I am not aware that a FTA is a requirement for us taking advantage of US healthcare innovations......lets buy those innovations at a price and under regulations under our control, until governments on both sides of the Atlantic are in a position and mindset to seek win-win trade agreements rather than zero sum adverserial ones.
An FTA isn't a requirement, but an open mind is. For example, if a US company offers to set up a diagnostic service here in the UK, using new technology which offers much better tests at a lower price than the NHS can provide, we'd have the Left screaming that it's 'privatisation', Tories selling off the crown jewels etc etc. That's why I said I was more worried by the anti-American attitude than anything to do with an FTA.
If the left is 10% of the population you might be right, if it is 30% I think most of the left would be wondering what you are talking about, of course we want the new cheaper better tech.
The Tories are also exploring policies to slap down the power of the supreme court following the prorogation ruling and are considering a ‘national conversation about our democracy’, that will consult on the role of the Supreme Court, in addition to other constitutional issues like the boundary review. Departments and MPs have now submitted their proposals and it’s up to a small team at CCHQ working with No. 10 to sift through them and put together the Christmas wish list that will win over the public.
Its Guido, so obvious warnings (although as Boris "unofficial" online campaign person for leadership I guess he has some knowledge).
Seems like an absolutely terrible idea both ideologically and politically. The media will get super hyped about this and bang on they only doing this because they lost in court etc etc etc and look at the US with their politically appointed Supreme Court.
Its like sticking fox hunting in your manifesto, it will just draw all the attention to it.
I'd be interested to see any polling which shows what issues voters consider the most important. I am sure this is seen by the politicians as the Brexit election but is that really how the public sees it ?
For a lot of voters it's the "We'd like a moderate centre-left social democratic party to vote for but it seems to have disappeared" election.
I am not aware that a FTA is a requirement for us taking advantage of US healthcare innovations......lets buy those innovations at a price and under regulations under our control, until governments on both sides of the Atlantic are in a position and mindset to seek win-win trade agreements rather than zero sum adverserial ones.
An FTA isn't a requirement, but an open mind is. For example, if a US company offers to set up a diagnostic service here in the UK, using new technology which offers much better tests at a lower price than the NHS can provide, we'd have the Left screaming that it's 'privatisation', Tories selling off the crown jewels etc etc. That's why I said I was more worried by the anti-American attitude than anything to do with an FTA.
Indeed - but the concern is that pharmaceutical companies have assiduously been lobbying to make limiting the NHS’ ability to negotiate lower drug prices a condition of US trade talks. How it might turn out is, of course, unknowable at this point, but Trump has been quite clear in expressing his opinion that we are freeloaders in this respect.
No, the implication of the first paragraph is that Johnson wanted an election now [he can win] but if he failed to get it the next few months would have been frustrating but would have just postponed the inevitable. Why not want to win a majority now, just because you can win a majority later?
Let us return to the point. I am opining as follows -
If he had not got his snap election there was every chance of the impasse continuing well into 2020, in which case the prolonged scrutiny of his Deal, his refusal to resign, and the growing distance between the present day and the 31 Oct 2019 date on which he had promised that we would leave the EU, all of this would have posed a grave risk to his polling position. Therefore he really really wanted this election.
Can we not accept this as almost certainly true and move on?
Which would mean lower drug prices? Access doesn't mean much
It would mean higher drug prices.
In the US, federal agencies are not allowed by law to negotiate drug prices. In the UK, NICE uses the NHS clout to negotiate down drug prices. The US want that removed and a move to the US system.
A Dem President might change that. Even the most centrist dem candidates are calling for that to change
Now favoured by around three quarters of the US electorate.
That's different to negotiating drug prices, but it shows how left wing the Dems have become on healthcare, that the most conservative position is a public option.
Interesting news about the Greens in Calder Valley, which is a hyper marginal.
The Greens are standing aside in favour of Labour. The Greens got about 600 votes in 2017 in that seat. Might make the difference between the Tory being re-elected or being defeated!
In spite of being a hyper marginal, my predictions for Calder valley are:
Con 22,726 Lab 17,750 LD 8,700 BXP 7,155
This a good example of where the LD resurgence allows the Tories to come through the middle in spite of my assumption that 35% of LibDems will tactically vote Labour if LDs were way behind in 2017, which they were.
I just thought it was interesting. The greens in Calder Valley are actually endousing voting Labour according to an article in the Huddersfield Examiner. Make of it what you will. I would provide a link but not sure how to do it on my phone! The article goes on to say the Greens are not doing this in Kirklees, which has Colne Valley and Dewsbury as seats of interest.
I am not aware that a FTA is a requirement for us taking advantage of US healthcare innovations......lets buy those innovations at a price and under regulations under our control, until governments on both sides of the Atlantic are in a position and mindset to seek win-win trade agreements rather than zero sum adverserial ones.
An FTA isn't a requirement, but an open mind is. For example, if a US company offers to set up a diagnostic service here in the UK, using new technology which offers much better tests at a lower price than the NHS can provide, we'd have the Left screaming that it's 'privatisation', Tories selling off the crown jewels etc etc. That's why I said I was more worried by the anti-American attitude than anything to do with an FTA.
If the left is 10% of the population you might be right, if it is 30% I think most of the left would be wondering what you are talking about, of course we want the new cheaper better tech.
Well, they seem to complain all the time about the 'privatisation' of the NHS, which they claim has already been happening. Have you ever, even once, seen anyone in today's Labour Party ask whether the 'privatisation' might have been justified? Quite the opposite, the attitude is invariably, without exception, and without any regard to facts, that it's always by definition worse for the NHS to sub-contract anything to a private provider, let alone a US one.
I am not aware that a FTA is a requirement for us taking advantage of US healthcare innovations......lets buy those innovations at a price and under regulations under our control, until governments on both sides of the Atlantic are in a position and mindset to seek win-win trade agreements rather than zero sum adverserial ones.
An FTA isn't a requirement, but an open mind is. For example, if a US company offers to set up a diagnostic service here in the UK, using new technology which offers much better tests at a lower price than the NHS can provide, we'd have the Left screaming that it's 'privatisation', Tories selling off the crown jewels etc etc. That's why I said I was more worried by the anti-American attitude than anything to do with an FTA.
Indeed - but the concern is that pharmaceutical companies have assiduously been lobbying to make limiting the NHS’ ability to negotiate lower drug prices a condition of US trade talks. How it might turn out is, of course, unknowable at this point, but Trump has been quite clear in expressing his opinion that we are freeloaders in this respect.
It would be a curious position for a US President to argue that scale shouldn't get you a better deal!
I'd be interested to see any polling which shows what issues voters consider the most important. I am sure this is seen by the politicians as the Brexit election but is that really how the public sees it ?
For a lot of voters it's the "We'd like a moderate centre-left social democratic party to vote for but it seems to have disappeared" election.
If you bring up the SDP again I'm going to scream...
By praising John Bercow for cutting back on the number of "strange garments" worn in Parliament, Jeremy Corbyn deliberately triggered Tories into jeering at the green tie he was wearing, Then it turns out the tie was to honour the victims of the Grenfell fire. Ouch. One-nil.
But he won yesterday. The jeerers found their access to the whining stage at the end had been cut off.
This is going to be a corker of an election. The TIG having now practically rotted away in the polls and what's happening with this year's other new association the Brexit Party still uncertain, the LDs may have positioned themselves as a "don't vote Labour" effort in some markets but this is a two horse race: essence of Labour versus essence of Tory.
Essence of Hard Labour vs Essence of Tory Bluekip probably appeals to about 40% of the electorate. What are the rest of us supposed to do? Twiddle our thumbs and see which side gets to make a mess of it first?
I think it will be more essence of Labour versus essence of Tory: not the hard or UKIP-friendly versions, but the core brands - of two parties which together attracted 85% of GB voters in 2017. For much of its history Labour hasn't been especially hard and the Tory party hasn't been especially anti-EU. It won't be like the 2019 EU election where the two parties' combined voteshare was somewhere around 25%.
Well for many it feels like we are being asked if we prefer to be poorer through bonkers Brexit and US trade deals, or to be poorer instead through bonkers marxism and state confiscation of assets.
The key word is "or". For many it is an exclusive "or". Those characterisations of the Tory and Labour positions work best together with the livery of their traditional opponents. Those (apart from some LD activists) who believe that Labour is led by bonkers Marxists tend not to believe at the same time that the Tories are led by those who want to flog the NHS off on Wall Street - and vice versa.
Labour could turn out to be more resilient than the Tories. John McDonnell can smile and say "I'm a Marxist" meaning "Haha - water off a duck's back", or (and we may well see more of this) meaning "That's what Tory nutters would say". Then set this against Tories who start foaming at the mouth when someone criticises "entrepreneurs", when "entrenpreneur" for most of the population has never been a positive model.
The Tories are also exploring policies to slap down the power of the supreme court following the prorogation ruling and are considering a ‘national conversation about our democracy’, that will consult on the role of the Supreme Court, in addition to other constitutional issues like the boundary review. Departments and MPs have now submitted their proposals and it’s up to a small team at CCHQ working with No. 10 to sift through them and put together the Christmas wish list that will win over the public.
Its Guido, so obvious warnings (although as Boris "unofficial" online campaign person for leadership I guess he has some knowledge).
Seems like an absolutely terrible idea both ideologically and politically. The media will get super hyped about this and bang on they only doing this because they lost in court etc etc etc and look at the US with their politically appointed Supreme Court.
Its like sticking fox hunting in your manifesto, it will just draw all the attention to it.
Con 36.6%, Lab 23.4% would give the Tories 327 seats. So a 13% lead would do it.
Remember there are a lot of SNP and LD seats. It's not just the lead over Labour.
Even with a 13% lead in my example, the Tories are still 8% points down on 2017 where they got 43.4%. Lead over Labour isn't everything.
13% a bare majority? With a 13% lead there is hardly any tactical voting going on against the tories, you haven't taken into account that?
Con 36.6% gives them a 0.5 higher share than they got in 2015 With Labour 5.6% down on 2015
But you've got the Tories winning fewer seats than they did in 2015, despite a more than 3% swing from Labour to Tory? How?
He must be predicting masses of libdem gains from the Tories because of tactical voting.
But that doesn't make any sense because Boris has a massive lead on Best PM And although the survation constituency polling is in line with his models, that's only because they have much smaller national leads.
We need to see some constituency polling from the ones showing double digit leads.
I am not aware that a FTA is a requirement for us taking advantage of US healthcare innovations......lets buy those innovations at a price and under regulations under our control, until governments on both sides of the Atlantic are in a position and mindset to seek win-win trade agreements rather than zero sum adverserial ones.
An FTA isn't a requirement, but an open mind is. For example, if a US company offers to set up a diagnostic service here in the UK, using new technology which offers much better tests at a lower price than the NHS can provide, we'd have the Left screaming that it's 'privatisation', Tories selling off the crown jewels etc etc. That's why I said I was more worried by the anti-American attitude than anything to do with an FTA.
Indeed - but the concern is that pharmaceutical companies have assiduously been lobbying to make limiting the NHS’ ability to negotiate lower drug prices a condition of US trade talks. How it might turn out is, of course, unknowable at this point, but Trump has been quite clear in expressing his opinion that we are freeloaders in this respect.
Which would mean lower drug prices? Access doesn't mean much
It would mean higher drug prices.
In the US, federal agencies are not allowed by law to negotiate drug prices. In the UK, NICE uses the NHS clout to negotiate down drug prices. The US want that removed and a move to the US system.
A Dem President might change that. Even the most centrist dem candidates are calling for that to change
Now favoured by around three quarters of the US electorate.
That's different to negotiating drug prices, but it shows how left wing the Dems have become on healthcare, that the most conservative position is a public option.
Which is also hugely popular with the electorate
Yes.
It is nuts America still doesn't have universal healthcare.
No, the implication of the first paragraph is that Johnson wanted an election now [he can win] but if he failed to get it the next few months would have been frustrating but would have just postponed the inevitable. Why not want to win a majority now, just because you can win a majority later?
Let us return to the point. I am opining as follows -
If he had not got his snap election there was every chance of the impasse continuing well into 2020, in which case the prolonged scrutiny of his Deal, his refusal to resign, and the growing distance between the present day and the 31 Oct 2019 date on which he had promised that we would leave the EU, all of this would have posed a grave risk to his polling position. Therefore he really really wanted this election.
Can we not accept this as almost certainly true and move on?
No.
I can accept as true that he wanted this election, but the second Remainers in Parliament blocked Brexit the 31/10 date became moot. As long as Johnson could keep pressure up on Parliament his support would remain, the only way Parliament could vent the pressure was to either fold and give Johnson his Brexit, or to go for an election.
On UNS your voteshares actually give: Con 340 Lab 211 LDs 33 (assuming 8 Tory and 6 Labour losses to the SNP too) Your model is too reliant on Remainer tactical voting even for Corbyn Labour and on Green votes going Labour
HYUFD, does your model recognise that a lot of former moderate Conservative voters feel they have been driven away from their party by the unpleasantness and incompetence of the present Tory-UKIP leadership?
I am not aware that a FTA is a requirement for us taking advantage of US healthcare innovations......lets buy those innovations at a price and under regulations under our control, until governments on both sides of the Atlantic are in a position and mindset to seek win-win trade agreements rather than zero sum adverserial ones.
An FTA isn't a requirement, but an open mind is. For example, if a US company offers to set up a diagnostic service here in the UK, using new technology which offers much better tests at a lower price than the NHS can provide, we'd have the Left screaming that it's 'privatisation', Tories selling off the crown jewels etc etc. That's why I said I was more worried by the anti-American attitude than anything to do with an FTA.
Indeed - but the concern is that pharmaceutical companies have assiduously been lobbying to make limiting the NHS’ ability to negotiate lower drug prices a condition of US trade talks. How it might turn out is, of course, unknowable at this point, but Trump has been quite clear in expressing his opinion that we are freeloaders in this respect.
That one's simple: we wouldn't accept it.
I wish I shared your confidence in what Boris might or might not do with a majority behind him.
I don't know where those figures are coming from, but I simply do not believe that a 10.5% Tory-Lab lead will result in the Tories winning 5 fewer seats than they did in 2017!
Those polling figures are not far off 2015 besides the Lib Dems but with a bigger Tory lead over Labour, yet supposedly Tories will win 18 fewer than they did in 2015 while Labor will win 10 fewer than they did in 2015? That makes no sense!
Tories win 19 seats off Labour but lose seats to SNP and LDs.
The 4% swing from Labour to the Tories you have actually sees the Tories gain 38 Labour seats on UNS, not 19
I use 80% UNS and 20% multiplicative. UNS has the problem that it is uniform. It adds the same share to every constituency. The multiplicative multiplies the share recognising that the absolute increase in share is likely to be higher where the original share is higher. So that's one difference. There are also tactical voting differences (reduces Tory gains from Labour by 8 seats) and allocation of the green share. It's matching quite well with the individual constituency polls but they are small samples so not much comfort.
Electoral calculus is quite crude.
What happens if Brexit Party aren't standing on Labour vs Tory marginal? I find it hard to believe Tories wouldn't benefit from that.
If the Brexit supporters in that Labour vs Tory marginal are mainly Labour Leavers it might benefit Labour. We just don't know yet. You will have seen the various comments on this.
The Brexit Party helps the Tories in working class Tory v Labour seats but harms the Tories in middle class Tory v LD seats
Con 36.6%, Lab 23.4% would give the Tories 327 seats. So a 13% lead would do it.
Remember there are a lot of SNP and LD seats. It's not just the lead over Labour.
Even with a 13% lead in my example, the Tories are still 8% points down on 2017 where they got 43.4%. Lead over Labour isn't everything.
13% a bare majority? With a 13% lead there is hardly any tactical voting going on against the tories, you haven't taken into account that?
Con 36.6% gives them a 0.5 higher share than they got in 2015 With Labour 5.6% down on 2015
But you've got the Tories winning fewer seats than they did in 2015, despite a more than 3% swing from Labour to Tory? How?
He must be predicting masses of libdem gains from the Tories because of tactical voting.
But that doesn't make any sense because Boris has a massive lead on Best PM And although the survation constituency polling is in line with his models, that's only because they have much smaller national leads.
We need to see some constituency polling from the ones showing double digit leads.
As his numbers mean the Tories are winning Chorley, it would also mean that all of the Labour money spent on defending seats would have been spaffed up a firewall.....
Seems good to me. There is nothing there anyone sane in the UK could conceivably object to, unless they don't want US medical advances to be available here. I suppose Corbynistas would rather that people weren't treated well if the alternative is that - God forbid - a US company supplied the treatment.
"Procedural fairness" means that NICE can't use NHS clout to negotiate drug prices.
There is a reason that US health costs are at least twice as high as ours per capita.
There's lots of reasons, but that's not one of them. Of course the NHS can get a good price, it's a big purchaser. Same as any big purchaser. There's nothing 'procedurally unfair' in that, any more than there is in Apple getting good prices from its Chinese suppliers.
The US would like the same to apply here so the NHS would be unable to get a good price.
The US/UK trade deal will be focused on cheap US food and more expensive drug prices. Both benefit the US.
The cheap food will be unhealthy, put UK farmers and processors out of business, and massively interfere with any food deal with the EU.
This what we are faced with. It will get a lot of publicity during the campaign. It's not just "chlorinated chicken" which is not a problem with the chlorine itself but the necessity of having to use it.
Corbyn's platform is one of class war and anti aspiration
So depressing
I think Labour will do better than the polls suggest despite Corbyn,
Corbyn's problem is that he's an unpatriotic socialist. I think he'd probably do well in the current climate, even despite his old-fashioned socialist economic ideas, if he wasn't regarded as someone who hates what Britain stands for.
I'd vote for someone whose platform was anti-perspiration.
I think the thing to watch again, does Jezza start to eat into that middle aged vote. For all the talk about students doing it for Labour last time, actually it was the big switch away from May among the middle aged that did for her.
I am not aware that a FTA is a requirement for us taking advantage of US healthcare innovations......lets buy those innovations at a price and under regulations under our control, until governments on both sides of the Atlantic are in a position and mindset to seek win-win trade agreements rather than zero sum adverserial ones.
An FTA isn't a requirement, but an open mind is. For example, if a US company offers to set up a diagnostic service here in the UK, using new technology which offers much better tests at a lower price than the NHS can provide, we'd have the Left screaming that it's 'privatisation', Tories selling off the crown jewels etc etc. That's why I said I was more worried by the anti-American attitude than anything to do with an FTA.
Indeed - but the concern is that pharmaceutical companies have assiduously been lobbying to make limiting the NHS’ ability to negotiate lower drug prices a condition of US trade talks. How it might turn out is, of course, unknowable at this point, but Trump has been quite clear in expressing his opinion that we are freeloaders in this respect.
It would be a curious position for a US President to argue that scale shouldn't get you a better deal!
Trump is a curious President. And as it was pointed our below, US law actually prevents you getting that better deal when it comes to drug prices in the US.
Presumably, some of the people who think the Government's deal should be subject to a referendum but who also don't want a second referendum mean either:
1. We should revoke without a referendum if the numbers are there in Parliament following an election but, if there's no majority on that and the new Goverment really want to take us out, I want a vote on the terms of leaving. This is essentially the Lib Dem position.
2. We should leave on no deal, but the same logic as above applies if there's no majority for that on December 12th.
Those are rational positions, and the pollsters are perhaps more confused than the people.
Which would mean lower drug prices? Access doesn't mean much
It would mean higher drug prices.
In the US, federal agencies are not allowed by law to negotiate drug prices. In the UK, NICE uses the NHS clout to negotiate down drug prices. The US want that removed and a move to the US system.
But we are just being told, by the media and C4 News, that Boris wants to sell the NHS off to Trump and his mates. Surely thats all it is.
It's not selling the NHS off to the US. It is crippling it so it has to pay high US prices.
I remember when Red Ken pushed that line during the London Mayoral election. We all found that lazy Boris didn't even bother to have any tax efficiency plans for his income, where as Red Ken very much do as I say, not as I do.
I would just add that Chorley is target seat number 86 for the Conservatives.....
I wouldn't fancy their chances against Hoyle, he is well respected. You'd have to be getting into serious landslide territory to see Chorley go.
Also, what if he wins the Speaker election, would they stand against him? Last I heard it was still on for Monday.
It is absolutely insane that the Speaker election could proceed. Inexcusable. Parliament should be dissolved tonight thus voiding Monday so there is no Speaker election.
I think the thing to watch again, does Jezza start to eat into that middle aged vote. For all the talk about students doing it for Labour last time, actually it was the big switch away from May among the middle aged that did for her.
That was down to the dementia tax and potential loss of inheritance, the Tories have scrapped that rightly and Boris will run a more populist campaign than May
Con 36.6%, Lab 23.4% would give the Tories 327 seats. So a 13% lead would do it.
Remember there are a lot of SNP and LD seats. It's not just the lead over Labour.
Even with a 13% lead in my example, the Tories are still 8% points down on 2017 where they got 43.4%. Lead over Labour isn't everything.
13% a bare majority? With a 13% lead there is hardly any tactical voting going on against the tories, you haven't taken into account that?
Con 36.6% gives them a 0.5 higher share than they got in 2015 With Labour 5.6% down on 2015
But you've got the Tories winning fewer seats than they did in 2015, despite a more than 3% swing from Labour to Tory? How?
He must be predicting masses of libdem gains from the Tories because of tactical voting.
But that doesn't make any sense because Boris has a massive lead on Best PM And although the survation constituency polling is in line with his models, that's only because they have much smaller national leads.
We need to see some constituency polling from the ones showing double digit leads.
As his numbers mean the Tories are winning Chorley, it would also mean that all of the Labour money spent on defending seats would have been spaffed up a firewall.....
If the tories win Chorley, they are getting a majority.
Seems good to me. There is nothing there anyone sane in the UK could conceivably object to, unless they don't want US medical advances to be available here. I suppose Corbynistas would rather that people weren't treated well if the alternative is that - God forbid - a US company supplied the treatment.
"Procedural fairness" means that NICE can't use NHS clout to negotiate drug prices.
There is a reason that US health costs are at least twice as high as ours per capita.
There's lots of reasons, but that's not one of them. Of course the NHS can get a good price, it's a big purchaser. Same as any big purchaser. There's nothing 'procedurally unfair' in that, any more than there is in Apple getting good prices from its Chinese suppliers.
Medicare pays far more for drugs than government programs that negotiate. Under current law, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is prohibited from negotiating lower drug prices on behalf of Medicare Part D beneficiaries. In contrast, other government programs, like Medicaid and VA, are allowed to negotiate. As a result, Medicare Part D pays on average 73% more than Medicaid and 80% more than VA for brand name drugs. The federal government could save between $15.2 and $16 billion a year if Medicare Part D paid the same prices as Medicaid or VA.
On UNS your voteshares actually give: Con 340 Lab 211 LDs 33 (assuming 8 Tory and 6 Labour losses to the SNP too) Your model is too reliant on Remainer tactical voting even for Corbyn Labour and on Green votes going Labour
HYUFD, does your model recognise that a lot of former moderate Conservative voters feel they have been driven away from their party by the unpleasantness and incompetence of the present Tory-UKIP leadership?
If so they will already be voting LD anyway so yes
I think the thing to watch again, does Jezza start to eat into that middle aged vote. For all the talk about students doing it for Labour last time, actually it was the big switch away from May among the middle aged that did for her.
That was down to the dementia tax and potential loss of inheritance, the Tories have scrapped that rightly and Boris will run a more populist campaign than May
I think the free uni also was a big driver. You forget lots of people a) don't understand the uni fees / loan system and think they the parents will be paying and /or b) think its unfair that their lovely Timmy is going be saddled with debt (rather than actually paying a capped Graduate Tax by another name).
Trump is a curious President. And as it was pointed our below, US law actually prevents you getting that better deal when it comes to drug prices in the US.
We have a similarly bonkers law here, though. Thanks to Labour and the LibDems, Lansley's attempts to introduce some sensible competition between providers on price were stopped.
I would just add that Chorley is target seat number 86 for the Conservatives.....
I wouldn't fancy their chances against Hoyle, he is well respected. You'd have to be getting into serious landslide territory to see Chorley go.
Also, what if he wins the Speaker election, would they stand against him? Last I heard it was still on for Monday.
It is absolutely insane that the Speaker election could proceed. Inexcusable. Parliament should be dissolved tonight thus voiding Monday so there is no Speaker election.
Based on 2017 that gives JC lots of space to win by some margin.
What are you talking about? On those numbers, the Cons are holding 83.8% of their 2017 vote - Labour just 60.7%.
So for example in Chorley, which Labour won with Lindsay Hoyle by c7,500, on the same turnout as 2017 the Conservatives win with a majority of 800. Now, there was a big UKIP vote, and that might go back to Labour if a) that is where it came from and b) there is no Brexit Party candidate. But Barnesian can tell me if he's got the Cons winning Chorley in his model.....
Labour retains by 1,400 but it's close
Additive model (UNS) gives Con 19,339. Lab 22,405 Multiplicative gives Con 19,494, Lab 19,366
I use 80/20 additive/multiplicative and this gives Con 19,370, Lab 21,794
EDIT: This includes a 400 tactical vote from LDs for Labour. It also assumes BXP stand (no UKIP last time) and get 5,400 so that is a critical assumption.
Presumably, some of the people who think the Government's deal should be subject to a referendum but who also don't want a second referendum mean either:
1. We should revoke without a referendum if the numbers are there in Parliament following an election but, if there's no majority on that and the new Goverment really want to take us out, I want a vote on the terms of leaving. This is essentially the Lib Dem position.
2. We should leave on no deal, but the same logic as above applies if there's no majority for that on December 12th.
Those are rational positions, and the pollsters are perhaps more confused than the people.
Some people don't want a second referendum on Leave vs Remain but want a referendum on Leave options: Boris Deal vs No Deal.
I would just add that Chorley is target seat number 86 for the Conservatives.....
I wouldn't fancy their chances against Hoyle, he is well respected. You'd have to be getting into serious landslide territory to see Chorley go.
Also, what if he wins the Speaker election, would they stand against him? Last I heard it was still on for Monday.
It is absolutely insane that the Speaker election could proceed. Inexcusable. Parliament should be dissolved tonight thus voiding Monday so there is no Speaker election.
Why does it matter?
Why should this parliament decide on a speaker for the next parliament?
That is interesting. I am pretty sure that is a reversal of 20+ years ago (anyone with data able to advise?), when the less educated voted Labour and more educated Liberal or Tory.
I would just add that Chorley is target seat number 86 for the Conservatives.....
I wouldn't fancy their chances against Hoyle, he is well respected. You'd have to be getting into serious landslide territory to see Chorley go.
Also, what if he wins the Speaker election, would they stand against him? Last I heard it was still on for Monday.
I remember a decent procfit on that one last time
Chorley was considered a 2017 target and in the end, it wasn't even close.
if there are odds worth taking I'd so so again
It looks like Barnesian has run the numbers, then looked at the Labour casualites and said "well, that's never going to fall, nor that, nor that, nor that....."
Perhaps he'd like to share with us his "special pleadings" - and tell us where the votes go instead.
I would just add that Chorley is target seat number 86 for the Conservatives.....
I wouldn't fancy their chances against Hoyle, he is well respected. You'd have to be getting into serious landslide territory to see Chorley go.
Also, what if he wins the Speaker election, would they stand against him? Last I heard it was still on for Monday.
It is absolutely insane that the Speaker election could proceed. Inexcusable. Parliament should be dissolved tonight thus voiding Monday so there is no Speaker election.
Disagree. Better the Speaker is chosen by MPs who know their strengths/weaknesses than by a Parliament full of new MPs who will bend to the Whips' will.....
That is interesting. I am pretty sure that is a reversal of 20+ years ago (anyone with data able to advise?), when the less educated voted Labour and more educated Liberal or Tory.
But remember ~50% of 18 years old now go to uni It was only something like 20% back in the day.
I can accept as true that he wanted this election, but the second Remainers in Parliament blocked Brexit the 31/10 date became moot. As long as Johnson could keep pressure up on Parliament his support would remain, the only way Parliament could vent the pressure was to either fold and give Johnson his Brexit, or to go for an election.
In our alternative future it is of course possible that months of deadlock with Johnson 'on strike' and doing nothing except agitate for an election would have seen his poll ratings improve. However, it is surely also very possible that the opposite would have happened. Given this, I submit it is overwhelmingly likely that he is relieved rather than disappointed or indifferent to have succeeded in getting his Dec 12th snap poll.
I think the thing to watch again, does Jezza start to eat into that middle aged vote. For all the talk about students doing it for Labour last time, actually it was the big switch away from May among the middle aged that did for her.
That was down to the dementia tax and potential loss of inheritance, the Tories have scrapped that rightly and Boris will run a more populist campaign than May
I think the free uni also was a big driver. You forget lots of people a) don't understand the uni fees / loan system and think they the parents will be paying and /or b) think its unfair that their lovely Timmy is going be saddled with debt (rather than actually paying a capped Graduate Tax by another name).
Free fees was mainly a factor for under 30s, the big move with middle aged voters only came with the dementia tax, the Tories now back in the lead with 40 to 45s now they have scrapped it
I think the thing to watch again, does Jezza start to eat into that middle aged vote. For all the talk about students doing it for Labour last time, actually it was the big switch away from May among the middle aged that did for her.
That was down to the dementia tax and potential loss of inheritance, the Tories have scrapped that rightly and Boris will run a more populist campaign than May
I think the free uni also was a big driver. You forget lots of people a) don't understand the uni fees / loan system and think they the parents will be paying and /or b) think its unfair that their lovely Timmy is going be saddled with debt (rather than actually paying a capped Graduate Tax by another name).
Free fees was mainly a factor for under 30s, the big move with middle aged voters only came with the dementia tax, the Tories now back in the lead with 40 to 45s now they have scrapped it
I would just add that Chorley is target seat number 86 for the Conservatives.....
I wouldn't fancy their chances against Hoyle, he is well respected. You'd have to be getting into serious landslide territory to see Chorley go.
Also, what if he wins the Speaker election, would they stand against him? Last I heard it was still on for Monday.
It is absolutely insane that the Speaker election could proceed. Inexcusable. Parliament should be dissolved tonight thus voiding Monday so there is no Speaker election.
Why does it matter?
Why should this parliament decide on a speaker for the next parliament?
Because this Parliament knows the candidates? A fair chunk of the next won't and will be told what to do.
I think the thing to watch again, does Jezza start to eat into that middle aged vote. For all the talk about students doing it for Labour last time, actually it was the big switch away from May among the middle aged that did for her.
That was down to the dementia tax and potential loss of inheritance, the Tories have scrapped that rightly and Boris will run a more populist campaign than May
I think the free uni also was a big driver. You forget lots of people a) don't understand the uni fees / loan system and think they the parents will be paying and /or b) think its unfair that their lovely Timmy is going be saddled with debt (rather than actually paying a capped Graduate Tax by another name).
Free fees was mainly a factor for under 30s, the big move with middle aged voters only came with the dementia tax, the Tories now back in the lead with 40 to 45s now they have scrapped it
You shouldn't underestimate the significance of tuition fees among older voters. They often vote based on what they think is best for their children and grandchildren.
On UNS your voteshares actually give: Con 340 Lab 211 LDs 33 (assuming 8 Tory and 6 Labour losses to the SNP too) Your model is too reliant on Remainer tactical voting even for Corbyn Labour and on Green votes going Labour
HYUFD, does your model recognise that a lot of former moderate Conservative voters feel they have been driven away from their party by the unpleasantness and incompetence of the present Tory-UKIP leadership?
HYUFD wants us driven away. He believes in small tents! "If you are not pure like me then fook off!" is the new Conservative In Name Only Party mantra.
Trump is a curious President. And as it was pointed our below, US law actually prevents you getting that better deal when it comes to drug prices in the US.
We have a similarly bonkers law here, though. Thanks to Labour and the LibDems, Lansley's attempts to introduce some sensible competition between providers on price were stopped.
That is an incredibly simplistic interpretation of Lansley's proposed drug purchasing changes.
I would just add that Chorley is target seat number 86 for the Conservatives.....
I wouldn't fancy their chances against Hoyle, he is well respected. You'd have to be getting into serious landslide territory to see Chorley go.
Also, what if he wins the Speaker election, would they stand against him? Last I heard it was still on for Monday.
It is absolutely insane that the Speaker election could proceed. Inexcusable. Parliament should be dissolved tonight thus voiding Monday so there is no Speaker election.
HoC website shows it happening at 2.30pm on Monday.
I think the thing to watch again, does Jezza start to eat into that middle aged vote. For all the talk about students doing it for Labour last time, actually it was the big switch away from May among the middle aged that did for her.
That was down to the dementia tax and potential loss of inheritance, the Tories have scrapped that rightly and Boris will run a more populist campaign than May
I think the free uni also was a big driver. You forget lots of people a) don't understand the uni fees / loan system and think they the parents will be paying and /or b) think its unfair that their lovely Timmy is going be saddled with debt (rather than actually paying a capped Graduate Tax by another name).
Free fees was mainly a factor for under 30s, the big move with middle aged voters only came with the dementia tax, the Tories now back in the lead with 40 to 45s now they have scrapped it
You shouldn't underestimate the significance of tuition fees among older voters. They often vote based on what they think is best for their children and grandchildren.
I regularly hear parents express concern about uni fees. Most really don't understand the system, they just hear £9k a year (and the real killer, that politicians rarely talk about the unbelievable inflation in uni hall costs - It regularly cost £150-200 a week for a room in halls).
That is interesting. I am pretty sure that is a reversal of 20+ years ago (anyone with data able to advise?), when the less educated voted Labour and more educated Liberal or Tory.
The LDs still do best with the most educated percentage of vote wise, the last time the Tories won graduates was 2015 but even then they did better percentage wise with non graduates.
Remember in the 1980s only 10% went to university ie becoming mainly higher earning, professional Tory or LD voters, now 30 to 40% go plenty of middle income or even low income Labour graduates too
Trump is a curious President. And as it was pointed our below, US law actually prevents you getting that better deal when it comes to drug prices in the US.
We have a similarly bonkers law here, though. Thanks to Labour and the LibDems, Lansley's attempts to introduce some sensible competition between providers on price were stopped.
That is an incredibly simplistic interpretation of Lansley's proposed drug purchasing changes.
Services more than drugs. Efficient providers are not allowed to pass on their efficiencies to the commissioning bodies. That is utterly bonkers.
I remember when Red Ken pushed that line during the London Mayoral election. We all found that lazy Boris didn't even bother to have any tax efficiency plans for his income, where as Red Ken very much do as I say, not as I do.
yeah, I have only ever seen that sort of stunt backfire.
That is interesting. I am pretty sure that is a reversal of 20+ years ago (anyone with data able to advise?), when the less educated voted Labour and more educated Liberal or Tory.
But remember ~50% of 18 years old now go to uni It was only something like 20% back in the day.
Yes that would have an influence I guess. I just looked it up, it is approx. 28% now versus (I think) 9% when I graduated in late 80s.
That is interesting. I am pretty sure that is a reversal of 20+ years ago (anyone with data able to advise?), when the less educated voted Labour and more educated Liberal or Tory.
But remember ~50% of 18 years old now go to uni It was only something like 20% back in the day.
Yes, so to some extent the graph simply reflects the fact that older people are more likely to vote conservative. It'd be interesting to see the graph corrected to take this into account.
That is interesting. I am pretty sure that is a reversal of 20+ years ago (anyone with data able to advise?), when the less educated voted Labour and more educated Liberal or Tory.
But remember ~50% of 18 years old now go to uni It was only something like 20% back in the day.
Yes, so to some extent the graph simply reflects the fact that older people are more likely to vote conservative. It'd be interested to see the graph corrected to take this into account.
That would be far better chart....very poor really from the polling companies as they must know that this demographic has not remained anywhere near a stable % of the population.
Its like surveying how miners vote these days and trying to extrapolate anything.
Corbyn framing this election as "whose side are you on?" (yacht owners or disabled children etc). He seems to be re-running what seemed to work in 2017.
Colour me sceptical but do we really expect that the 500bn spending spree is going to be paid for by the 50000 yacht owners
Even if that is individuals who own the yachts it is 1 million per head in tax due.
There's yachts and yachts, and the median value of a uk owned yacht is probably about £25000. I think he means superyachts.
Well quite. I would honestly like to live in the world Corbyn has planned in his head, but if you want to mega tax the mega rich they just move abroad. That’s what happened in France not so long ago.
I would just add that Chorley is target seat number 86 for the Conservatives.....
I wouldn't fancy their chances against Hoyle, he is well respected. You'd have to be getting into serious landslide territory to see Chorley go.
Also, what if he wins the Speaker election, would they stand against him? Last I heard it was still on for Monday.
It is absolutely insane that the Speaker election could proceed. Inexcusable. Parliament should be dissolved tonight thus voiding Monday so there is no Speaker election.
Why does it matter?
Its undemocratic for a dying Parliament to change the Speaker prior to the election and then is a constituency supposed to respect that despite the fact their MP hasn't served as Speaker yet? And what happens if the new Parliament chooses a different Speaker, does the old one step down having served only one day? Do they trigger a by-election immediately after the General Election? Do they get a pension based on being Speaker for one day?
I can accept as true that he wanted this election, but the second Remainers in Parliament blocked Brexit the 31/10 date became moot. As long as Johnson could keep pressure up on Parliament his support would remain, the only way Parliament could vent the pressure was to either fold and give Johnson his Brexit, or to go for an election.
In our alternative future it is of course possible that months of deadlock with Johnson 'on strike' and doing nothing except agitate for an election would have seen his poll ratings improve. However, it is surely also very possible that the opposite would have happened. Given this, I submit it is overwhelmingly likely that he is relieved rather than disappointed or indifferent to have succeeded in getting his Dec 12th snap poll.
There. How is that for you?
Much better. Good to have the GE now based on 'a bird in the hand'.
I can understand some of the sniffy comments about Boris but the idea that he is "lazy" and "unfocused" is barmy. The guy is bursting with energy and utterly focused, even if the focus is entirely on him but, hey, he is a politician. Just look at the discipline of his leadership campaign.
If he managed to pull off a GE win (after 9 years of less than scintillating Tory Govt) that would objectively be a hell of an achievement. If he delivers Brexit then he becomes the most consequential PM since Thatcher.
If you add to that two times winner of the London mayoralty, the man who won the Brexit referendum, then you have the most successful electoral track record since Blair (at least).
I'm not the greatest Boris fan but its not a bad record so far - even if he does blow up at some point in the future. (But don't count on it.)
Based on 2017 that gives JC lots of space to win by some margin.
What are you talking about? On those numbers, the Cons are holding 83.8% of their 2017 vote - Labour just 60.7%.
So for example in Chorley, which Labour won with Lindsay Hoyle by c7,500, on the same turnout as 2017 the Conservatives win with a majority of 800. Now, there was a big UKIP vote, and that might go back to Labour if a) that is where it came from and b) there is no Brexit Party candidate. But Barnesian can tell me if he's got the Cons winning Chorley in his model.....
Labour retains by 1,400 but it's close
Additive model (UNS) gives Con 19,339. Lab 22,405 Multiplicative gives Con 19,494, Lab 19,366
I use 80/20 additive/multiplicative and this gives Con 19,370, Lab 21,794
EDIT: This includes a 400 tactical vote from LDs for Labour. It also assumes BXP stand (no UKIP last time) and get 5,400 so that is a critical assumption.
Which is a bit of a problem. You have two models, combine them in a way that may well be valid but has no apparent justification, then make post-modelling adjustments. It's not unheard of, and many modellers behave like this, but it becomes progressively more difficult to defend.
Excuse me while I rant for a moment.
Modellers do this and it drives me nuts. Every time one gets good, they start publishing more than one. Nate Silver (or 538, I forget which) had six simultaneously. Ashcroft had three MRP models. Hix had two or three. It doesn't help and arguably makes things worse. If both of your models are wrong, why does combining them make it better? If one is correct, why do the other model? Aaargh!
I can understand some of the sniffy comments about Boris but the idea that he is "lazy" and "unfocused" is barmy. The guy is bursting with energy and utterly focused, even if the focus is entirely on him but, hey, he is a politician. Just look at the discipline of his leadership campaign.
If he managed to pull off a GE win (after 9 years of less than scintillating Tory Govt) that would objectively be a hell of an achievement. If he delivers Brexit then he becomes the most consequential PM since Thatcher.
If you add to that two times winner of the London mayoralty, the man who won the Brexit referendum, then you have the most successful electoral track record since Blair (at least).
I'm not the greatest Boris fan but its not a bad record so far - even if he does blow up at some point in the future. (But don't count on it.)
I would just add that Chorley is target seat number 86 for the Conservatives.....
I wouldn't fancy their chances against Hoyle, he is well respected. You'd have to be getting into serious landslide territory to see Chorley go.
Also, what if he wins the Speaker election, would they stand against him? Last I heard it was still on for Monday.
It is absolutely insane that the Speaker election could proceed. Inexcusable. Parliament should be dissolved tonight thus voiding Monday so there is no Speaker election.
I tend to agree that it's silly to go ahead with the Speaker election. It needlessly disenfranchise people in one seat or another. I suspect Hoyle would win on 12th December and would win Speaker election. But if he doesn't get back in, there are other credible options to do the job.
This all points to the Tories becoming the party of the uneducated and the Lib Dems becoming the party of the educated. Bad news for Labour.
No, the educational qualifications profile results are more indicative of age. Few oldies have degrees. As the youthful graduates get older they will become more Tory.
I can accept as true that he wanted this election, but the second Remainers in Parliament blocked Brexit the 31/10 date became moot. As long as Johnson could keep pressure up on Parliament his support would remain, the only way Parliament could vent the pressure was to either fold and give Johnson his Brexit, or to go for an election.
In our alternative future it is of course possible that months of deadlock with Johnson 'on strike' and doing nothing except agitate for an election would have seen his poll ratings improve. However, it is surely also very possible that the opposite would have happened. Given this, I submit it is overwhelmingly likely that he is relieved rather than disappointed or indifferent to have succeeded in getting his Dec 12th snap poll.
There. How is that for you?
Much better. Good to have the GE now based on 'a bird in the hand'.
Exactly - now is the time to strike rather than let his minority position in Parliament sap his authority over the next half a year.
It's almost unimaginable how badly the opposition has played what could have been a winning hand for them in recent months!
Corbyn framing this election as "whose side are you on?" (yacht owners or disabled children etc). He seems to be re-running what seemed to work in 2017.
Colour me sceptical but do we really expect that the 500bn spending spree is going to be paid for by the 50000 yacht owners
Even if that is individuals who own the yachts it is 1 million per head in tax due.
There's yachts and yachts, and the median value of a uk owned yacht is probably about £25000. I think he means superyachts.
Well quite. I would honestly like to live in the world Corbyn has planned in his head, but if you want to mega tax the mega rich they just move abroad. That’s what happened in France not so long ago.
That is easier in France where many just move to Belgium and get a similar culture with a quick train to Paris. Leaving London to another English speaking place isn't the same. You become too far from family or have to live in a backwater like Dublin.
Which is a bit of a problem. You have two models, combine them in a way that may well be valid but has no apparent justification, then make post-modelling adjustments. It's not unheard of, and many modellers behave like this, but it becomes progressively more difficult to defend.
Excuse me while I rant for a moment.
Modellers do this and it drives me nuts. Every time one gets good, they start publishing more than one. Nate Silver (or 538, I forget which) had six simultaneously. Ashcroft had three MRP models. Hix had two or three. It doesn't help and arguably makes things worse. If both of your models are wrong, why does combining them make it better? If one is correct, why do the other model? Aaargh!
End rant ...
In my experience the best inoculation against the disease of believing too much in models is having written models oneself.
I would just add that Chorley is target seat number 86 for the Conservatives.....
I wouldn't fancy their chances against Hoyle, he is well respected. You'd have to be getting into serious landslide territory to see Chorley go.
Also, what if he wins the Speaker election, would they stand against him? Last I heard it was still on for Monday.
It is absolutely insane that the Speaker election could proceed. Inexcusable. Parliament should be dissolved tonight thus voiding Monday so there is no Speaker election.
Why does it matter?
Its undemocratic for a dying Parliament to change the Speaker prior to the election and then is a constituency supposed to respect that despite the fact their MP hasn't served as Speaker yet? And what happens if the new Parliament chooses a different Speaker, does the old one step down having served only one day? Do they trigger a by-election immediately after the General Election? Do they get a pension based on being Speaker for one day?
There are loads of aspects to our system that are "undemocratic", this is one of the least important ones. They will not be dealt with of course because the "Establishment" has fixated us on the stupidity of Brexit, the new opiate of the people.
Comments
https://order-order.com/2019/10/31/tories-consider-ways-reform-supreme-court/
Its Guido, so obvious warnings (although as Boris "unofficial" online campaign person for leadership I guess he has some knowledge).
Seems like an absolutely terrible idea both ideologically and politically. The media will get super hyped about this and bang on they only doing this because they lost in court etc etc etc and look at the US with their politically appointed Supreme Court.
Its like sticking fox hunting in your manifesto, it will just draw all the attention to it.
😂
I’ve got imagines of him sleeping on the green benches with a blanket.
Con 340
Lab 211
LDs 33
(assuming 8 Tory and 6 Labour losses to the SNP too)
Your model is too reliant on Remainer tactical voting even for Corbyn Labour and on Green votes going Labour
How it might turn out is, of course, unknowable at this point, but Trump has been quite clear in expressing his opinion that we are freeloaders in this respect.
If he had not got his snap election there was every chance of the impasse continuing well into 2020, in which case the prolonged scrutiny of his Deal, his refusal to resign, and the growing distance between the present day and the 31 Oct 2019 date on which he had promised that we would leave the EU, all of this would have posed a grave risk to his polling position. Therefore he really really wanted this election.
Can we not accept this as almost certainly true and move on?
Also, what if he wins the Speaker election, would they stand against him? Last I heard it was still on for Monday.
Labour could turn out to be more resilient than the Tories. John McDonnell can smile and say "I'm a Marxist" meaning "Haha - water off a duck's back", or (and we may well see more of this) meaning "That's what Tory nutters would say". Then set this against Tories who start foaming at the mouth when someone criticises "entrepreneurs", when "entrenpreneur" for most of the population has never been a positive model.
Lab >BXP
BXP > Con
would be consistent with a squeeze
But that doesn't make any sense because Boris has a massive lead on Best PM
And although the survation constituency polling is in line with his models, that's only because they have much smaller national leads.
We need to see some constituency polling from the ones showing double digit leads.
It’s pretty clear that given the membership and huge majority of Labour voters in favour of staying in the EU that the policy will be Remain .
I expect the Lib Dem vote will get squeezed . I don’t expect they’ll poll more than 15% at max .
It is nuts America still doesn't have universal healthcare.
I can accept as true that he wanted this election, but the second Remainers in Parliament blocked Brexit the 31/10 date became moot. As long as Johnson could keep pressure up on Parliament his support would remain, the only way Parliament could vent the pressure was to either fold and give Johnson his Brexit, or to go for an election.
Chorley was considered a 2017 target and in the end, it wasn't even close.
if there are odds worth taking I'd so so again
https://www.crfb.org/press-releases/fact-sheet-how-much-money-could-medicare-save-negotiating-prescription-drug-prices
The US would like the same to apply here so the NHS would be unable to get a good price.
The US/UK trade deal will be focused on cheap US food and more expensive drug prices. Both benefit the US.
The cheap food will be unhealthy, put UK farmers and processors out of business, and massively interfere with any food deal with the EU.
This what we are faced with. It will get a lot of publicity during the campaign. It's not just "chlorinated chicken" which is not a problem with the chlorine itself but the necessity of having to use it.
And as it was pointed our below, US law actually prevents you getting that better deal when it comes to drug prices in the US.
Presumably, some of the people who think the Government's deal should be subject to a referendum but who also don't want a second referendum mean either:
1. We should revoke without a referendum if the numbers are there in Parliament following an election but, if there's no majority on that and the new Goverment really want to take us out, I want a vote on the terms of leaving. This is essentially the Lib Dem position.
2. We should leave on no deal, but the same logic as above applies if there's no majority for that on December 12th.
Those are rational positions, and the pollsters are perhaps more confused than the people.
Tories lead with non graduates https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1189871281027649537?s=20
Medicare pays far more for drugs than government programs that negotiate. Under current law, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is prohibited from negotiating lower drug prices on behalf of Medicare Part D beneficiaries. In contrast, other government programs, like Medicaid and VA, are allowed to negotiate. As a result, Medicare Part D pays on average 73% more than Medicaid and 80% more than VA for brand name drugs. The federal government could save between $15.2 and $16 billion a year if Medicare Part D paid the same prices as Medicaid or VA.
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/final_-medicare-drug-price-negotiation-act-of-2019---summary?id=FE53441E-C3BD-4141-AE91-D9FC402BE9F0&download=1&inline=file
If they fail to do that there’s zip chance of stopping them from getting a good majority .
https://www.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/phase-1-report
The troops come in for praise, the organisations and their leadership for criticism.
Additive model (UNS) gives Con 19,339. Lab 22,405
Multiplicative gives Con 19,494, Lab 19,366
I use 80/20 additive/multiplicative and this gives Con 19,370, Lab 21,794
EDIT: This includes a 400 tactical vote from LDs for Labour.
It also assumes BXP stand (no UKIP last time) and get 5,400 so that is a critical assumption.
Perhaps he'd like to share with us his "special pleadings" - and tell us where the votes go instead.
There. How is that for you?
Remember in the 1980s only 10% went to university ie becoming mainly higher earning, professional Tory or LD voters, now 30 to 40% go plenty of middle income or even low income Labour graduates too
I'm happy to disclose my assumptions and and what they produce, in case they are of interest to anyone.
I'm not happy to publish my spreadsheet (don't know how) and anyway, your eyes would glaze over.
So I'll take zero marks.
Its like surveying how miners vote these days and trying to extrapolate anything.
Wonder how much of this we will see?
If he managed to pull off a GE win (after 9 years of less than scintillating Tory Govt) that would objectively be a hell of an achievement. If he delivers Brexit then he becomes the most consequential PM since Thatcher.
If you add to that two times winner of the London mayoralty, the man who won the Brexit referendum, then you have the most successful electoral track record since Blair (at least).
I'm not the greatest Boris fan but its not a bad record so far - even if he does blow up at some point in the future. (But don't count on it.)
Why would the Tories are polling more than in 2015 and Labour dramatically less than in 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
Excuse me while I rant for a moment.
Modellers do this and it drives me nuts. Every time one gets good, they start publishing more than one. Nate Silver (or 538, I forget which) had six simultaneously. Ashcroft had three MRP models. Hix had two or three. It doesn't help and arguably makes things worse. If both of your models are wrong, why does combining them make it better? If one is correct, why do the other model? Aaargh!
End rant ...
It's almost unimaginable how badly the opposition has played what could have been a winning hand for them in recent months!
Wouldn't want to frighten the horses in the leafy enclaves they are trying to take off the tories.