wrong one continues to increase incrementally over time.

But a delay will have just been imposed and there will be the promise of further delay to get a referendum over the next 18 months as a further kick in the nuts for those wanting it sorted out. Vote for me and with negotiation and referendum you can have another 18 months of Brexit!

Crash out with no deal and get another two decades of brexit

Gardenwalker said:

Cyclefree said:

I do wonder whether the government will seek to use the Civil Contingencies Act to get past its current difficulties.

If I have time later I will have a look at it and may do a thread header on the topic.

Is there any legal reason why they cannot?
If they did this, the response from opponents would be...unpredictable.

Activating the Civil Contingencies Act is another prerogative power. If Boris gets the Queen to declare a state of emergency it'll be the end of the monarchy in its current form.

Byronic said:

Barnesian said:

Adding the latest four polls to the EMA gives:

Con 32.2% Lab 24.7% LD 18.0% BXP 13.7% Grn 4.6%

Taking the average of Baxter and Flavible gives:

Con 335
Lab 201
LD 42
SNP 51
i.e. Tory majority

However these models ignore tactical voting which will be significant (and Baxter uses UNS which is questionable on large swings in share).

My own constituency model uses a mixture of 75% additive (UNS) and 25% multiplicative swings.

For tactical voting it assumes a switch of 2.5% from Green to Labour and 1.0% from Green to LD.

It assumes that if the LD vote in a constituency was less than 50% of the Labour vote in 2017, then 30% of the LD vote will transfer to Labour.

It also assumes that if the Labour vote in a constituency was less than the LD vote in 2017, then 50% of the Labour vote will transfer to Labour.

I've done sensitivity runs on all these assumptions and, for instance, if 70% of Labour voters switch to LD (instead of 50%) where Labour is behind LD, it gives the LDs 3 more seats and the Tories 3 less than the 50% assumptions.

The central case result, with tactical voting, is:

Con 298
Lab 234
LD 48
SNP 51
i.e. a minority Labour government.

Interesting, and thankyou, but it looks more like wishcasting than forecasting, to me.

For example: I wonder how much tactical voting we will see. There may be LESS in this election than usual. Why? Because Brexit is so visceral and because Corbyn is SUCH a c*nt.

How many Remainers will hover over the ballot paper, and think quietly, "I know I should vote tactically for Corbyn in my constituency, but I just can't - he's a not-so-secret Leaver, and an anti-Semitic c*nt, and besides a vote for the Lib Dems is not wasted, I can express my feelings and they are high in the polls..."

There will be lots like that. Corbyn no longer attracts strays and floaters, he repels them. And the LDs are resurgent.

I'm already assuming that only 30% of LibDems vote tactically for Labour if the LD vote was less than half the labour vote last time. If I reduce that to 10%, the Tories end up with 302 seats. The Green tactical vote is as significant. The Green share is quite large and very anti-Tory.

A

Gardenwalker said:

Cyclefree said:

I do wonder whether the government will seek to use the Civil Contingencies Act to get past its current difficulties.

If I have time later I will have a look at it and may do a thread header on the topic.

Is there any legal reason why they cannot?

That is what I am going to look at. Though given that obeisance to the law seems to be an optional extra in the Johnson government, why should that stop them?

Byronic said:

KentRising said:

Charles II had everyone still surviving who signed his father's death warrant tracked down, imprisoned, and hung, drawn and quartered.

The sandalista equivalent will be intense coffee mornings of Truth and Reconciliation, with free chocolate hobnobs

Chocolate hobnobs are a superior biscuit.

nichomar said:

Cyclefree said:

I do wonder whether the government will seek to use the Civil Contingencies Act to get past its current difficulties.

If I have time later I will have a look at it and may do a thread header on the topic.

Mentioned a few days ago was it by you?

No, don’t think so.

Barnesian said:

Byronic said:

Barnesian said:

Adding the latest four polls to the EMA gives:

Con 32.2% Lab 24.7% LD 18.0% BXP 13.7% Grn 4.6%

Taking the average of Baxter and Flavible gives:

Con 335
Lab 201
LD 42
SNP 51
i.e. Tory majority

However these models ignore tactical voting which will be significant (and Baxter uses UNS which is questionable on large swings in share).

My own constituency model uses a mixture of 75% additive (UNS) and 25% multiplicative swings.

For tactical voting it assumes a switch of 2.5% from Green to Labour and 1.0% from Green to LD.

It assumes that if the LD vote in a constituency was less than 50% of the Labour vote in 2017, then 30% of the LD vote will transfer to Labour.

It also assumes that if the Labour vote in a constituency was less than the LD vote in 2017, then 50% of the Labour vote will transfer to Labour.

I've done sensitivity runs on all these assumptions and, for instance, if 70% of Labour voters switch to LD (instead of 50%) where Labour is behind LD, it gives the LDs 3 more seats and the Tories 3 less than the 50% assumptions.

The central case result, with tactical voting, is:

Con 298
Lab 234
LD 48
SNP 51
i.e. a minority Labour government.

Interesting, and thankyou, but it looks more like wishcasting than forecasting, to me.

For example: I wonder how much tactical voting we will see. There may be LESS in this election than usual. Why? Because Brexit is so visceral and because Corbyn is SUCH a c*nt.

How many Remainers will hover over the ballot paper, and think quietly, "I know I should vote tactically for Corbyn in my constituency, but I just can't - he's a not-so-secret Leaver, and an anti-Semitic c*nt, and besides a vote for the Lib Dems is not wasted, I can express my feelings and they are high in the polls..."

There will be lots like that. Corbyn no longer attracts strays and floaters, he repels them. And the LDs are resurgent.

I'm already assuming that only 30% of LibDems vote tactically for Labour if the LD vote was less than half the labour vote last time. If I reduce that to 10%, the Tories end up with 302 seats. The Green tactical vote is as significant. The Green share is quite large and very anti-Tory.

One thing to be wary of is that tactical voting is not new, so the Lib Dem voters in 2017 are the hard core who have already decided not to vote tactically (and many of the 2017 Labour voters would have been instinctive supporters of other parties who voted tactically).

Untangling that, in addition to the changes in support, becomes horrendously complicated.

KentRising said:

Byronic said:

dyedwoolie said:

Byronic said:

edmundintokyo said:

YBarddCwsc said:

To change the present electoral system, you have to win under FPTP.

All parties that win under FPTP become enamoured of its great merits.

For example, suppose the meltdown continues and the LibDems end up with 35 per cent of the vote and a 50 seat majority against Corby and Boris on 25 per cent each at the next election

My bet is that the LibDems will suddenly see the great advantages of FPTP.

Yup, this is why FPTP is really hard to change. But hypothetically, what if you had a bunch of parties that were in opposition having a hard time with FPTP, but the government first ran amok with the prerogative powers in a way that brought these disparate parties together, and then conducted a purge which handed a large chunk of his MPs over to the opposition side, resulting in the said opposition unexpectedly getting a temporary parliamentary majority?

Terrible confession. A little bit of me wants the Lib Dems to cut through and win an amazing surprise victory. Why?

1. just the bantz. What an incredible denouement that would be. All the writers of Britain, 2014-2019, a Docudrama would get Emmys

2. the Lib Dems would simply revoke. Yes this would come at a terrible cost, and it would roil the country in horrible ways, but.... then at least the paralysing political nightmare would be over. Done. Finished (yes yes I know this is glib - but I am talking about private fantasies).

3. It would be good for London property prices

Once Brexit is sorted one way or the other I'll give them a look, they are turning into something new. Get rid of the sandalistas and let's see what they have to offer! Once idiots like Cable and co are out of the way and probably after Swinson they might just be the future

After Brexit is done, however it is done, I wonder if we might see a vicious pendulum swingback - to the centre.

Britain is still a pragmatic, small c conservative country. We're having a civil war kinda moment, but this won't last for ever. History teaches us that a healing Charles II figure comes after a divisive Oliver Cromwell. After the Revolution, Restoration.

The Lib Dems could benefit greatly if we all decide to be sensible and centrist after our dalliance with radicalism.

Charles II had everyone still surviving who signed his father's death warrant tracked down, imprisoned, and hung, drawn and quartered.

Heck, some of those who were not still surviving suffered that fate. Though IIRC Thomas Pride escaped such a fate...by virtue of being too dessicated.

nunuone said:

Oh by the way, if any of the rebels Tories such as rudderless stand as Independents, they will take more libdem and labour votes.

https://mobile.twitter.com/martinboon/status/1170581689996926976

That was not the question they were asked about voting for One Nation Tory party candidate not the specific mp

OblitusSumMe said:

Byronic said:

KentRising said:

Charles II had everyone still surviving who signed his father's death warrant tracked down, imprisoned, and hung, drawn and quartered.

The sandalista equivalent will be intense coffee mornings of Truth and Reconciliation, with free chocolate hobnobs

Chocolate hobnobs are a superior biscuit.

One thing we can surely all agree on.

Mr. Glenn, Hancock's a damned fool. He backed a man he either knew was incompetent to be PM, or was so bloody stupid he didn't realise someone who was thoroughly inept as Foreign Secretary would prove inept at being PM.

kle4 said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Byronic said:

KentRising said:

Charles II had everyone still surviving who signed his father's death warrant tracked down, imprisoned, and hung, drawn and quartered.

The sandalista equivalent will be intense coffee mornings of Truth and Reconciliation, with free chocolate hobnobs

Chocolate hobnobs are a superior biscuit.

One thing we can surely all agree on.

But much improved with the addition of pineapple.

OblitusSumMe said:

Byronic said:

KentRising said:

Charles II had everyone still surviving who signed his father's death warrant tracked down, imprisoned, and hung, drawn and quartered.

The sandalista equivalent will be intense coffee mornings of Truth and Reconciliation, with free chocolate hobnobs

Chocolate hobnobs are a superior biscuit.

No 200 focus leaflets every week for life delivered in long drive leafy suburbia

YBarddCwsc said:

If I was the EU, I'd say there is no point in any further extension unless you pass the WA.

The EU have been clear all along that all routes to a final settlement lead through the WA.

It’s a bit circular though. Passing the WA removes the need for an extension!

YBarddCwsc said:

PClipp said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Nigelb said:

Far more likely that they see it as their one chance to change the system.
Likewise, should they hold the balance of power, I expect it to be part of the price of their support. The promise of a referendum on the matter is unlikely to be persuasive.

I think not.
If the LibDems have a 50 seat majority, then they have 350 seats But, on 35 per cent of the vote, they should have 227 seats.
So, you are asking for about 130 LibDem MPs to immolate themselves.
The only circumstance in which PR will be introduced is, if having governed for 4 years and found themselves back on 10 per cent of the vote, the LibDems realise they are facing a wipeout and PR will save some LibDem seats.

A bit too cynical, I fear. Lib Dems believe in a proportional voting system - and I have no doubt that all the thousands of people who have switched over to the Lib Dems do as well. With a proper reformed voting system, electors can choose not only among parties, but also within them. There is no reason why an outstandingly good candidate should not get elected.

And if a supposedly Liberal MP were to vote in favour of the present discredited voting system, I don`t think he would remain a Lib Dem MP very long. People quite simply would not work for him.

See the Liberals under Justin Trudeau in Canada.

"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tackled the issue of electoral reform and proportional representation. He said that in the choice between keeping his promise and doing what’s good for Canada, he chose the latter."

Funny how Liberals everywhere find it hard to keep their promises.

Also, for the LibDems to reach 35 per cent, many people will have joined them and voted for them who do not believe in PR (e.g., all the defector MPs). It won't be the pure, sandal-wearing party that you know now.

Ironically, the polling suggests he will need to bring in PR to retain power as a minority government. Then he will do what is good for the LPC. A recurring feature of Canadian politics over many decades.

OblitusSumMe said:

One thing to be wary of is that tactical voting is not new, so the Lib Dem voters in 2017 are the hard core who have already decided not to vote tactically (and many of the 2017 Labour voters would have been instinctive supporters of other parties who voted tactically).

Untangling that, in addition to the changes in support, becomes horrendously complicated.

Yes, but there's an added complication. I was canvassing heavily in marginal Broxtowe in 2017, and was frustrated by LibDems who told me they would have been willing to vote tactically but they simply didn't think that Labour had a chance in that seat (which ended up extremely close), so they might as well stick to their prefered party. (I never met anyone who said they'd like to vote tactically but were deterred by fear that Labour might win.)

That should change this time, although it will be partly muddied by people mistakenly guessing which party has the best chance in seats where it isn't really clear and you have to allow forpolling changes since 2017. On the whole, though, Barnesian's assumptions (30% LD switch to Labour where Labour is clearly the challenger, 50% Lab switch to LD in the opposite case) sound about right. I would expect it to be intuitively clear any many seats, where you get 5 leaflets and two canvass visits from party X and one leaflet and no canvassing from party Y, because Y's supporters are all helping in a marginal elsewhere.

Cyclefree said:

surbiton19 said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

Gardenwalker said:

Cyclefree said:

I do wonder whether the government will seek to use the Civil Contingencies Act to get past its current difficulties.

If I have time later I will have a look at it and may do a thread header on the topic.

Is there any legal reason why they cannot?
If they did this, the response from opponents would be...unpredictable.

Activating the Civil Contingencies Act is another prerogative power. If Boris gets the Queen to declare a state of emergency it'll be the end of the monarchy in its current form.

Oh, no ! Andrew will be King. Then we will need a Civil Defence Act !

We’ll need to lock up our daughters.

I wanted to write that but bottled out. You are a lawyer ! The next knock on the door...………...

Wouldn’t it be better for Corbyn to have a caretaker PM ask for the extension rather than him doing it.

This reduces the Tory attack line . Some rumours going about that he is edging towards that .

Survation has BJ ahead of Corbyn on the NHS 35 to 30. Labour are done

nico67 said:

Wouldn’t it be better for Corbyn to have a caretaker PM ask for the extension rather than him doing it.

This reduces the Tory attack line . Some rumours going about that he is edging towards that .

If he is still thinking about Northern Leave but traditional Labour voters, then that makes sense. But I think he will still want a stop-gap Labour PM. Ideally, a retiring woman MP. Is Harriet retiring ?

NickPalmer said:

OblitusSumMe said:

One thing to be wary of is that tactical voting is not new, so the Lib Dem voters in 2017 are the hard core who have already decided not to vote tactically (and many of the 2017 Labour voters would have been instinctive supporters of other parties who voted tactically).

Untangling that, in addition to the changes in support, becomes horrendously complicated.

Yes, but there's an added complication. I was canvassing heavily in marginal Broxtowe in 2017, and was frustrated by LibDems who told me they would have been willing to vote tactically but they simply didn't think that Labour had a chance in that seat (which ended up extremely close), so they might as well stick to their prefered party. (I never met anyone who said they'd like to vote tactically but were deterred by fear that Labour might win.)

That should change this time, although it will be partly muddied by people mistakenly guessing which party has the best chance in seats where it isn't really clear and you have to allow forpolling changes since 2017. On the whole, though, Barnesian's assumptions (30% LD switch to Labour where Labour is clearly the challenger, 50% Lab switch to LD in the opposite case) sound about right. I would expect it to be intuitively clear any many seats, where you get 5 leaflets and two canvass visits from party X and one leaflet and no canvassing from party Y, because Y's supporters are all helping in a marginal elsewhere.

"(I never met anyone who said they'd like to vote tactically but were deterred by fear that Labour might win.)"

Those were the days!. I never hear anything else. As recently as last night two people told me they were not voting Lib Dem because it might let Corbyn in!. I hear more fear of Corbyn than Johnson which both disgusts and amazes me but ultimately leaves me angry. We need a non Tory government. People don't like Corbyn. Why can't he he read the tea leaves?

dyedwoolie said:

Survation has BJ ahead of Corbyn on the NHS 35 to 30. Labour are done

That 35 is a recurring number. It seems a third of the population believe in Boris as the second coming.

YBarddCwsc said:

nico67 said:

Wouldn’t it be better for Corbyn to have a caretaker PM ask for the extension rather than him doing it.

It is better for Corbyn to ask himself.

Because Corbyn (of all people) has a reasonably plausible motivation.

He wants to re-negotiate with new red lines. So, he does actually need an extension so the charade can begin again!

I disagree . The Tories are going to attack him as the person who got the extension . The EU will grant an extension on the premise for a general election or referendum .

A caretaker PM can take the flak of the extension.

NickPalmer said:

OblitusSumMe said:

One thing to be wary of is that tactical voting is not new, so the Lib Dem voters in 2017 are the hard core who have already decided not to vote tactically (and many of the 2017 Labour voters would have been instinctive supporters of other parties who voted tactically).

Untangling that, in addition to the changes in support, becomes horrendously complicated.

Yes, but there's an added complication. I was canvassing heavily in marginal Broxtowe in 2017, and was frustrated by LibDems who told me they would have been willing to vote tactically but they simply didn't think that Labour had a chance in that seat (which ended up extremely close), so they might as well stick to their prefered party. (I never met anyone who said they'd like to vote tactically but were deterred by fear that Labour might win.)

That should change this time, although it will be partly muddied by people mistakenly guessing which party has the best chance in seats where it isn't really clear and you have to allow forpolling changes since 2017. On the whole, though, Barnesian's assumptions (30% LD switch to Labour where Labour is clearly the challenger, 50% Lab switch to LD in the opposite case) sound about right. I would expect it to be intuitively clear any many seats, where you get 5 leaflets and two canvass visits from party X and one leaflet and no canvassing from party Y, because Y's supporters are all helping in a marginal elsewhere.

I hadn't thought of number of leaflets delivered as a metric for deciding tactical voting. Maybe something for the tactical voting websites to consider?

I guess it could also be a way for Labour/Lib Dems to have an informal pact.

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/philiphammonduk/status/1170633949879635968?s=21

Wrong Philip, the Tory leadership have actually finally decided to deliver the Brexit 17 million voted for Deal or No Deal

https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1170645473214062592?s=20

https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1170646496326406146?s=20

malcolmg said:

I see McDonnell stating Labour will not support insurer as part of any deal. If that is the case then Labour are well fecked.

“Insurer”?

dixiedean said:

dyedwoolie said:

Survation has BJ ahead of Corbyn on the NHS 35 to 30. Labour are done

That 35 is a recurring number. It seems a third of the population believe in Boris as the second coming.

Or that he will spend a chunk of the money that goes to Brussels on the NHS.

As per the bus. It is still potent.

dixiedean said:

dyedwoolie said:

Survation has BJ ahead of Corbyn on the NHS 35 to 30. Labour are done

That 35 is a recurring number. It seems a third of the population believe in Boris as the second coming.

I don't know about second coming, but there'll be quite a few people asking of Boris "Father, why have you foresaken me?"

Noo said:

dixiedean said:

dyedwoolie said:

Survation has BJ ahead of Corbyn on the NHS 35 to 30. Labour are done

That 35 is a recurring number. It seems a third of the population believe in Boris as the second coming.

I don't know about second coming, but there'll be quite a few people asking of Boris "Father, why have you foresaken me?"

Including his actual progeny.

Theuniondivvie said:

Noo said:

dixiedean said:

dyedwoolie said:

Survation has BJ ahead of Corbyn on the NHS 35 to 30. Labour are done

That 35 is a recurring number. It seems a third of the population believe in Boris as the second coming.

I don't know about second coming, but there'll be quite a few people asking of Boris "Father, why have you foresaken me?"

Including his actual progeny.

THAT WAS THE JOKE

YBarddCwsc said:

PClipp said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Nigelb said:

Far more likely that they see it as their one chance to change the system.
Likewise, should they hold the balance of power, I expect it to be part of the price of their support. The promise of a referendum on the matter is unlikely to be persuasive.

I think not.
If the LibDems have a 50 seat majority, then they have 350 seats But, on 35 per cent of the vote, they should have 227 seats.
So, you are asking for about 130 LibDem MPs to immolate themselves.
The only circumstance in which PR will be introduced is, if having governed for 4 years and found themselves back on 10 per cent of the vote, the LibDems realise they are facing a wipeout and PR will save some LibDem seats.

A bit too cynical, I fear. Lib Dems believe in a proportional voting system - and I have no doubt that all the thousands of people who have switched over to the Lib Dems do as well. With a proper reformed voting system, electors can choose not only among parties, but also within them. There is no reason why an outstandingly good candidate should not get elected.

And if a supposedly Liberal MP were to vote in favour of the present discredited voting system, I don`t think he would remain a Lib Dem MP very long. People quite simply would not work for him.

See the Liberals under Justin Trudeau in Canada.

"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tackled the issue of electoral reform and proportional representation. He said that in the choice between keeping his promise and doing what’s good for Canada, he chose the latter."

Funny how Liberals everywhere find it hard to keep their promises.

Also, for the LibDems to reach 35 per cent, many people will have joined them and voted for them who do not believe in PR (e.g., all the defector MPs). It won't be the pure, sandal-wearing party that you know now.

Trudeau's Liberals are currenly tied with the Conservative Party of Canada on 34% each with the Greens and NDP on 12% and the Bloc Quebecois on 4% in the latest Canadian poll.

Trudeau leads Scheer as preferred PM 26% to 23%.

So Trudeau could still be re elected PM in October but is likely to lose his majority and yes would have been in a stronger position with PR as the Greens and NDP would have propped him up and with the Liberals combined had 58% of the seats

https://www.campaignresearch.ca/single-post/Tied-Overall-Tied-in-Ontario

Nice header, Alastair.

Since it is a non-turbulent day, three questions.

1 - Will Bercow get his peerage whilst the Bullying in his department issue is still in the long grass? I am wondering if he will step down rather than be kicked into the long grass himself after the Election - unless he has stated the contrary.

OTOH even if found guilty in some way, the Lords already has crooks, fiddlers and jailbirds aplenty.

2 - What is the strength of the relationship between local election and general vote? Just looked it up and here in the last one the Ashfield Independents had 64% of the total vote. Parliamentary seat is very similar. The candidate is the Council and it seems too soon to lose it by cockup.

3 - Impact of the ECHR Labour racism enquiry on the upcoming election? Last timescale I saw was that it was due out late 2019 or early 2020. Potentially does that set and end date for election dates attractive to Mr Corbyn?

YBarddCwsc said:

nico67 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

nico67 said:

Wouldn’t it be better for Corbyn to have a caretaker PM ask for the extension rather than him doing it.

It is better for Corbyn to ask himself.

Because Corbyn (of all people) has a reasonably plausible motivation.

He wants to re-negotiate with new red lines. So, he does actually need an extension so the charade can begin again!

I disagree . The Tories are going to attack him as the person who got the extension . The EU will grant an extension on the premise for a general election or referendum .

A caretaker PM can take the flak of the extension.

The Tories are going to attack Labour & the LibDems anyhow on those grounds.

It is incredibly dangerous for Corbyn personally to allow anyone who is Labour or LibDem to ask for the extension as a temporary PM.

Even if they say they are temporary, things that are temporary have a habit of becoming permanent.

It is also very difficult to see Labour voting for an ExTory as temporary PM.

True, Boris is preparing to lead the Tories into opposition and with Farage cry 'betrayal' at whichever of Corbyn, Ken Clarke, Jo Swinson, Tom Watson, Yvette Cooper or Harriet Harman ends up caretaker PM to ask for and implement the extension

Noo said:

Cyclefree said:

P

Tabman said:

Noo said:

dixiedean said:

dyedwoolie said:

Survation has BJ ahead of Corbyn on the NHS 35 to 30. Labour are done

That 35 is a recurring number. It seems a third of the population believe in Boris as the second coming.

I don't know about second coming, but there'll be quite a few people asking of Boris "Father, why have you foresaken me?"

Six, or is it seven?

The less talk of Boris and his comings the better. There is not enough mind bleach.

Anyway the sun is shining and I have garden waste to take to the compost heap.

Laters!

Oh god, that's why Cummings hasn't joined the party, isn't it?
Boris doesn't believe in Con Dom Cummings.

Chapeau, sir

Noo said:

Cyclefree said:

P

Tabman said:

Noo said:

dixiedean said:

dyedwoolie said:

Survation has BJ ahead of Corbyn on the NHS 35 to 30. Labour are done

That 35 is a recurring number. It seems a third of the population believe in Boris as the second coming.

I don't know about second coming, but there'll be quite a few people asking of Boris "Father, why have you foresaken me?"

Six, or is it seven?

The less talk of Boris and his comings the better. There is not enough mind bleach.

Anyway the sun is shining and I have garden waste to take to the compost heap.

Laters!

Oh god, that's why Cummings hasn't joined the party, isn't it?
Boris doesn't believe in Con Dom Cummings.

Post of the day 😂

Fenman said:

Without Rennard the Lib Dems may not be targeting as effectively as they could. But in this febrile environment targets may not be as clear as in the past. Let's not forget that up until 2015, Labour voters in the South and West had the tactical voting habit. I think they will now remember why. Otherwise, seats to watch? Inner West London and Surrey generally.

I thought Rennard was still around at B&R.

Although given her previous musings on him, surely Swinson can't stomach having him around just for electoral advantage? Is she that hypocritical?

Sorry - typos.

Noo said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Noo said:

dixiedean said:

dyedwoolie said:

Survation has BJ ahead of Corbyn on the NHS 35 to 30. Labour are done

That 35 is a recurring number. It seems a third of the population believe in Boris as the second coming.

I don't know about second coming, but there'll be quite a few people asking of Boris "Father, why have you foresaken me?"

Including his actual progeny.

THAT WAS THE JOKE

Sorry, you'll have to semaphore these things a bit more crudely on a Sunday morning. I'd assumed 'quite a few' referred to the several million who'll be screeching betrayal when BJ performs his standard m.o. rather than the single figure number of his sprogs.

dyedwoolie said:

nico67 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

nico67 said:

Wouldn’t it be better for Corbyn to have a caretaker PM ask for the extension rather than him doing it.

It is better for Corbyn to ask himself.

Because Corbyn (of all people) has a reasonably plausible motivation.

He wants to re-negotiate with new red lines. So, he does actually need an extension so the charade can begin again!

I disagree . The Tories are going to attack him as the person who got the extension . The EU will grant an extension on the premise for a general election or referendum .

A caretaker PM can take the flak of the extension.

A caretaker will not be a labour MP, Corbyn cant go into a campaign saying I'm not trustworthy to be the labour choice for PM but vote for me!
So any caretaker would, I think, have to come from the independents pool

It would be lovely for it to be Nick Soames....and quite fitting that his grandfather was a the last leader of a national unity Govt that sort to define the UK's place in Europe.

Even better would be to see Soames stay on for a short period to negotiate the deal that would be put back to a referendum....

Fenman said:

Without Rennard the Lib Dems may not be targeting as effectively as they could. But in this febrile environment targets may not be as clear as in the past. Let's not forget that up until 2015, Labour voters in the South and West had the tactical voting habit. I think they will now remember why. Otherwise, seats to watch? Inner West London and Surrey generally.

These are the key 100 seats for tactical voting.

https://www.tactical-vote.uk/map

tyson said:

dyedwoolie said:

nico67 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

nico67 said:

Wouldn’t it be better for Corbyn to have a caretaker PM ask for the extension rather than him doing it.

It is better for Corbyn to ask himself.

Because Corbyn (of all people) has a reasonably plausible motivation.

He wants to re-negotiate with new red lines. So, he does actually need an extension so the charade can begin again!

I disagree . The Tories are going to attack him as the person who got the extension . The EU will grant an extension on the premise for a general election or referendum .

A caretaker PM can take the flak of the extension.

A caretaker will not be a labour MP, Corbyn cant go into a campaign saying I'm not trustworthy to be the labour choice for PM but vote for me!
So any caretaker would, I think, have to come from the independents pool

It would be lovely for it to be Nick Soames....and quite fitting that his grandfather was a the last leader of a national unity Govt that sort to define the UK's place in Europe.

Even better would be to see Soames stay on for a short period to negotiate the deal that would be put back to a referendum....

Soames is a career backbencher with 3 years as a minister, hes never going to be caretaker PM. Plus he got caught out being creative with his taxes and was the catalyst for a law change to close the loophole. And he went kissing Mugabes arse in 2017

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/philiphammonduk/status/1170633949879635968?s=21

Wrong Philip, the Tory leadership have actually finally decided to deliver the Brexit 17 million voted for Deal or No Deal

https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1170645473214062592?s=20

https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1170646496326406146?s=20

One has to feel some sympathy for poor old HY. It must be terrible when all the top Conservatives are stabbing one another in the back. It makes it very difficult for him to stay on message. After all, he does not know who the next leader is going to be, who will be his minders and controllers, and what line they will want him to take.

OblitusSumMe said:

Barnesian said:

Byronic said:

Barnesian said:

Adding the latest four polls to the EMA gives:

Con 32.2% Lab 24.7% LD 18.0% BXP 13.7% Grn 4.6%

My own constituency model uses a mixture of 75% additive (UNS) and 25% multiplicative swings.

For tactical voting it assumes a switch of 2.5% from Green to Labour and 1.0% from Green to LD.

It assumes that if the LD vote in a constituency was less than 50% of the Labour vote in 2017, then 30% of the LD vote will transfer to Labour.

It also assumes that if the Labour vote in a constituency was less than the LD vote in 2017, then 50% of the Labour vote will transfer to Labour.

I've done sensitivity runs on all these assumptions and, for instance, if 70% of Labour voters switch to LD (instead of 50%) where Labour is behind LD, it gives the LDs 3 more seats and the Tories 3 less than the 50% assumptions.

The central case result, with tactical voting, is:

Con 298
Lab 234
LD 48
SNP 51
i.e. a minority Labour government.

Interesting, and thankyou, but it looks more like wishcasting than forecasting, to me.

For example: I wonder how much tactical voting we will see. There may be LESS in this election than usual. Why? Because Brexit is so visceral and because Corbyn is SUCH a c*nt.

How many Remainers will hover over the ballot paper, and think quietly, "I know I should vote tactically for Corbyn in my constituency, but I just can't - he's a not-so-secret Leaver, and an anti-Semitic c*nt, and besides a vote for the Lib Dems is not wasted, I can express my feelings and they are high in the polls..."

There will be lots like that. Corbyn no longer attracts strays and floaters, he repels them. And the LDs are resurgent.

I'm already assuming that only 30% of LibDems vote tactically for Labour if the LD vote was less than half the labour vote last time. If I reduce that to 10%, the Tories end up with 302 seats. The Green tactical vote is as significant. The Green share is quite large and very anti-Tory.

One thing to be wary of is that tactical voting is not new, so the Lib Dem voters in 2017 are the hard core who have already decided not to vote tactically (and many of the 2017 Labour voters would have been instinctive supporters of other parties who voted tactically).

Untangling that, in addition to the changes in support, becomes horrendously complicated.

Agreed. It does.

With an OR background my approach is to do a detailed model with explicit "reasonable" assumptions and then flex the assumptions to see which are the most sensitive and focus on them. One then needs to be on the look out for political developments (and new polls) that impact those assumptions.

The alternative is hunch or guesswork or wishful thinking on either side.

Here is the summary of the recent batch of polls.

Key:
A=previous poll, B=this poll, C=change since last poll, D=Con lead.

OPINIUM (prev poll 2019-08-23, 16 days ago)
* A: Con32%, Lab26%, Lib15%, BXP16%
* B: Con35%, Lab25%, Lib17%, BXP13%
* C: Con+3%, Lab-1%, Lib+2%, BXP-3%
* D 10%

PANELBASE (prev poll 2019-05-21, 110 days ago):
* A: Con21%, Lab31%, Lib13%, BXP19%
* B: Con31%. Lab28%, Lib19%, BXP15%
* C: Co+10%, Lab-3%, Lib+6%, BXP-4%
* D 3%

SURVATION (prev poll 2019-08-30, 9 days ago)
* A: Con31%, Lab24%, Lib21%, BXP14%
* B: Con29%, Lab24%, Lib18%, BXP17%
* C: Con-2%, Lab+0%, Lib-3%, BXP+3%
* D 5%

YOUGOV (prev poll 2019-09-03, 5 days ago)
* A: Con35%, Lab25%, Lib16%, BXP11%
* B: Con35%, Lab21%, Lib19%, BXP12%
* C: Con+0%, Lab-4%, Lib+3%, BXP+1%
* D 14%

DELTAPOLL (prev poll 2019-08-31, 8 days ago)
* A: Con35%, Lab24%, Lib18%, BXP14%
* B: Con31%, Lab28%, Lib17%, BXP13%
* C: Con-4%, Lab+4%, Lib-1%, BXP-1%
* D 3%

RANGES
* Con: Min 29%, Max 35%
* Lab: Min 21%, Max 28%
* Lib: Min 17%, Max 19%
* BXP: Min 12%, Max 17%
* Con lead: Min 3%, Max 14%

A=previous poll, B=this poll, C=change since last poll, D=Con lead

Note:
* Dates are last day of fieldwork, not publication date
* YouGov's last poll was on Sep 3, but its last poll for the Sunday Times was Aug 23 and may have been a better comparator
* Any mistakes, please shout out

heart of stone if so....

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1170646548344123392?s=20

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1170655742795366400?s=20