politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ready for President Chuck Grassley?
Comments
-
If Chuka is just 6% behind the Tories he can win Cities of London and Westminster with some barcharts to squeeze Labour tactical votes.Andrew said:Dunno if the usual 400 sample (5% MoE) but interesting nonetheless:
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/1198306056100646912
Looks like the Tories will easily beat off Nicola Horlick's challenge in Chelsea and Fulham though if they lead the LDs by 23% and looks like Hendon will be a comfortable Tory hold too0 -
Mr. Eagles, 'mom'?
Honestly.
And with that, I must be off.0 -
A ComRes lead of 5 would put the cat amongst.....!0
-
I doubt it and Tory remainers are coming back home.HYUFD said:
If Chuka is just 6% behind the Tories he can win Cities of London and Westminster with some barcharts to squeeze Labour tactical votes.Andrew said:Dunno if the usual 400 sample (5% MoE) but interesting nonetheless:
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/1198306056100646912
Looks like the Tories will easily beat off Nicola Horlick's challenge in Chelsea and Fulham though if they lead the LDs by 23% and looks like Hendon will be a comfortable Tory hold too0 -
But 2017 DID happen and it also happened very, very late in the campaign.Brom said:
If 2017 hadn’t happened that price would be 1.2 on the exchanges IMO. Just over 2 weeks out from the election and its been double figure leads in the last 12 polls...Quincel said:Honestly, I get the arguments that the Tory position isn't as strong as it looks. This might not be a 1997 landslide (though it really might). But even if the polls are overstated and tactical voting is up and they struggle in Scotland and Labour squeeze the LD vote a bit in the final weeks...
Who are the markets kidding making a Tory majority only a 1/2 shot?0 -
Not happening . At this point if the other polls only show a 10 to 12 point lead then that would be at this point a relief for Labour !wooliedyed said:A ComRes lead of 5 would put the cat amongst.....!
0 -
A nice graphical representation imo (albeit 3 days old):peter_from_putney said:
But 2017 DID happen and it also happened very, very late in the campaign.
https://twitter.com/PoliSciJack/status/1197218677772427264
0 -
Was ComRes 8 points last time?0
-
Whilst a Hung Parliament with a powerful Lib Dem contingent would clearly be preferable to a Hung Parliament with a tiny Lib Dem presence, any kind of Hung Parliament leads to a Labour minority Government. It's the only way that both Swinson and Sturgeon get their referendums, so they will allow it.IanB2 said:
The best thing now would be for the obvious Labour collapse to send their voters in the south across to the LibDems in large numbersTime_to_Leave said:At what stage might Labour unity fracture and a few home truths be stated by candidates not wholly onboard with the Messiah? Or do we have to wait for election night for that?
I'm afraid that I must therefore dissent: Corbyn and McDonnell must, if at all possible, be both heavily defeated and denied access to the levers of power.
We are firmly into lesser of two evils territory here and, if the polling evidence is anything like accurate, a very large part of the electorate shares my sentiments: in a straight contest for No.10 between Johnson and Corbyn, sorry, but it has to be Johnson.
You could argue at this juncture that we ought to recoil from backing either of them, and I am sympathetic to this standpoint. I'll be voting Lib Dem, but only because it is safe to do so. If I thought there any chance at all of the second-placed Labour Party catching the sitting Conservative in my constituency (current Con maj: 16,835) then I'd be voting for him like a shot, in an effort to make certain that there was one less Labour MP in the Commons.
The fact that both large parties have submitted sub-optimal leadership candidates for our consideration is not the fault of the people. If we need to back a poor candidate in order to bar the door to a catastrophic one then we're entitled to do so.0 -
I don’t think their is much danger of complacency from Tory (anti-Corbyn) voters because they will want to kill him off totally and utterly. They just simply don’t want the possibility that he, or what he offers, will be resurrected in future. And, who know, Johnson with a massive majority might actually be quite benign...0
-
Swing of 9.5% from Tory to Labour with Opinium, looks like the Labour manifesto has made zero impact this time nor has the first debate. Tories would gain 85 Labour seats on UNS on that swing.CorrectHorseBattery said:
The 19% lead with Opinium now clearly ahead of the 13% Tory lead at the same stage in the 2017 general election campaign0 -
The 'central forecast' was 316 Tory seats, but as the blog explains there's a margin of error of about 10 seats, maybe as many as 20. They were 14 out in 2015, and that's their biggest error yet.CorrectHorseBattery said:
It said Hung Parliament in 2015 right?Quincel said:
Worth noting that the exit poll methodology was heavily reworked in 2001/5 and has had no major errors since.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I do wonder if this is a repeat of 1992 in that the Exit Poll turns out to be wrong, unlikely but possible I supposeBlack_Rook said:
A consistent pattern would be bad for Labour, but not terminal. There's still nearly three weeks left until polling day, and the Tories need to get through their manifesto and another Johnson/Corbyn debate.bigjohnowls said:
Agreed game over if other polls look anything like this one.nico67 said:Game over . That Opinium is a shocker for Labour . And also terrible for the Lib Dems
That said, they should hopefully have learned their lessons re: the manifesto from last time, and there's no sign as yet of the TV set pieces moving the dial.
If the Tories can avoid any major fuck-ups then they ought to finish comfortably ahead on vote share. Whether this will be enough to translate into a decent majority, or any majority, is still anyone's guess.
For all we know, the strange looking numbers coming out of the model @Barnesian has been floating might transpire to be correct, especially if enough Labour habit voters revert to type in the polling booths in the marginals, the Lib Dem and Green votes collapse to the net benefit of Labour, and there's a substantial amount of Remain tactical voting.
I'm afraid we're all going to have to wait until at least the Exit Poll, and possibly even until four o'clock the following morning, before we've a firm idea of where this election is headed.
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/statistics/staff/academic-research/firth/exit-poll-explainer/0 -
LOLTheScreamingEagles said:If this Opinium poll turns out be accurate then Labour are more fucked than a stepmom on Pornhub.
0 -
The Tories could well do without these massive poll leads. Many will baulk at the idea of turning Boris into a political deity, so will go to other parties once they're safe in the knowledge that others are keeping Jezza out for them. The Tories need everyone to believe that it's still on a knife edge.0
-
It is too heavily weighed as an observation. Taking a longer-term view, 2017 should be bracketed with 2001, 1997, 1987 and 1983 as modern multi-party elections with a large, early polling majority. This sample would only justify 70% with (i) a big down-weight for the historic years and (ii) a very low probability ascribed to slightly-worse polling leads, in spite of outcomes like 2015 and 2005.peter_from_putney said:
But 2017 DID happen and it also happened very, very late in the campaign.Brom said:
If 2017 hadn’t happened that price would be 1.2 on the exchanges IMO. Just over 2 weeks out from the election and its been double figure leads in the last 12 polls...Quincel said:Honestly, I get the arguments that the Tory position isn't as strong as it looks. This might not be a 1997 landslide (though it really might). But even if the polls are overstated and tactical voting is up and they struggle in Scotland and Labour squeeze the LD vote a bit in the final weeks...
Who are the markets kidding making a Tory majority only a 1/2 shot?0 -
Is it though? We've been campaigning for 3/4 weeks and there's been no sign of a rapid move to Labour. The polling average is now probably 5% above what the Tories need to win a majority and seems to be growing. Either the polls are wrong or Labour are surely much less than 30% likely to even hold the Tories to a hung parliament?Barnesian said:
it's a 2/3 shot . It's about 70% probabilityQuincel said:Honestly, I get the arguments that the Tory position isn't as strong as it looks. This might not be a 1997 landslide (though it really might). But even if the polls are overstated and tactical voting is up and they struggle in Scotland and Labour squeeze the LD vote a bit in the final weeks...
Who are the markets kidding making a Tory majority only a 1/2 shot?0 -
People know what happened in 2017. They won’t trust the polls.Stark_Dawning said:The Tories could well do without these massive poll leads. Many will baulk at the idea of turning Boris into a political deity, so will go to other parties once they're safe in the knowledge that others are keeping Jezza out for them. The Tories need everyone to believe that it's still on a knife edge.
0 -
Not this late, the shift was very visible by now. And the loss of control of the media narrative generally.peter_from_putney said:
But 2017 DID happen and it also happened very, very late in the campaign.Brom said:
If 2017 hadn’t happened that price would be 1.2 on the exchanges IMO. Just over 2 weeks out from the election and its been double figure leads in the last 12 polls...Quincel said:Honestly, I get the arguments that the Tory position isn't as strong as it looks. This might not be a 1997 landslide (though it really might). But even if the polls are overstated and tactical voting is up and they struggle in Scotland and Labour squeeze the LD vote a bit in the final weeks...
Who are the markets kidding making a Tory majority only a 1/2 shot?0 -
Have the luvvies written their usual letter to the Guardian yet begging us to do whatever's necessary to stop the Tories?
Or are we still too early for that?1 -
The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.0 -
" I know PB is full of smart, mainly conservative people," You have to be joking surely. I would put Anti-Tories on PB.com as being at least twice the number of Tories on this site. Higher still if you include the likes of Nabavi and Herdson as being in the former camp. :EPG said:
It might also lead to a bandwagon where usual Tory supporters think there is no point lodging a protest vote. So seats like Beaconsfield, Cities of London and Westminster, St Albans, Dumfries get saved. Just a speculation. Point is even an 8-point lead would be enough. I know PB is full of smart, mainly conservative people, good probabilistic thinkers looking for all the possible angles and nervous about a repeat of 2017. But, as the man himself might say, "dudes", it's 19 points.Andy_JS said:
It might lead to complacency amongst Tory supporters.EPG said:Surely 47% less than 20 days before the election = home and hosed. Even a grotesque error would make this 40-32. Course, it's no guarantee of social peace if the vote is mainly about keeping Corbyn out, but choosing a leadership is the main point of elections - and then you reward or punish the government for its policies.
The EU must be delighted. It will either be deal shafting NI unionists, or a no-deal that is clearly the fault of the UK. Compare to another cobbled-together minority looking for another 153 special clauses and conditions and opt-ins. Just get them out and let the shock happen, would be the thinking there.0 -
The 70% is from the betting on Betfair. It is the collective wisdom of punters.Quincel said:
Is it though? We've been campaigning for 3/4 weeks and there's been no sign of a rapid move to Labour. The polling average is now probably 5% above what the Tories need to win a majority and seems to be growing. Either the polls are wrong or Labour are surely much less than 30% likely to even hold the Tories to a hung parliament?Barnesian said:
it's a 2/3 shot . It's about 70% probabilityQuincel said:Honestly, I get the arguments that the Tory position isn't as strong as it looks. This might not be a 1997 landslide (though it really might). But even if the polls are overstated and tactical voting is up and they struggle in Scotland and Labour squeeze the LD vote a bit in the final weeks...
Who are the markets kidding making a Tory majority only a 1/2 shot?0 -
You assume that all of these will be Labour voters, why?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.0 -
Looking at the Opinium the totals so far add up to 90% so what’s left must show a good SNP and Green vote .0
-
Once the lead is above 10% it does not really matter, all tactical voting can do is reduce the Tories majority, not stop itStark_Dawning said:The Tories could well do without these massive poll leads. Many will baulk at the idea of turning Boris into a political deity, so will go to other parties once they're safe in the knowledge that others are keeping Jezza out for them. The Tories need everyone to believe that it's still on a knife edge.
0 -
I think that's right.Brom said:
If 2017 hadn’t happened that price would be 1.2 on the exchanges IMO. Just over 2 weeks out from the election and its been double figure leads in the last 12 polls...Quincel said:Honestly, I get the arguments that the Tory position isn't as strong as it looks. This might not be a 1997 landslide (though it really might). But even if the polls are overstated and tactical voting is up and they struggle in Scotland and Labour squeeze the LD vote a bit in the final weeks...
Who are the markets kidding making a Tory majority only a 1/2 shot?
It's an opportunity for gamblers though. This election is different.0 -
Think there are more polls at 7? If they are anything like Opinium then we can all pack up and go home. Knowing British politics’ taste for banter, there will probably be a Tory lead of 4.0
-
Nothing's ever impossible.CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
And I'm speaking as a Tory voter who re-registered recently due to having recently moved home.1 -
The majority I believe are under 35, who swing to Labour by about 55%+, I think with the Lib Dems and Greens added in it's 75%. Tory is something like 10-15% at most.MaxPB said:
You assume that all of these will be Labour voters, why?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
If they vote intelligently - and I think they can - they can absolutely stop a Tory majority.
These massive leads encourage them to vote, it means more is on the line.0 -
Small-c, general politics and disposition, and even the anti-Tories are often scorned former workers in the garden. I mean, not radicals, or people likely to overstate outcomes, or forget history.peter_from_putney said:
" I know PB is full of smart, mainly conservative people," You have to be joking surely. I would put Anti-Tories on PB.com as being at least twice the number of Tories on this site. Higher still if you include the likes of Nabavi and Herdson as being in the former camp. :EPG said:
It might also lead to a bandwagon where usual Tory supporters think there is no point lodging a protest vote. So seats like Beaconsfield, Cities of London and Westminster, St Albans, Dumfries get saved. Just a speculation. Point is even an 8-point lead would be enough. I know PB is full of smart, mainly conservative people, good probabilistic thinkers looking for all the possible angles and nervous about a repeat of 2017. But, as the man himself might say, "dudes", it's 19 points.Andy_JS said:
It might lead to complacency amongst Tory supporters.EPG said:Surely 47% less than 20 days before the election = home and hosed. Even a grotesque error would make this 40-32. Course, it's no guarantee of social peace if the vote is mainly about keeping Corbyn out, but choosing a leadership is the main point of elections - and then you reward or punish the government for its policies.
The EU must be delighted. It will either be deal shafting NI unionists, or a no-deal that is clearly the fault of the UK. Compare to another cobbled-together minority looking for another 153 special clauses and conditions and opt-ins. Just get them out and let the shock happen, would be the thinking there.0 -
Opinium shows an unchanged lead of 16 on a like for like basis with an additional 3pp from the technical change of dropping the Brexit party, which at that kind of lead will have more or less zero effect as the Tories wouldn't be losing many seats, if any, even if BXP were standing in Tory held seats. It goes without saying that if Opinium is right then Labour are fucked, but that has always been the case as this is the least favourable pollster for them, IIRC. The really bad news for Labour is that the underlying lead isn't shrinking, as it was by this stage in 2017. As a Labour supporter that is what depresses me, not the absolute size of the lead.nico67 said:Looking at previous Opinium polling this fieldwork is likely to have been conducted on the 20th to the 22nd the same as the Panelbase which showed a ten point lead for the Tories .
That’s the emergency straw clutching that’s needed for Labour tonight .1 -
A big Tory lead is surely the last thing that Tories want to see right now. Can i remind you just how hated Johnson and his cabinet are? Even by some Tories? A Tory landslide gives life long Tory hate what the ERG/BXP pincer move has done voters permission to go vote LibDem or independent. They don't have to hold their nose to fend off Jezbollah because he's finished.
We also have the looming event of the Tory manifesto launch. Plenty of time for Tories to hang themselves with Hubristic bluster. What do swing voters hate almost as much as the shadow cabinet? Born to rule Tory types sneering at them.0 -
I know, that's where I got my 1/2 figure from. I'm saying the market is wrong for the reasons above. That's precisely my contention.Barnesian said:
The 70% is from the betting on Betfair. It is the collective wisdom of punters.Quincel said:
Is it though? We've been campaigning for 3/4 weeks and there's been no sign of a rapid move to Labour. The polling average is now probably 5% above what the Tories need to win a majority and seems to be growing. Either the polls are wrong or Labour are surely much less than 30% likely to even hold the Tories to a hung parliament?Barnesian said:
it's a 2/3 shot . It's about 70% probabilityQuincel said:Honestly, I get the arguments that the Tory position isn't as strong as it looks. This might not be a 1997 landslide (though it really might). But even if the polls are overstated and tactical voting is up and they struggle in Scotland and Labour squeeze the LD vote a bit in the final weeks...
Who are the markets kidding making a Tory majority only a 1/2 shot?0 -
Four polls with fieldwork since Lab manifesto:
Panelbase - Con +10
YouGov - Con +12
Opinium - Con +19
Survation (North + Midlands) - Con +11.5 (implied)
So Opinium is the outlier - overall Con lead very little changed.0 -
Can you explain why ?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?0 -
If the polls continue to be this bad for Labour, expect Labour to come out swinging in the coming days in an attempt to reel things in. The Tories should remember the old soldiering phrase about the enemy fighting hardest with its backs to the wall. Expect this election to get very dirty indeed.1
-
So we'll have to wait until next week to get polls that are after all the debates, etc? Boring0
-
In Cities & Westminster LDs lead 51-42 in straight choice between them and the Tories.0
-
I don't think we will see any more polls with leads below 7 for the rest of the campaign.Byronic said:Think there are more polls at 7? If they are anything like Opinium then we can all pack up and go home. Knowing British politics’ taste for banter, there will probably be a Tory lead of 4.
0 -
Putting the Opinium poll into the EMA gives
Con Lab LD
England 311 196 25
Wales 15 20 1
Scotland 7 1 5
TOTAL 333 217 31
Tory majority extends to 16
Note the EMA gives 10% weight to the latest poll.
If I put the raw Opinium numbers in to the model it gives
Con Lab LD
England 344 167 21
Wales 17 19 1
Scotland 7 1 5
TOTAL 368 187 27
Tory majority of 860 -
You are now pulling out magic voters from your arse. Desperation.CorrectHorseBattery said:
The majority I believe are under 35, who swing to Labour by about 55%+, I think with the Lib Dems and Greens added in it's 75%. Tory is something like 10-15% at most.MaxPB said:
You assume that all of these will be Labour voters, why?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
If they vote intelligently - and I think they can - they can absolutely stop a Tory majority.
These massive leads encourage them to vote, it means more is on the line.1 -
So Tories should be worried about being so far ahead in the polls?RochdalePioneers said:A big Tory lead is surely the last thing that Tories want to see right now. Can i remind you just how hated Johnson and his cabinet are? Even by some Tories? A Tory landslide gives life long Tory hate what the ERG/BXP pincer move has done voters permission to go vote LibDem or independent. They don't have to hold their nose to fend off Jezbollah because he's finished.
We also have the looming event of the Tory manifesto launch. Plenty of time for Tories to hang themselves with Hubristic bluster. What do swing voters hate almost as much as the shadow cabinet? Born to rule Tory types sneering at them.
It’s a view...0 -
What do you mean by Survation? Is that 11.5% from North+Midlands only?MikeL said:Four polls with fieldwork since Lab manifesto:
Panelbase - Con +10
YouGov - Con +12
Opinium - Con +19
Survation (North + Midlands) - Con +11.5 (implied)
So Opinium is the outlier - overall Con lead very little changed.
If it is, then given Labour's relative advantage in the North that could imply a larger overall advantage surely? Or does any poll excluding London deflate Labour?0 -
CHB (or Justin, whatever), I cannot help but admire your unflinching optimism despite a great deal of evidence going against your desired result. This site would be in total meltdown if the polling was reversed. So, hats off to you for that, but you are starting to sound a little like Hitler in 'Downfall', shuffling imaginary divisions around a map.CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.0 -
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.another_richard said:
Can you explain why ?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?0 -
Indeed, not much changed in the course of the campaign. We political junkies like to imagine movement, but actually there is little or none. This is bad for Labour though.MikeL said:Four polls with fieldwork since Lab manifesto:
Panelbase - Con +10
YouGov - Con +12
Opinium - Con +19
Survation (North + Midlands) - Con +11.5 (implied)
So Opinium is the outlier - overall Con lead very little changed.
0 -
How do you know they aren't leave voters registering to avoid a second referendum? Or Sun reading builders registering to avoid punitive dividend taxes?CorrectHorseBattery said:
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.another_richard said:
Can you explain why ?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?0 -
>Amongst young voters, Labour clearly has the edge, increasing by 13 percentage points amongst 18 to 29 year olds since the start of October from 38% to 51%. But this still falls short of the 60% share it enjoyed in 2017.MaxPB said:
You are now pulling out magic voters from your arse. Desperation.CorrectHorseBattery said:
The majority I believe are under 35, who swing to Labour by about 55%+, I think with the Lib Dems and Greens added in it's 75%. Tory is something like 10-15% at most.MaxPB said:
You assume that all of these will be Labour voters, why?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
If they vote intelligently - and I think they can - they can absolutely stop a Tory majority.
These massive leads encourage them to vote, it means more is on the line.
So I was a bit over, my apologies. Although in 2017 it was higher than my estimate.
>The Lib Dems have increased their share of under 10% the youth vote in 2017 to 14% now, while the Greens have moved from 2% to 7%.
14% + 51% + 7% = 72%, so not far off what I said at all, is it?
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/22/general-election-who-will-win-youth-vote0 -
Ah, it's fun to speculate about odd succession possibilities. American TV shows have been obsessed with the possibilities for years.
They require too much effort for me, sadly. If I could crack that, they seem awesome.Philip_Thompson said:
Paradox games are so much better than the competition.RobD said:On the topic of strategy games, once I started playing Europa Universalis I lost all interest in Civ.
Looking forward to CK III0 -
Survation poll was North + Midlands only.Philip_Thompson said:
What do you mean by Survation? Is that 11.5% from North+Midlands only?MikeL said:Four polls with fieldwork since Lab manifesto:
Panelbase - Con +10
YouGov - Con +12
Opinium - Con +19
Survation (North + Midlands) - Con +11.5 (implied)
So Opinium is the outlier - overall Con lead very little changed.
If it is, then given Labour's relative advantage in the North that could imply a larger overall advantage surely? Or does any poll excluding London deflate Labour?
It showed 4.5% swing.
Applying that swing nationally gives implied Con national lead of 11.5%.0 -
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.another_richard said:
Can you explain why ?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?0 -
It could mean that a Conservative majority is 50 instead of 60 or 100 instead of 110.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.another_richard said:
Can you explain why ?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?0 -
Well I don't - but the profile of the average 18-35 voter is being more pro-Labour and pro second referendum on average.MaxPB said:
How do you know they aren't leave voters registering to avoid a second referendum? Or Sun reading builders registering to avoid punitive dividend taxes?CorrectHorseBattery said:
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.another_richard said:
Can you explain why ?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?0 -
Cities of London & Westminster, constituency voting intention:
CON: 39% (-8)
LDEM: 33% (+22)
LAB: 26% (-12)
GRN: 1% (-1)
via @DeltapollUK, 14 - 21 Nov
Chgs. w/ GE20170 -
Obviously good for Bojo, even with masses of votes piling up in safe seats.CorrectHorseBattery said:
But I'm unable to believe any party could be so far ahead in these times.1 -
But it isn't. Utterly wank polling.Artist said:In Cities & Westminster LDs lead 51-42 in straight choice between them and the Tories.
1 -
All 461 will have to be new registrations (not duplicates) and all 461 will have to vote for the party vest placed to beat the Tories. Oh and all 461 will actually have to vote.TudorRose said:
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.another_richard said:
Can you explain why ?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?0 -
Strange things happen in politics when a large party gets a bad reputation that its core supporters don't know or care about. The UK's nearest neighbour gave the same party the most votes for 75 years.0
-
-
Shall we say - roughly none then?MaxPB said:
All 461 will have to be new registrations (not duplicates) and all 461 will have to vote for the party vest placed to beat the Tories. Oh and all 461 will actually have to vote.TudorRose said:
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.another_richard said:
Can you explain why ?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?0 -
Clearly the Lib Dems and Labour splitting the Remain vote in more city seats is helping the Tories.
Unless there’s a lot of tactical voting then some hugely Remain seats are going to end up with a Tory Leaver.0 -
13 seats have a Tory majority less than 461. So if the polls do (unlikely now I guess) get closer, Johnson can quickly lose seats.TudorRose said:
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.another_richard said:
Can you explain why ?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
Also this is interesting:
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1198316331948486656
If Labour voters get tactical, the LDs can take this seat.0 -
Yup it's a long shot - but I hope it dos happen!MaxPB said:
All 461 will have to be new registrations (not duplicates) and all 461 will have to vote for the party vest placed to beat the Tories. Oh and all 461 will actually have to vote.TudorRose said:
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.another_richard said:
Can you explain why ?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?0 -
So is that Westminster, Chelsea, Hendon, Finchley, Wimbledon and Kensington that the Guardian has had polls for ?logical_song said:Cities of London & Westminster, constituency voting intention:
CON: 39% (-8)
LDEM: 33% (+22)
LAB: 26% (-12)
GRN: 1% (-1)
via @DeltapollUK, 14 - 21 Nov
Chgs. w/ GE2017
And all have the Conservatives leading ?1 -
CorrectHorseBattery said:
The majority I believe are under 35, who swing to Labour by about 55%+, I think with the Lib Dems and Greens added in it's 75%. Tory is something like 10-15% at most.MaxPB said:
You assume that all of these will be Labour voters, why?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
If they vote intelligently - and I think they can - they can absolutely stop a Tory majority.
These massive leads encourage them to vote, it means more is on the line.
What proportion of the electorate follows the polls, and what fraction of that fraction is influenced by them in their choices? Has any work ever been done to assess this?RochdalePioneers said:A big Tory lead is surely the last thing that Tories want to see right now. Can i remind you just how hated Johnson and his cabinet are? Even by some Tories? A Tory landslide gives life long Tory hate what the ERG/BXP pincer move has done voters permission to go vote LibDem or independent. They don't have to hold their nose to fend off Jezbollah because he's finished.
We also have the looming event of the Tory manifesto launch. Plenty of time for Tories to hang themselves with Hubristic bluster. What do swing voters hate almost as much as the shadow cabinet? Born to rule Tory types sneering at them.0 -
Chuka is now closer to the Tories in Cities of London and Westminster from 3rd place than Corbyn is to the Tories nationally.CorrectHorseBattery said:
13 seats have a Tory majority less than 461. So if the polls do (unlikely now I guess) get closer, Johnson can quickly lose seats.TudorRose said:
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.another_richard said:
Can you explain why ?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
Also this is interesting:
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1198316331948486656
If Labour voters get tactical, the LDs can take this seat.
Perhaps tells you something0 -
Indeed - so a smaller majority than some expect.another_richard said:
It could mean that a Conservative majority is 50 instead of 60 or 100 instead of 110.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.another_richard said:
Can you explain why ?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
In my mind it will either be a small Tory majority or a Hung Parliament.0 -
Well, up to a point Lord Copper...Quincel said:
Not this late, the shift was very visible by now. And the loss of control of the media narrative generally.peter_from_putney said:
But 2017 DID happen and it also happened very, very late in the campaign.Brom said:
If 2017 hadn’t happened that price would be 1.2 on the exchanges IMO. Just over 2 weeks out from the election and its been double figure leads in the last 12 polls...Quincel said:Honestly, I get the arguments that the Tory position isn't as strong as it looks. This might not be a 1997 landslide (though it really might). But even if the polls are overstated and tactical voting is up and they struggle in Scotland and Labour squeeze the LD vote a bit in the final weeks...
Who are the markets kidding making a Tory majority only a 1/2 shot?
The Tories had poll leads of 20%, 20% and 18% as late as 25 and 24 days ahead of GE17.
We are now 19 days out from GE19. By the same stage in GE17 a series of polls with Tory leads in the 9%-13% range had landed.
The GE17 Tory manifesto was launched on 18th May, 21 days before the election and coincident with the start of the polling lead drop.
For the record I don't think the Tory lead decilne of 2017 is going to be repeated but I'd wait until the manifesto has landed safely before counting your chickens.1 -
Question: has any party ever won a landslide (say over 100 seats) from not having one but whilst also losing some seats in the process?CorrectHorseBattery said:
13 seats have a Tory majority less than 461. So if the polls do (unlikely now I guess) get closer, Johnson can quickly lose seats.TudorRose said:
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.another_richard said:
Can you explain why ?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
Also this is interesting:
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1198316331948486656
If Labour voters get tactical, the LDs can take this seat.0 -
Or Labour might fracture with desperate Labour candidates disowning Corbyn and the Labour manifestoKentRising said:If the polls continue to be this bad for Labour, expect Labour to come out swinging in the coming days in an attempt to reel things in. The Tories should remember the old soldiering phrase about the enemy fighting hardest with its backs to the wall. Expect this election to get very dirty indeed.
0 -
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1198317006216404994
Again LD can take it if Labour voters are tactical0 -
Yes though Kensington and Wimbledon and Cities of London and Westminster have Tory leads below 10%another_richard said:
So is that Westminster, Chelsea, Hendon, Finchley, Wimbledon and Kensington that the Guardian has had polls for ?logical_song said:Cities of London & Westminster, constituency voting intention:
CON: 39% (-8)
LDEM: 33% (+22)
LAB: 26% (-12)
GRN: 1% (-1)
via @DeltapollUK, 14 - 21 Nov
Chgs. w/ GE2017
And all have the Conservatives leading ?0 -
Britain Elects
@britainelects
2 minutes ago
Chelsea & Fulham, constituency voting intention:
CON: 48% (-5)
LDEM: 25% (+14)
LAB: 24% (-9)
via @DeltapollUK, 14 - 21 Nov
Chgs. w/ GE20170 -
Didn't Thatcher lose some seats in her second landslide?Stark_Dawning said:
Question: has any party ever won a landslide (say over 100 seats) from not having one but whilst also losing some seats in the process?CorrectHorseBattery said:
13 seats have a Tory majority less than 461. So if the polls do (unlikely now I guess) get closer, Johnson can quickly lose seats.TudorRose said:
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.another_richard said:
Can you explain why ?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
Also this is interesting:
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1198316331948486656
If Labour voters get tactical, the LDs can take this seat.0 -
Tories well ahead in Hendon and Chelsea. Deltapoll.
Is it possible Boris will do much better in london than we think?
Corbyn’s communist manifesto must surely help him in the wealthier areas.1 -
I'm wondering that, too. As I recall, it was said that loads of voters intending to vote one way changed their minds in the voting booth.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I do wonder if this is a repeat of 1992 in that the Exit Poll turns out to be wrong, unlikely but possible I supposeBlack_Rook said:
A consistent pattern would be bad for Labour, but not terminal. There's still nearly three weeks left until polling day, and the Tories need to get through their manifesto and another Johnson/Corbyn debate.bigjohnowls said:
Agreed game over if other polls look anything like this one.nico67 said:Game over . That Opinium is a shocker for Labour . And also terrible for the Lib Dems
That said, they should hopefully have learned their lessons re: the manifesto from last time, and there's no sign as yet of the TV set pieces moving the dial.
If the Tories can avoid any major fuck-ups then they ought to finish comfortably ahead on vote share. Whether this will be enough to translate into a decent majority, or any majority, is still anyone's guess.
For all we know, the strange looking numbers coming out of the model @Barnesian has been floating might transpire to be correct, especially if enough Labour habit voters revert to type in the polling booths in the marginals, the Lib Dem and Green votes collapse to the net benefit of Labour, and there's a substantial amount of Remain tactical voting.
I'm afraid we're all going to have to wait until at least the Exit Poll, and possibly even until four o'clock the following morning, before we've a firm idea of where this election is headed.
Good evening, everyone.1 -
Yes, Labour in 2001 and the Tories in 1987Stark_Dawning said:
Question: has any party ever won a landslide (say over 100 seats) from not having one but whilst also losing some seats in the process?CorrectHorseBattery said:
13 seats have a Tory majority less than 461. So if the polls do (unlikely now I guess) get closer, Johnson can quickly lose seats.TudorRose said:
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.another_richard said:
Can you explain why ?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
Also this is interesting:
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1198316331948486656
If Labour voters get tactical, the LDs can take this seat.0 -
Amusing model.Barnesian said:Putting the Opinium poll into the EMA gives
Con Lab LD
England 311 196 25
Wales 15 20 1
Scotland 7 1 5
TOTAL 333 217 31
Tory majority extends to 16
Note the EMA gives 10% weight to the latest poll.
If I put the raw Opinium numbers in to the model it gives
Con Lab LD
England 344 167 21
Wales 17 19 1
Scotland 7 1 5
TOTAL 368 187 27
Tory majority of 86
Electoral Calculus gives
Con 436
Lab 144
LD 13
Majority 222
Don't think that will happen as don't expect a 19% lead but there's no way a 19% lead would lead to Tories just 38 seats up on 2015.0 -
So why did you say it would make a Conservative majority impossible ?CorrectHorseBattery said:
Indeed - so a smaller majority than some expect.another_richard said:
It could mean that a Conservative majority is 50 instead of 60 or 100 instead of 110.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.another_richard said:
Can you explain why ?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
In my mind it will either be a small Tory majority or a Hung Parliament.0 -
In many of these urban constituencies something-teen per cent of the Labour vote is ethnic bloc that supports the local political network, Brexit or no Brexit.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1198317006216404994
Again LD can take it if Labour voters are tactical1 -
Surely anyone registering at this point is certain to vote?TudorRose said:
Shall we say - roughly none then?MaxPB said:
All 461 will have to be new registrations (not duplicates) and all 461 will have to vote for the party vest placed to beat the Tories. Oh and all 461 will actually have to vote.TudorRose said:
So how many seats have a Tory majority < 461? My guess (without looking it up) is less than ten.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.another_richard said:
Can you explain why ?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
Fox jr has just registered in his new constituency, a Labour defence in London, as he will vote there rather than here. He met the Lab MP canvassing, and rather liked him. Previously he was pretty apolitical.0 -
They're down 5 points though.Byronic said:Tories well ahead in Hendon and Chelsea. Deltapoll.
Is it possible Boris will do much better in london than we think?
Corbyn’s communist manifesto must surely help him in the wealthier areas.
It's a split Remain vote leading to a Johnson win, not because he's just that good.0 -
Britain Elects
@britainelects
47 seconds ago
Hendon, constituency voting intention:
CON: 51% (+3)
LAB: 33% (-13)
LDEM: 12% (+8)
GRN: 1% (-)
via @DeltapollUK, 14 - 20 Nov
Chgs. w/ GE20171 -
No, it’s because Corbyn really is that bad.CorrectHorseBattery said:
They're down 5 points though.Byronic said:Tories well ahead in Hendon and Chelsea. Deltapoll.
Is it possible Boris will do much better in london than we think?
Corbyn’s communist manifesto must surely help him in the wealthier areas.
It's a split Remain vote leading to a Johnson win, not because he's just that good.0 -
Yep. Just like the Tories can take Bootle if nobody votes Labour.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1198317006216404994
Again LD can take it if Labour voters are tactical0 -
I just wonder, even at this very late stage, if Labour, the LDs, the SNP, could somehow try to cobble together a mad electoral pact in their utter desperation to stop Brexit. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they did something along those lines, and to hell with the consequences.0
-
If the Conservatives are down in London then they're going to be up in other places.CorrectHorseBattery said:
They're down 5 points though.Byronic said:Tories well ahead in Hendon and Chelsea. Deltapoll.
Is it possible Boris will do much better in london than we think?
Corbyn’s communist manifesto must surely help him in the wealthier areas.
It's a split Remain vote leading to a Johnson win, not because he's just that good.1 -
This is a very good poll for the tories in outer London.
https://mobile.twitter.com/britainelects/status/11983180178699960320 -
I expect Finchley and Golders Green to have a similar final result.logical_song said:Britain Elects
@britainelects
47 seconds ago
Hendon, constituency voting intention:
CON: 51% (+3)
LAB: 33% (-13)
LDEM: 12% (+8)
GRN: 1% (-)
via @DeltapollUK, 14 - 20 Nov
Chgs. w/ GE20170 -
Flavible for Opinium gives
Con 412
Lab 154
SNP 41
LD 210 -
If the Tories lose 13 seats from where they are now, then that would make a majority impossible?another_richard said:
So why did you say it would make a Conservative majority impossible ?CorrectHorseBattery said:
Indeed - so a smaller majority than some expect.another_richard said:
It could mean that a Conservative majority is 50 instead of 60 or 100 instead of 110.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No what I meant is that if you look at the tightest marginals, the votes are very close between going Labour and staying with the Tories. My point is that if these are additional votes on the Labour side, they could end up holding/taking a few Tory seats, which is all they actually need to do.another_richard said:
Can you explain why ?CorrectHorseBattery said:The 2001 effect, turnout dropping because Blair was so obviously going to win again.
On this 300,000 people registering to vote, that's an extra 461 people per seat (in theory - of course they aren't evenly distributed). That's enough people to make a Tory majority impossible.
Are you assuming every one of those 461 vote Labour and that every Conservative gained seat will be with a majority of under 461 ?
In my mind it will either be a small Tory majority or a Hung Parliament.
I didn't mean in the case Johnson wins a massive majority that it would make a difference. Obviously then it wouldn't of course.
It depends on how you project things to happen, I guess I'm on a losing side and I'm "clutching at straws" and that's fine.
If the Tories just pile up votes in their safe seats but in the marginals like these the new voters swing things the other way, you could end up with a situation where Johnson doesn't really move forward very much. That is what I think will happen, hence a small majority or a Hung Parliament.0 -
The manifesto?
It could, and should, just say the words "Get Brexit done, dudes" on one page.
It would be better received than Labour or 2017, and Johnson probably cares about nothing anyway (except perhaps a US trade deal).0 -
-
0
-
And if the Labour candidate votes LibDem....! I think you're even pushing the boundaries of LibDem maths on that one.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1198317006216404994
Again LD can take it if Labour voters are tactical0 -
It's a seat with a very large Jewish population, so not surprising the Tories are up there.nunu2 said:This is a very good poll for the tories in outer London.
https://mobile.twitter.com/britainelects/status/11983180178699960320 -
A Tory lead over ten points into polling day should see them home with a decent majority .
Any lead under that is risky because of the BP skew and Labour picking up some Lib Dem and Green votes on the day , also a
big unknown re tactical voting . At the last election Labour turnout was under estimated , they found 3 points from that aswell .
The polls are terrible for Labour and the above only helps them if they get that lead down to sub ten which at this point is still looking like a tall order .0
