People tell pollsters duff info – politicalbetting.com

System · July 3

People tell pollsters duff info – politicalbetting.com

Surveys are an imperfect measure of turnout as people overestimate likelihood and we may still be more likely to interview the politically engagedBut looking at the % telling us they are 10/10 certain to vote is a useful relative measure to gauge enthusiasm between elections ?

Read the full story here

EPG · July 3

First like did not vote.

Jonathan · July 3

Second like Ed.

highwayparadise306 · July 3

Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?

kle4 · July 3

It is true people tell porkies in matters like these, yet people can feel uncomfortable about that.

On turnout it just seems so easy for it to drop to below 2001 levels, if lots of Tories are too upset to come out. Maybe we'll stay in the 60s, but my gut says that's it.

Which the Tories shoudl welcome - it would mean this could be a 2001 election instead of 1997, and so faster on road to recovery.

kle4 · July 3

Important to remember how barmy some can get.

kle4 said:

Farooq said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Tweedledee said:

Beibheirli_C said:

nico679 said:

williamglenn said:
NY Times poll - https://x.com/politics_polls/status/1808557089117327652

Trump: 49%
Biden: 43%

Do you think Donald Trump left the country better or worse than when he took office?

Better 48%
Worse 47%
———
Do you think Joe Biden has made the country better or worse since taking office?

Better 36%
Worse 57%
That’s extraordinary. Seriously half of the USA population are insane .
It is their Brexit moment where they inflict totally unnecessary self-harm on themselves and then spend years regretting it.

Spice will be added because the Yanks are generally armed to the teeth (there being more guns than people in the US)
Whatever happens, we have got
The Gatling gun, and they have not

The arms borne by the people do not include automatic rifles let alone military drones and helicopter gunships. A shooting civil war against the Pentagon is not on the cards.
Except, of course, the Supreme Court legalised automatic weapons a few weeks back.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68419279
True. Bump stock means machine gun. The Supreme Court is bent on driving the USA to chaos.
The modern GOP

Jesus
Guns
Babies

kle4 · July 3

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?

People are wrong about their own thoughts sometimes, or feel wrong to say they are not certain to vote? The data is clear there is a discrepency, sometimes small, whatever the reason.

TimS · July 3

What if we get differential turnout among Faragistes? It’s possible. Could lead to some interesting results.

Phil · July 3

So is Biden done? Harris / Sanders ticket incoming?

highwayparadise306 · July 3

kle4 said:

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?
People are wrong about their own thoughts sometimes, or feel wrong to say they are not certain to vote? The data is clear there is a discrepency, sometimes small, whatever the reason.

You make a good point.

IanB2 · July 3

I doubt we (or they) will get to the bottom of why their MRP models were so way off - as some of them at least must be.

Late swing and differential turnout provide handy excuses for what could easily be sampling or modelling or assumptions failure.

DavidL · July 3

The pollsters adjust for certainty to vote don't they? And the tendency of Tory supporters to turn out even when thoroughly pissed off and disillusioned. And the tendency of Reform supporters to get diverted to the golf bar on the way to the polling station etc.

The only question is whether these adjustments are sufficient and who has got them most accurately. But none of them are going to make a material difference with a lead like this.

bobbob · July 3

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?

People can’t be arsed on the day

Jonathan · July 3

kle4 said:
It is true people tell porkies in matters like these, yet people can feel uncomfortable about that.

On turnout it just seems so easy for it to drop to below 2001 levels, if lots of Tories are too upset to come out. Maybe we'll stay in the 60s, but my gut says that's it.

Which the Tories shoudl welcome - it would mean this could be a 2001 election instead of 1997, and so faster on road to recovery.

High turnout requires all political tribes to turn out, therefore it has to be close. Sunce the mood music is that it’s not close, turnout will be low even if tribe is motivated.

El_Capitano · July 3

Phil said:
So is Biden done? Harris / Sanders ticket incoming?

Booting an 81 year old off the ballot to make room for an 82 year old would be an interesting strategy.

(quickly heads off to Wikipedia to see if Colonel Sanders is still alive)

Andy_JS · July 3

O/T

Why are there so many empty seats at court no 1 Wimbledon in the match between Paolini and Minnen?

"Tom Chatfield
@tomachatfield
@Wimbledon - one of the greatest sports events in world. Thousands queue but can’t get in, millions miss out in the ballot, yet on Day 2 when a Brit enters a 5th set on centre court, it’s half empty?! Address the empty seats and fix the resale process! Its broken. #Wimbledon"

https://x.com/tomachatfield/status/1808235095406567890

kle4 · July 3

highwayparadise306 said:

kle4 said:

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?
People are wrong about their own thoughts sometimes, or feel wrong to say they are not certain to vote? The data is clear there is a discrepency, sometimes small, whatever the reason.
You make a good point.

Not frequently, but they do slip through from sheer volume sometimes.

highwayparadise306 · July 3

DavidL said:
The pollsters adjust for certainty to vote don't they? And the tendency of Tory supporters to turn out even when thoroughly pissed off and disillusioned. And the tendency of Reform supporters to get diverted to the golf bar on the way to the polling station etc.

The only question is whether these adjustments are sufficient and who has got them most accurately. But none of them are going to make a material difference with a lead like this.

Reform voters. I cannot wait to see what percentage of votes they get in this election.10.0%?

highwayparadise306 · July 3

El_Capitano said:

Phil said:
So is Biden done? Harris / Sanders ticket incoming?
Booting an 81 year old off the ballot to make room for an 82 year old would be an interesting strategy.

(quickly heads off to Wikipedia to see if Colonel Sanders is still alive)

Finger licking good!

rcs1000 · July 3

If turnout is well below expected levels, what are the consequences?

1. Labour disproportionately loses. There's not that much enthusiasm for Starmer, merely resigned acceptance.
2. GOTV matters. If turnout is low, then ground game is more important, and the ability to get your vote out is more important.
3. Parties with older voters do better - probably a net positive for both Reform and the Conservatives.

Top of the head: I think it means that the Conservatives and Reform outperform, Labour underperforms, and the LDs do well in places where they have lots of tellers and knocker-uppers. It makes the first 40-odd seats easier, but the next 40 much harder.

Of course, the next question is: will this have impacted postal voting? Also, will voter ID laws have a further dampening effect?

TheValiant · July 3

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?

Because voting is something everyone feels they should do, and are scared to admit (to even themselves) they sometimes couldn't give a shit.

Women especially. Other women died to ensure they got the vote. They probably feel bad if they are actually forced to say, "Emmeline Pankhurst? She could've stayed in bed really. I can't be bothered voting."

tlg86 · July 3

I assume this was done on the last thread

https://x.com/CountyChamp/status/1808561225602601277

@ydoethur doing cartwheels I expect.

LostPassword · July 3

IanB2 said:
I doubt we (or they) will get to the bottom of why their MRP models were so way off - as some of them at least must be.

Late swing and differential turnout provide handy excuses for what could easily be sampling or modelling or assumptions failure.

Someone linked to an interesting thread earlier that revealed the seat counts in MRPs are strongly-related to the variability in vote shares for each party between different seats. Low variability leads to a crushing Labour victory and high variability increases the number of seats the Tories can hang onto.

The real revelation is that, for various complicated reasons, the amount of variability is essentially a tunable parameter.

numbertwelve · July 3

El_Capitano said:

Phil said:
So is Biden done? Harris / Sanders ticket incoming?
Booting an 81 year old off the ballot to make room for an 82 year old would be an interesting strategy.

(quickly heads off to Wikipedia to see if Colonel Sanders is still alive)

He’s too chicken to run.

rcs1000 · July 3

kle4 said:

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?
People are wrong about their own thoughts sometimes, or feel wrong to say they are not certain to vote? The data is clear there is a discrepency, sometimes small, whatever the reason.

That said... lying for social reasons is much more common over the phone when compared to on-line. It's why the phone pollsters got Brexit wrong, while the on-line guys got it right.

Who still polls by phone?

ydoethur · July 3

tlg86 said:
I assume this was done on the last thread

https://x.com/CountyChamp/status/1808561225602601277

@ydoethur doing cartwheels I expect.

Well, not really. I was hoping the Shire would win it.

But it was a match for the ages. What a last over.

And 100,000 watching the livestream...

Pulpstar · July 3

The declaration times which were in the spreadsheet Matt Singh posted up and has taken down at the request of PA media form part of my GE spreadsheets...

Omnium · July 3

numbertwelve said:

El_Capitano said:

Phil said:
So is Biden done? Harris / Sanders ticket incoming?
Booting an 81 year old off the ballot to make room for an 82 year old would be an interesting strategy.

(quickly heads off to Wikipedia to see if Colonel Sanders is still alive)
He’s too chicken to run.

And that's your nugget of truth!?

IanB2 · July 3

kle4 said:

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?
People are wrong about their own thoughts sometimes, or feel wrong to say they are not certain to vote? The data is clear there is a discrepency, sometimes small, whatever the reason.

Cf one Big G

ukelect · July 3

LostPassword said:

IanB2 said:
I doubt we (or they) will get to the bottom of why their MRP models were so way off - as some of them at least must be.

Late swing and differential turnout provide handy excuses for what could easily be sampling or modelling or assumptions failure.
Someone linked to an interesting thread earlier that revealed the seat counts in MRPs are strongly-related to the variability in vote shares for each party between different seats. Low variability leads to a crushing Labour victory and high variability increases the number of seats the Tories can hang onto.

The real revelation is that, for various complicated reasons, the amount of variability is essentially a tunable parameter.

I suspect that a lot of things are tunable parameters in some of the models.

MikeL · July 3

Per Wiki main polling graph:

Labour is now polling at its lowest point since December 2021.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election

Tweedledee · July 3

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?

You have to be terminally hebephrenic not to have your phone set up so that random timewasters like polling cos cannot get through to you, so the people they do get through to on the phone don't know whether it's Christmas or Easter. That leaves self selected tossers on internet panels, and any statistics textbook I ever read was pretty clear about the importance of RANDOM samples. People earnestly studying polls these days are like neo Ptolemaic astronomers debating which current model most accurately portrays how the sun and planets revolve around the earth.

Christopher · July 3

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:
It is true people tell porkies in matters like these, yet people can feel uncomfortable about that.

On turnout it just seems so easy for it to drop to below 2001 levels, if lots of Tories are too upset to come out. Maybe we'll stay in the 60s, but my gut says that's it.

Which the Tories shoudl welcome - it would mean this could be a 2001 election instead of 1997, and so faster on road to recovery.
High turnout requires all political tribes to turn out, therefore it has to be close. Sunce the mood music is that it’s not close, turnout will be low even if tribe is motivated.

I honestly think with the news tonite saying a certain big labour majority the tory vote will be depressed disproportionately. Why. For most people now the only reason to vote tory is fear of labour but if it makes no difference whats the point.

williamglenn · July 3

rcs1000 said:

kle4 said:

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?
People are wrong about their own thoughts sometimes, or feel wrong to say they are not certain to vote? The data is clear there is a discrepency, sometimes small, whatever the reason.
That said... lying for social reasons is much more common over the phone when compared to on-line. It's why the phone pollsters got Brexit wrong, while the on-line guys got it right.

Who still polls by phone?

That used to be the case but I wonder if it’s declining as people no longer assume that online = anonymous.

Andy_JS · July 3

Pulpstar said:
The declaration times which were in the spreadsheet Matt Singh posted up and has taken down at the request of PA media form part of my GE spreadsheets...

I've ordered one of the tabs on my spreadsheet using their information on declaration times. Does this mean I need to stop doing so?

I suppose an alternative would be to use the actual declaration times from last time which I have on my 2019 running totals spreadsheet, (modified according to take account of boundary changes).

kle4 · July 3

MikeL said:
Per Wiki main polling graph:

Labour is now polling at its lowest point since December 2021.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election

That is pretty funny. Getting lower than Corbyn but a majority of 200 would cause a dozen leftist cranks to explode in impotent fury.

paulyork64 · July 3

I'm going for

Lab 449
Con 91
LD 66
SNP 20
Plaid 3
Green 2
Ref 1

BatteryCorrectHorse · July 3

Final HORSE prediction:

Labour 425
Tories 105

TheValiant · July 3

Phil said:
So is Biden done? Harris / Sanders ticket incoming?

Bernie Sanders?

He's older than Biden. No chance he's VP.
Is there another Sanders?
Colonel Sanders? He'd be amazing as VP, but I think he's even older (deader).

Edit - Great minds think alike.
Still think Colonel Sanders would be a great VP.

rcs1000 · July 3

Tweedledee said:

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?
You have to be terminally hebephrenic not to have your phone set up so that random timewasters like polling cos cannot get through to you, so the people they do get through to on the phone don't know whether it's Christmas or Easter. That leaves self selected tossers on internet panels, and any statistics textbook I ever read was pretty clear about the importance of RANDOM samples. People earnestly studying polls these days are like neo Ptolemaic astronomers debating which current model most accurately portrays how the sun and planets revolve around the earth.

With all due respect, the Internet pollsters are not dummies and are excellent at weighting their samples appropriately.

Most importantly, because they have been asking people for a long time, they can look at changes in vote for particular demographics.

pigeon · July 3

Andy_JS said:
O/T

Why are there so many empty seats at court no 1 Wimbledon in the match between Paolini and Minnen?

"Tom Chatfield
@tomachatfield
@Wimbledon - one of the greatest sports events in world. Thousands queue but can’t get in, millions miss out in the ballot, yet on Day 2 when a Brit enters a 5th set on centre court, it’s half empty?! Address the empty seats and fix the resale process! Its broken. #Wimbledon"

https://x.com/tomachatfield/status/1808235095406567890

At a guess, folk have already had three matches featuring marquee names and many of them are already satisfied. Mainly more casual spectators who've got slightly sore posteriors from already being sat down for 5 or so hours, and may not be very familiar with Miss Pasolini (who was presumably promoted onto No.1 at short notice as the two women's matches, in particular, that preceded her were such swift and complete victories.)

The tickets will also have limited appeal for resale if people are leaving when there's only one, comparatively low profile, match left to play.

edmundintokyo · July 3

Phil said:
So is Biden done? Harris / Sanders ticket incoming?

Harris wouldn't pick Sanders. She'd pick one of the people who are good on telly and popular in swing-states who are getting suggested for nominee. Alternatively she'd think past the election and poll the military for the most popular general.

MisterBedfordshire · July 3

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?

Because they don't want it known they are supporting Reform for fear of being doxxed.

Especially with the media and places like this lobbing things like "racist" and "fascist" at the party freely.

I am quite careful about who I tell I am likely going to vote Reform to.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120.

ydoethur · July 3

pigeon said:

Andy_JS said:
O/T

Why are there so many empty seats at court no 1 Wimbledon in the match between Paolini and Minnen?

"Tom Chatfield
@tomachatfield
@Wimbledon - one of the greatest sports events in world. Thousands queue but can’t get in, millions miss out in the ballot, yet on Day 2 when a Brit enters a 5th set on centre court, it’s half empty?! Address the empty seats and fix the resale process! Its broken. #Wimbledon"

https://x.com/tomachatfield/status/1808235095406567890
At a guess, folk have already had three matches featuring marquee names and many of them are already satisfied. Mainly more casual spectators who've got slightly sore posteriors from already being sat down for 5 or so hours, and may not be very familiar with Miss Pasolini (who was presumably promoted onto No.1 at short notice as the two women's matches, in particular, that preceded her were such swift and complete victories.)

The tickets will also have limited appeal for resale if people are leaving when there's only one, comparatively low profile, match left to play.

I thought that if you left, you handed your ticket in and it was given out for free?

My grandparents when they lived in Surrey used to go up every evening during Wimbledon. They said they always got free tickets through that system and would go in and watch some excellent matches.

Mind you, that was sixty years ago. It may be different now, but it seemed a great idea to me.

Tweedledee · July 3

rcs1000 said:

Tweedledee said:

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?
You have to be terminally hebephrenic not to have your phone set up so that random timewasters like polling cos cannot get through to you, so the people they do get through to on the phone don't know whether it's Christmas or Easter. That leaves self selected tossers on internet panels, and any statistics textbook I ever read was pretty clear about the importance of RANDOM samples. People earnestly studying polls these days are like neo Ptolemaic astronomers debating which current model most accurately portrays how the sun and planets revolve around the earth.
With all due respect, the Internet pollsters are not dummies and are excellent at weighting their samples appropriately.

Most importantly, because they have been asking people for a long time, they can look at changes in vote for particular demographics.

If they were excellent they would be unanimous, and right.

Richard_Tyndall · July 3

DavidL said:
The pollsters adjust for certainty to vote don't they? And the tendency of Tory supporters to turn out even when thoroughly pissed off and disillusioned. And the tendency of Reform supporters to get diverted to the golf bar on the way to the polling station etc.

The only question is whether these adjustments are sufficient and who has got them most accurately. But none of them are going to make a material difference with a lead like this.

They do adjust for certainty to vote but as the header shows, even then the 100% certain to vote figures are substantially higher than the actual number of people voting.

rcs1000 · July 3

MisterBedfordshire said:

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?
Because they don't want it known they are supporting Reform for fear of being doxxed.

Especially with the media and places like this lobbing things like "racist" and "fascist" at the party freely.

I am quite careful about who I tell I am likely going to vote Reform to.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120.

Which is why on-line pollsters got Brexit right, and phone pollsters got it wrong.

But who are the remaining phone pollsters? And do they have much lower Reform vote shares?

Andy_JS · July 3

pigeon said:

Andy_JS said:
O/T

Why are there so many empty seats at court no 1 Wimbledon in the match between Paolini and Minnen?

"Tom Chatfield
@tomachatfield
@Wimbledon - one of the greatest sports events in world. Thousands queue but can’t get in, millions miss out in the ballot, yet on Day 2 when a Brit enters a 5th set on centre court, it’s half empty?! Address the empty seats and fix the resale process! Its broken. #Wimbledon"

https://x.com/tomachatfield/status/1808235095406567890
At a guess, folk have already had three matches featuring marquee names and many of them are already satisfied. Mainly more casual spectators who've got slightly sore posteriors from already being sat down for 5 or so hours, and may not be very familiar with Miss Pasolini (who was presumably promoted onto No.1 at short notice as the two women's matches, in particular, that preceded her were such swift and complete victories.)

The tickets will also have limited appeal for resale if people are leaving when there's only one, comparatively low profile, match left to play.

I was queueing up last year for many hours in the blazing sun, and at about 7pm they said they weren't letting anyone else in even though lots of matches were still going on. Very frustrating. I don't know why they retain this policy, when it leads to empty seats.

kle4 · July 3

Tweedledee said:

rcs1000 said:

Tweedledee said:

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?
You have to be terminally hebephrenic not to have your phone set up so that random timewasters like polling cos cannot get through to you, so the people they do get through to on the phone don't know whether it's Christmas or Easter. That leaves self selected tossers on internet panels, and any statistics textbook I ever read was pretty clear about the importance of RANDOM samples. People earnestly studying polls these days are like neo Ptolemaic astronomers debating which current model most accurately portrays how the sun and planets revolve around the earth.
With all due respect, the Internet pollsters are not dummies and are excellent at weighting their samples appropriately.

Most importantly, because they have been asking people for a long time, they can look at changes in vote for particular demographics.
If they were excellent they would be unanimous, and right.

So unless there's perfection there's no use to any of them? Even when they are not far off?

AlsoLei · July 3

FPT:

JamesF said:
The Green campaign in Bristol Central has been IMMENSE.

600 people knocking up tomorrow. I don't have much to compare it to, but surely that's loads?

The Corbyn campaign in Islington North is claiming 1000 involved at the weekends - so, yes, 600 for GOTV during the week is huge!

(the question is, of course, whether it'll actually do much to help...)

TheValiant · July 3

If we're wanting turnout up, then let's start here:

I trust everyone on this site, lurkers and all; who can vote tomorrow is going to do so?

Don't assume your party is home and dry, even in Bootle - your vote DOES count.
Don't assume there's no point, they're all the same. That's not true really is it now.
And if you do think the above, and truly think there is no point, go out and vote anyway. A nice stroll on a nice (Well......?) July day will do wonders for your well being.

lockhimup · July 3

On the betting front, 50/1 available on reform in Christchurch.
Very white, old and conservative area.
I can see Con slumping to the low
30s % and UKIP got 21.5% in 2015
50/1 looks great value

kle4 · July 3

AlsoLei said:
FPT:
JamesF said:
The Green campaign in Bristol Central has been IMMENSE.

600 people knocking up tomorrow. I don't have much to compare it to, but surely that's loads?
The Corbyn campaign in Islington North is claiming 1000 involved at the weekends - so, yes, 600 for GOTV during the week is huge!

(the question is, of course, whether it'll actually do much to help...)

I hope so. Independents and minor parties doing well is a positive thing.

Tweedledee · July 3

TheValiant said:
If we're wanting turnout up, then let's start here:

I trust everyone on this site, lurkers and all; who can vote tomorrow is going to do so?

Don't assume your party is home and dry, even in Bootle - your vote DOES count.
Don't assume there's no point, they're all the same. That's not true really is it now.
And if you do think the above, and truly think there is no point, go out and vote anyway. A nice stroll on a nice (Well......?) July day will do wonders for your well being.

Get with the program daddy-oh. I voted last Friday.

GarethoftheVale2 · July 3

One of my favourite phrases is "The wheel of politics is always turning" and I've started thinking, which direction each party will be heading after tomorrow:

Conservative - assuming tomorrow is not an ELE, then they could still have further to go before bottoming out. Next year's locals are the county councils, which the Cons mostly held on to in 2021. Cons could also lose ground in Scotland and Wales in 2026
Labour - In Westminster terms this is probably as good as it gets, but peak Labour is likely to be winning back Holyrood in 2026
SNP - Holyrood 2026 is likely to be the bottom, but also depends on what happens with Branchform
LD - On the up but not necessarily at the top. The LDs had a big breakthrough in 1997,but also gained seats in 2001 and 2005
Reform - The key challenge is turning a pressure group into a real party. Should be lots of opportunities as they currently have few elected politicians.
Green - A Labour government gives them a chance to challenge from the Left
Plaid - Lab controlling both Westminster and Cardiff Bay should give them opportunities

bobbob · July 3

Tweedledee said:

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?
You have to be terminally hebephrenic not to have your phone set up so that random timewasters like polling cos cannot get through to you, so the people they do get through to on the phone don't know whether it's Christmas or Easter. That leaves self selected tossers on internet panels, and any statistics textbook I ever read was pretty clear about the importance of RANDOM samples. People earnestly studying polls these days are like neo Ptolemaic astronomers debating which current model most accurately portrays how the sun and planets revolve around the earth.

Who do we need to vote for to improve the standards of your statistics text books ??

Andy_JS · July 3

lockhimup said:
On the betting front, 50/1 available on reform in Christchurch.
Very white, old and conservative area.
I can see Con slumping to the low
30s % and UKIP got 21.5% in 2015
50/1 looks great value

That is good value, I would have set the odds at about 15/1.

Paristonda · July 3

FPT

The latest polling for the French Assembly is moving away from a majority being on the cards at all for RN, even if they somehow allied with LR. The ‘front républicain’ not dead yet.

https://www.rtl.fr/actu/politique/info-rtl-sondage-legislatives-2024-le-rassemblement-national-en-tete-mais-sans-majorite-absolue-7900400562

RN: 190-220
NFP: 159-183
Ensemble: 110-135
LR: 30-50

I have no idea who could possibly govern out of that, or who would want to. Attal may be able to stay on by default as some sort of zombie minority government as both NFP and RN look instead to the presidential election.

Tweedledee · July 3

bobbob said:

Tweedledee said:

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?
You have to be terminally hebephrenic not to have your phone set up so that random timewasters like polling cos cannot get through to you, so the people they do get through to on the phone don't know whether it's Christmas or Easter. That leaves self selected tossers on internet panels, and any statistics textbook I ever read was pretty clear about the importance of RANDOM samples. People earnestly studying polls these days are like neo Ptolemaic astronomers debating which current model most accurately portrays how the sun and planets revolve around the earth.
Who do we need to vote for to improve the standards of your statistics text books ??

You what? How can a non-random sample of a population represent that population?

Richard_Tyndall · July 3

MisterBedfordshire said:

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?
Because they don't want it known they are supporting Reform for fear of being doxxed.

Especially with the media and places like this lobbing things like "racist" and "fascist" at the party freely.

I am quite careful about who I tell I am likely going to vote Reform to.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120.

Reading the link and one name sprang out:

"Rotherham Borough Council's Strategic Director of Children and Young People's Services, Joyce Thacker"

Perhaps if she had spent a little less time worrying about people's party affiliations and more worrying about rampant sex abuse she would not have had to resign in disgrace.

Mexicanpete · July 3

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
Final HORSE prediction:

Labour 425
Tories 105

I hope tomorrow is your 1997 moment. If it is savour and enjoy. They don't come along that often.

Sit back, relax and partake of the popcorn.

highwayparadise306 · July 3

65.0% voter turnout in this election. My guess.

AlsoLei · July 3

DavidL said:
The pollsters adjust for certainty to vote don't they? And the tendency of Tory supporters to turn out even when thoroughly pissed off and disillusioned. And the tendency of Reform supporters to get diverted to the golf bar on the way to the polling station etc.

The only question is whether these adjustments are sufficient and who has got them most accurately. But none of them are going to make a material difference with a lead like this.

They do, but there are still those amongst even those who declare themselves to be 10/10 likely to vote who don't actually do so for a whole variety of reasons.

Agreed that it won't affect the Lab majority, but might well have an impact on the scale of that majority, or on who becomes the official opposition.

Andy_JS · July 3

ydoethur said:

pigeon said:

Andy_JS said:
O/T

Why are there so many empty seats at court no 1 Wimbledon in the match between Paolini and Minnen?

"Tom Chatfield
@tomachatfield
@Wimbledon - one of the greatest sports events in world. Thousands queue but can’t get in, millions miss out in the ballot, yet on Day 2 when a Brit enters a 5th set on centre court, it’s half empty?! Address the empty seats and fix the resale process! Its broken. #Wimbledon"

https://x.com/tomachatfield/status/1808235095406567890
At a guess, folk have already had three matches featuring marquee names and many of them are already satisfied. Mainly more casual spectators who've got slightly sore posteriors from already being sat down for 5 or so hours, and may not be very familiar with Miss Pasolini (who was presumably promoted onto No.1 at short notice as the two women's matches, in particular, that preceded her were such swift and complete victories.)

The tickets will also have limited appeal for resale if people are leaving when there's only one, comparatively low profile, match left to play.
I thought that if you left, you handed your ticket in and it was given out for free?

My grandparents when they lived in Surrey used to go up every evening during Wimbledon. They said they always got free tickets through that system and would go in and watch some excellent matches.

Mind you, that was sixty years ago. It may be different now, but it seemed a great idea to me.

That's true, I did it a couple of years ago when I got in at about 6:30pm (£5). The problem is the close the gates at around 7pm, which is too early.

TimS · July 3

paulyork64 said:
I'm going for

Lab 449
Con 91
LD 66
SNP 20
Plaid 3
Green 2
Ref 1

I’m still expecting the usual “surprise”.

Lab 365
Con 201
LD 30
SNP 25
PC 3
Green 3
Ref 5

paulyork64 · July 3

paulyork64 said:
I'm going for

Lab 449
Con 91
LD 66
SNP 20
Plaid 3
Green 2
Ref 1

Turnout 63%

TimS · July 3

paulyork64 said:

paulyork64 said:
I'm going for

Lab 449
Con 91
LD 66
SNP 20
Plaid 3
Green 2
Ref 1
Turnout 63%

Yes I reckon it’ll be along those lines

AnneJGP · July 3

TheValiant said:

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?
Because voting is something everyone feels they should do, and are scared to admit (to even themselves) they sometimes couldn't give a shit.

Women especially. Other women died to ensure they got the vote. They probably feel bad if they are actually forced to say, "Emmeline Pankhurst? She could've stayed in bed really. I can't be bothered voting."

That's exactly why I always vote, even if it's spoiling my ballot paper.

DecrepiterJohnL · July 3

Pulpstar said:
The declaration times which were in the spreadsheet Matt Singh posted up and has taken down at the request of PA media form part of my GE spreadsheets...

The PA times were also published on Yahoo (who are still in business, remarkably):-

PA estimated declaration times in chronological order
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/estimated-declaration-times-general-election-093817984.html

PA estimated declaration times in alphabetical order
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/estimated-declaration-times-general-election-092322057.html

MattW · July 3

FPT:

Tweedledee said:

Beibheirli_C said:

nico679 said:

williamglenn said:
NY Times poll - https://x.com/politics_polls/status/1808557089117327652

Trump: 49%
Biden: 43%

Do you think Donald Trump left the country better or worse than when he took office?

Better 48%
Worse 47%
———
Do you think Joe Biden has made the country better or worse since taking office?

Better 36%
Worse 57%
That’s extraordinary. Seriously half of the USA population are insane .
It is their Brexit moment where they inflict totally unnecessary self-harm on themselves and then spend years regretting it.

Spice will be added because the Yanks are generally armed to the teeth (there being more guns than people in the US)
Whatever happens, we have got
The Gatling gun, and they have not

The arms borne by the people do not include automatic rifles let alone military drones and helicopter gunships. A shooting civil war against the Pentagon is not on the cards.

I'm not sure on that. A shooting war not involving the Pentagon is possible, as is Mr Trump trying to use the armed forces for his own purposes.

AIUI bump stocks - as used in the 2017 Las Vegas slaughter - have just been made legal again. One 64 year old bloke fired 1000+ rounds in 10 minutes, killing 61 and injuring 400+ people directly. He also had 20kg of explosive.*

And there are places where they have all kinds of major weapons around. Plus the police are militarised with cast off army stock.

* On October 1, 2017, a mass shooting occurred when 64-year-old Stephen Paddock opened fire on the crowd attending the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada from his 32nd-floor suites in the Mandalay Bay hotel. He fired more than 1,000 rounds, killing 60 people[a] and wounding at least 413. The ensuing panic brought the total number of injured to approximately 867.
...
Paddock was found to have fired a total of 1,058 rounds from fifteen of the firearms: 1,049 from twelve AR-15-style rifles, eight from two AR-10-style rifles, and the round used to kill himself from the Smith & Wesson revolver.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting

wooliedyed · July 3

Turnout troubling 60% for me, ultra low in safe Labour seats up north

TheValiant · July 3

Tweedledee said:

TheValiant said:
If we're wanting turnout up, then let's start here:

I trust everyone on this site, lurkers and all; who can vote tomorrow is going to do so?

Don't assume your party is home and dry, even in Bootle - your vote DOES count.
Don't assume there's no point, they're all the same. That's not true really is it now.
And if you do think the above, and truly think there is no point, go out and vote anyway. A nice stroll on a nice (Well......?) July day will do wonders for your well being.
Get with the program daddy-oh. I voted last Friday.

Your postal vote turned up? Colour me shocked!

Heathener · July 3

Andy_JS said:
O/T

Why are there so many empty seats at court no 1 Wimbledon in the match between Paolini and Minnen?

"Tom Chatfield
@tomachatfield
@Wimbledon - one of the greatest sports events in world. Thousands queue but can’t get in, millions miss out in the ballot, yet on Day 2 when a Brit enters a 5th set on centre court, it’s half empty?! Address the empty seats and fix the resale process! Its broken. #Wimbledon"

https://x.com/tomachatfield/status/1808235095406567890

I agree.

Although to be fair it wasn’t a scheduled match on court No.1

It’s only because both Alcarez and Raducanu demolished their opponents, especially Emma, that they put another match on at the last minute - literally announced after Emma had won.

Richard_Tyndall · July 3

wooliedyed said:
Turnout troubling 60% for me, ultra low in safe Labour seats up north

I agree. I think it will creep over 60% but not by much.

Tweedledee · July 3

MisterBedfordshire said:

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?
Because they don't want it known they are supporting Reform for fear of being doxxed.

Especially with the media and places like this lobbing things like "racist" and "fascist" at the party freely.

I am quite careful about who I tell I am likely going to vote Reform to.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120.

I think you are right to be cautious. AI which deserves the name will find it trivial to unwind internet anonymity and work out who said what.

TheScreamingEagles · July 3

Don't poke the payroll.

Labour candidate to pay £11,000 to unfairly sacked ex-girlfriend

Khalid Mahmood, a Birmingham MP for more than 20 years, described his former adviser Elaina Cohen as a ‘first-class idiot’ to Keir Starmer

A Labour parliamentary candidate must pay a senior adviser who used to be his girlfriend £11,000 after describing her to Sir Keir Starmer as a “first-class idiot”.

Khalid Mahmood was found to have unfairly sacked Elaina Cohen after she sent him a series of messages accusing him of being “cruel” and “bullying”. Cohen was also said to have described the 62-year-old former shadow defence minister as “spiteful” and a “womaniser”.

An employment tribunal was told that Mahmood, who is standing in the general election as the Labour candidate for Birmingham Perry Barr, sacked Cohen for allegedly disrespecting and intimidating him.

The tribunal in central London ruled that by overseeing Cohen’s disciplinary process himself and deciding to fire her, Mahmood treated her unfairly.

However, while Cohen was originally awarded more than £50,000 in compensation for her treatment after successfully suing Mahmood, that figure has now been cut by 75 per cent to £11,729 after the tribunal found that she had exhibited “blameworthy” conduct.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/labour-mp-khalid-mahmood-ex-girlfriend-adviser-hfvtf3smz

Dumbosaurus · July 3

kle4 said:

MikeL said:
Per Wiki main polling graph:

Labour is now polling at its lowest point since December 2021.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election
That is pretty funny. Getting lower than Corbyn but a majority of 200 would cause a dozen leftist cranks to explode in impotent fury.

Plenty of us are on a great tip from @Quincel at 8/1 for Starmer to get less votes than Corbyn.

TheScreamingEagles · July 3

Blindness fears over weight-loss drug Ozempic

A Harvard study found people taking semaglutide were significantly more likely to develop a rare and irreversible eye condition

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/blindness-fears-over-weight-loss-drug-ozempic-jjhcfrq25

Tweedledee · July 3

TheScreamingEagles said:
Don't poke the payroll.

Labour candidate to pay £11,000 to unfairly sacked ex-girlfriend

Khalid Mahmood, a Birmingham MP for more than 20 years, described his former adviser Elaina Cohen as a ‘first-class idiot’ to Keir Starmer

A Labour parliamentary candidate must pay a senior adviser who used to be his girlfriend £11,000 after describing her to Sir Keir Starmer as a “first-class idiot”.

Khalid Mahmood was found to have unfairly sacked Elaina Cohen after she sent him a series of messages accusing him of being “cruel” and “bullying”. Cohen was also said to have described the 62-year-old former shadow defence minister as “spiteful” and a “womaniser”.

An employment tribunal was told that Mahmood, who is standing in the general election as the Labour candidate for Birmingham Perry Barr, sacked Cohen for allegedly disrespecting and intimidating him.

The tribunal in central London ruled that by overseeing Cohen’s disciplinary process himself and deciding to fire her, Mahmood treated her unfairly.

However, while Cohen was originally awarded more than £50,000 in compensation for her treatment after successfully suing Mahmood, that figure has now been cut by 75 per cent to £11,729 after the tribunal found that she had exhibited “blameworthy” conduct.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/labour-mp-khalid-mahmood-ex-girlfriend-adviser-hfvtf3smz

Don't dip your pen in the company ink.

Don't get your meat from the same place you get your bread.

Tweedledee · July 3

TheValiant said:

Tweedledee said:

TheValiant said:
If we're wanting turnout up, then let's start here:

I trust everyone on this site, lurkers and all; who can vote tomorrow is going to do so?

Don't assume your party is home and dry, even in Bootle - your vote DOES count.
Don't assume there's no point, they're all the same. That's not true really is it now.
And if you do think the above, and truly think there is no point, go out and vote anyway. A nice stroll on a nice (Well......?) July day will do wonders for your well being.
Get with the program daddy-oh. I voted last Friday.
Your postal vote turned up? Colour me shocked!

No guarantee it found its way back of course you

ohnotnow · July 3

It's really quite noticeable round here - normally festooned with party election posters in windows - that there's.... nothing. Not a jot.

Aside from that the choices I have tomorrow are :

The Incumbent SNP bloke : never knocked my door even during the 2-3 campaigns they've 'fought', zero local presence, no sign of even having been here rather than Westminster.

The Labour Guy : wealthy background (poor constituency), clearly an up-and-comer who will possibly 'go places', but again - no sign of them ever having set foot here or even knowing where 'here' is.

The Green Guy : no chance of being elected, but has spent time answering questions from locals and lives in the area.

Various others (reform/tory/LD/communist/whatever): no chance of winning, and zero sign of even knowing they're standing, let alone where.

I'm not terribly inspired at this late stage. Throw my vote away on The Green Guy just because he's shown willing?

nico679 · July 3

It’s not just about the Presidency. Biden could cost Dems the House aswell as many state legislatures. His refusal to stand aside could leave a terrible legacy .

Clutch_Brompton · July 3

rcs1000 said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?
Because they don't want it known they are supporting Reform for fear of being doxxed.

Especially with the media and places like this lobbing things like "racist" and "fascist" at the party freely.

I am quite careful about who I tell I am likely going to vote Reform to.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120.

Which is why on-line pollsters got Brexit right, and phone pollsters got it wrong.

But who are the remaining phone pollsters? And do they have much lower Reform vote shares?

Survation are phone pollsters - they have Reform at 17% which is pretty much level with the others. I think Ipsos might be too - they had them at 15% a week ago so also not notably light. I agree there are more shy Reform than shy Cons out there. In fact some of those declared 'Cons' may well end up voting for 'good old Nigel' - wouldn't surprise me one little bit.

carnforth · July 3

Sinner-Berrettini is hotting up nicely, by the way.

Tweedledee · July 3

bobbob said:

Tweedledee said:

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?
You have to be terminally hebephrenic not to have your phone set up so that random timewasters like polling cos cannot get through to you, so the people they do get through to on the phone don't know whether it's Christmas or Easter. That leaves self selected tossers on internet panels, and any statistics textbook I ever read was pretty clear about the importance of RANDOM samples. People earnestly studying polls these days are like neo Ptolemaic astronomers debating which current model most accurately portrays how the sun and planets revolve around the earth.
Who do we need to vote for to improve the standards of your statistics text books ??

An explanation of this extraordinary post would be welcome

rottenborough · July 3

TheScreamingEagles said:
Blindness fears over weight-loss drug Ozempic

A Harvard study found people taking semaglutide were significantly more likely to develop a rare and irreversible eye condition

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/blindness-fears-over-weight-loss-drug-ozempic-jjhcfrq25

How many times do we have to go through this with new drugs.

"It's a miracle", "will transform millions of lives worldwide", "everyone is taking it now".

Then...

DecrepiterJohnL · July 3

TheScreamingEagles said:
Blindness fears over weight-loss drug Ozempic

A Harvard study found people taking semaglutide were significantly more likely to develop a rare and irreversible eye condition

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/blindness-fears-over-weight-loss-drug-ozempic-jjhcfrq25

There go my hopes of seeing my toes again.

Nigelb · July 3

Time for an intervention.

Biden tells campaign staff: ‘No one is pushing me out ... I’m not leaving’ – live
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/03/biden-debate-democrats-kamala-harris-election-updates

nico679 · July 3

carnforth said:
Sinner-Berrettini is hotting up nicely, by the way.

It’s a shame they had to meet in the second round .

Tweedledee · July 3

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Blindness fears over weight-loss drug Ozempic

A Harvard study found people taking semaglutide were significantly more likely to develop a rare and irreversible eye condition

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/blindness-fears-over-weight-loss-drug-ozempic-jjhcfrq25
There go my hopes of seeing my toes again.

genuinely

paulyork64 · July 3

lockhimup said:
On the betting front, 50/1 available on reform in Christchurch.
Very white, old and conservative area.
I can see Con slumping to the low
30s % and UKIP got 21.5% in 2015
50/1 looks great value

Unlikely. But I've had one English pound on at 100/1 cheers.

kle4 · July 3

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Blindness fears over weight-loss drug Ozempic

A Harvard study found people taking semaglutide were significantly more likely to develop a rare and irreversible eye condition

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/blindness-fears-over-weight-loss-drug-ozempic-jjhcfrq25
How many times do we have to go through this with new drugs.

"It's a miracle", "will transform millions of lives worldwide", "everyone is taking it now".

Then...

Not just a drug related phenomenom.

carnforth · July 3

Philip Collins on Starmer & Labour:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/03/opinions/uk-election-keir-starmer-prime-minister-tony-blair-collins/index.html

Missed this, since a foreign publication...

bobbob · July 3

Tweedledee said:

bobbob said:

Tweedledee said:

highwayparadise306 said:
Why would certain members of the great British public lie when contacted by polling companies? What would be the reasons that they would do that?
You have to be terminally hebephrenic not to have your phone set up so that random timewasters like polling cos cannot get through to you, so the people they do get through to on the phone don't know whether it's Christmas or Easter. That leaves self selected tossers on internet panels, and any statistics textbook I ever read was pretty clear about the importance of RANDOM samples. People earnestly studying polls these days are like neo Ptolemaic astronomers debating which current model most accurately portrays how the sun and planets revolve around the earth.
Who do we need to vote for to improve the standards of your statistics text books ??
You what? How can a non-random sample of a population represent that population?

A sample needs to be representative not random.

That’s a major reason why polls are less shit now than they were 30 years ago

wooliedyed · July 3

Looks like there is no final MiC poll, it was I think rolled in with the MRP
So just Survation after 9 and Ipsos tomorrow

KnightOut · July 3

Andy_JS said:

pigeon said:

Andy_JS said:
O/T

Why are there so many empty seats at court no 1 Wimbledon in the match between Paolini and Minnen?

"Tom Chatfield
@tomachatfield
@Wimbledon - one of the greatest sports events in world. Thousands queue but can’t get in, millions miss out in the ballot, yet on Day 2 when a Brit enters a 5th set on centre court, it’s half empty?! Address the empty seats and fix the resale process! Its broken. #Wimbledon"

https://x.com/tomachatfield/status/1808235095406567890
At a guess, folk have already had three matches featuring marquee names and many of them are already satisfied. Mainly more casual spectators who've got slightly sore posteriors from already being sat down for 5 or so hours, and may not be very familiar with Miss Pasolini (who was presumably promoted onto No.1 at short notice as the two women's matches, in particular, that preceded her were such swift and complete victories.)

The tickets will also have limited appeal for resale if people are leaving when there's only one, comparatively low profile, match left to play.
I was queueing up last year for many hours in the blazing sun, and at about 7pm they said they weren't letting anyone else in even though lots of matches were still going on. Very frustrating. I don't know why they retain this policy, when it leads to empty seats.

Another example of Wimbledon's brokenness:

Yesterday we had tickets for Court No. 2 - initially the order of play looked OK with Jack Draper and Ons Jabeur both featuring. However, Murray's withdrawal meant that the only match featuring a Brit got moved onto Centre, and later on the Jabeur match was also moved.

Meanwhile court 3 (which has unreserved seating) offered both Boulter *and* Norrie matches. Plenty of good first round tennis on outside courts to be had too.

The upshot of this was that across the entire day we spent less an hour in our purchased seats on 2, and the rest of the time watching better tennis elsewhere (mainly court 3).

And because of the way the system works, our seats would've been empty all that time. Lots of other people with tickets for court 2 had a similar idea. Looking at the matches across all courts throughout the day, the purportedly 3rd most prestigious court arguably had the worst lineup of all.

A part of me feels bad about this - taking up a seat that could've gone to somebody with just a ground pass, while my own seat sat empty - but the responsibility surely lies with the schedulers and the system, both of which are awful.

Tickets are all digital these days. The Wimbledon App could easily work out if a spectator isn't in their seat and alert stewards to this fact so they can reallocate it until such time as the ticket holder wants to retake their place, or not!

pigeon · July 3

rcs1000 said:
If turnout is well below expected levels, what are the consequences?

1. Labour disproportionately loses. There's not that much enthusiasm for Starmer, merely resigned acceptance.
2. GOTV matters. If turnout is low, then ground game is more important, and the ability to get your vote out is more important.
3. Parties with older voters do better - probably a net positive for both Reform and the Conservatives.

Top of the head: I think it means that the Conservatives and Reform outperform, Labour underperforms, and the LDs do well in places where they have lots of tellers and knocker-uppers. It makes the first 40-odd seats easier, but the next 40 much harder.

Of course, the next question is: will this have impacted postal voting? Also, will voter ID laws have a further dampening effect?

This all seems very logical, and the likelihood of an unenthusiastic, low turnout election was one of the reasons why I thought it would be a lot closer (basically, through an amplification of the turnout differential between younger and older voters, with the elderly sticking largely with the Tories and bailing them out,) than it looks like it will be.

What I didn't anticipate when this formed part of my reasoning for predicting a hung Parliament was that Reform would become so buoyant and that their vote wouldn't simply deflate to Brexit Party levels, and that tactical voting might occur on quite the scale that the opinion surveys appear to be suggesting. Both Reform and the Lib Dems (whose voter age profiles are not as skewed towards Boomers as are the Tories', but are nonetheless greyer than Labour's,) are peeling off crucial voters and making the Tories' situation considerably worse than it already was.

Nonetheless, I can't help but think (and I don't believe that this is simply my natural pessimism asserting itself) that some of the more extreme predictions of Tory implosion won't be borne out, simply because their residual support is skewed so heavily towards those most likely to bother to vote. It wouldn't take much - a small fraction of the Reform defectors wobbling in the polling booth, fewer young people bothering on the day than the pollsters think will be the case - for the Conservatives to save a meaningful number of seats and modestly outperform (very low) expectations.

In that context, a result something like Labour 410, Con 130, LD 60, SNP 20 would not be too surprising.

No_Offence_Alan · July 3

For me, the big unknown in this election is the lack of information on Reform voters in the 2017 Tory seats, because they (in the form of Brexit) didn't field candidates in 2019.
Especially if "past vote" is a major factor in the pollsters' calculations.

rottenborough · July 3

Natasha Korecki
@natashakorecki
·
1h
Replying to
@natashakorecki

Follow up question in news briefing: If the president is jet lagged 12 days after overseas travel, doesn't that raise its own issues?

eek · July 3

https://x.com/adampayne26/status/1808440291721936911?s=46&t=cxkq0jndvkhIwWZCCEL3QQ

Story from May 2nd 1997

He (John Major) also secured a room in the Cabinet Office for them to store larger items so that they could be moved after the election: "They were (understandably) keen to avoid having a removal van seen in or near Downing Street." This plan was thwarted on polling day "when I got a panicked call from the press office to say that there was a removal van in Downing Street." It turned out that another group of civil servants had decided it would be a nice quiet day to shift furniture in Whitehall.

Casino_Royale · July 3

Richard_Tyndall said:

wooliedyed said:
Turnout troubling 60% for me, ultra low in safe Labour seats up north
I agree. I think it will creep over 60% but not by much.

I sold turnout below 62% and below 60% in particular, FWIW

But, I truly have no idea.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

People tell pollsters duff info – politicalbetting.com

Comments