politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest batch of Lord Ashcroft polling finds

Casino_Royale said:

CarlottaVance said:

As in the previous round, Labour seem to be having the better of the ground war in all ten of these seats. Between 55% and 78% had had literature, letters, visits, phone calls or emails from Labour; between 34% and 62% said they heard from the Tories.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/04/more-conservative-labour-marginals

I honestly don't know what the Tories are playing at with their ground game. This used to be a strength of theirs.

But, then again, they've lost an awful lot of members under Cameron.

I still come back to how important is the ground game ?

Do you read election literature ? Nobody in my house does.
Canvassers get quickly dispatched.
Postal voting is sort of making GOTV a bit irrelevant.

O/T but relevant to recent discussions - interresting analysis of the dilemma of SLAB/Mr Murphy in view of London Labour GHQ's policies:

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/if-yolk-sticks.html

'Today's "slapdown" by Labour's shadow business spokesman, Chuka Ummuna, and Ed Balls, undermines just about everything that Jim Murphy has been agitating so antically to promote: Labour as an anti austerity alternative, his own office as robust, independent, "patriotic", in charge of the Scottish contingent in Westminster, paying the piper and calling the tune. But Chuka was having none of that [...]

This doesn't even leave Mr Murphy the wriggle room to be a critical friend of the UK leadership, pursuing different priorities from within the UK Labour Party. If you want to give the Labour party the heart and stomach to pursue different priorities -- there is clearly no point backing Jim. Even his own senior colleagues apparently see him as an irrelevance, and do not have the good grace to conceal their indifference to his opinion from the public.'

I have now compared the ten Ashcroft marginals with my switching model.

Seven are in line. Three are not. These are:

Dover - where Lab is 7% less than my model and UKIP is 5% more. Con is in line. My interpretation is that UKIP is hitting Lab particularly hard in Dover.

Harlow - where Lab is 4% less than my model and Con is 3% higher. No obvious reason. I assume a particularly good Con candidate or campaign.

NE Somerset - where Lab is 11% less than my model and Con is 6% higher (and LD is 6% higher). This must be the Mogg effect and an ineffective LD squeeze. A Boris type situation??

Excluding NE Somerset, the average Con vote and Lab vote is within 1% of my model, The average LD vote is 3% higher than my model, UKIP 2% lower and Green 1% lower.

I'll now fine-tune my model, particularly my assumptions about LD switchers to UKIP and Green in non-LD marginals and see what the overall effect is. I suspect not a lot.

Alanbrooke said:

I never quite get the ground war theme. Maybe it's because I'm in a rural constituency.

Bei Brooke leaflets go straight to recycling and are never read, canvassers get politely told to go away, telephone calls get told to go away less politely.

The only thing I can see where ground war is meaningful is taking known supporters to the polling station, but increasingly postal voting makes that irrelevant, and it only matters in marginal consitituencies.

Or is it simply the ground war theme is to make politcal activists think their doing something effective when in fact it's of questionable value ?

I'm sure there are a lot of households where overly enthusiastic political obsessives knocking on your door can have a negative effect and put voters off the party that is nagging, bullying, pestering, whining, bleating or nuisance calling.

Dover I think is quite a significant Seat as it is a bell-weather seat being held by every election winner since the early sixties ( With the exception of 1974 when Peter Rees retained the seat for the conservatives)

Alanbrooke said:

I never quite get the ground war theme. Maybe it's because I'm in a rural constituency.

Bei Brooke leaflets go straight to recycling and are never read, canvassers get politely told to go away, telephone calls get told to go away less politely.

The only thing I can see where ground war is meaningful is taking known supporters to the polling station, but increasingly postal voting makes that irrelevant, and it only matters in marginal consitituencies.

Or is it simply the ground war theme is to make politcal activists think their doing something effective when in fact it's of questionable value ?

I keep the candidates' leaflets as they are so useful for when they knock my door. Last night had visit from the Greens and LDs. I ask them in and give them light refreshments.and then the fun starts.

Green said he would remove social inequality and when pressed implied that all should have more equal wages. When asked if he would be in favour of reducing MPs pay to nearer that of the average wage - just got lots on mumbling and mutters of must go on now.

The LD candidate, being in a farming area, said that they would ensure that farmers would receive an economic price for their milk. (recently they have had price reductions as supermarkets are using milk as a loss leader and milk production is becoming uneconomic). However he did not know about the EU removing milk quotas and could not respond to the scenario of a E European country upping their production to sell to the UK at a lower price due to their lower cost structure.

Big swing in London and bigger in the north-west than in Yorkshire as expected.

It would be nice if we could have a Broxtowe poll.

Jacob Rees-Mogg has been one of the big successes of the new MPs, Edward Timpson would be no less in Crewe considering the way he's gone missing as Childrens Minister regarding Rotherham and Oxfordshire.

Alanbrooke said:

I never quite get the ground war theme. Maybe it's because I'm in a rural constituency.

Bei Brooke leaflets go straight to recycling and are never read, canvassers get politely told to go away, telephone calls get told to go away less politely.

The only thing I can see where ground war is meaningful is taking known supporters to the polling station, but increasingly postal voting makes that irrelevant, and it only matters in marginal consitituencies.

Or is it simply the ground war theme is to make politcal activists think their doing something effective when in fact it's of questionable value ?

activists know they've got the time between doormat and bin to make an impression with a leaflet. Hence it's about volume to show strength and create a subliminal impression.

canvassing is to identify support to be targeted (or omitted) for squeeze messages and gotv

the other thing you have to remember is the massive pool of dnv and to a lesser extent undecideds in most constituencies - probably less than half the electorate have fixed affiliations and therefore in a marginal even a small percentage can make a difference

in theory

Speaking of Rotherham I see the fatcats on the council are looking to use being 'unfit for purpose' as an excuse to pay themselves more money:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-32249315

Public sector fatcattery means never having to face the consequences of your actions and always being able to get your snout deeper in the trough.

Finchley looks like a classic example of UKIP voting against an EU referendum and for a Labour government.

I hope these pr>cks are proud of themselves.

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

CarlottaVance said:

As in the previous round, Labour seem to be having the better of the ground war in all ten of these seats. Between 55% and 78% had had literature, letters, visits, phone calls or emails from Labour; between 34% and 62% said they heard from the Tories.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/04/more-conservative-labour-marginals

I honestly don't know what the Tories are playing at with their ground game. This used to be a strength of theirs.

But, then again, they've lost an awful lot of members under Cameron.

I still come back to how important is the ground game ?

Do you read election literature ? Nobody in my house does.
Canvassers get quickly dispatched.
Postal voting is sort of making GOTV a bit irrelevant.

The ground game isn't significant in any one election. But, if one party works a seat significantly harder than another for several years, and builds up solid canvassing data, it will give them an edge.

MarqueeMark said:

Slightly surprised to see Harlow and Milton Keynes South going in such different directions...

It might be margin or error or it might be because IIRC is a much more working class place.

Anyway have a good day everyone with the conflicting emotions as each new poll is received.

Sean_F said:

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

CarlottaVance said:

As in the previous round, Labour seem to be having the better of the ground war in all ten of these seats. Between 55% and 78% had had literature, letters, visits, phone calls or emails from Labour; between 34% and 62% said they heard from the Tories.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/04/more-conservative-labour-marginals

I honestly don't know what the Tories are playing at with their ground game. This used to be a strength of theirs.

But, then again, they've lost an awful lot of members under Cameron.

I still come back to how important is the ground game ?

Do you read election literature ? Nobody in my house does.
Canvassers get quickly dispatched.
Postal voting is sort of making GOTV a bit irrelevant.

The ground game isn't significant in any one election. But, if one party works a seat significantly harder than another for several years, and builds up solid canvassing data, it will give them an edge.

That I can get, but some of our posters here talk as if it's all on the last 4-6 weeks. Personally I'm increasingly skeptical the campaign has that much of an effect, most of the work needs to have been done at least 12 months prior to the GE.

Sean_F said:

ThomasNashe said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

ThomasNashe said:

FPT.

Re. Finchley & Golders Green: London appears to be the only place where we can be fairly sure that Labour will improve significantly on their 2010 showing. Recently, I have been wondering about Putney, where Labour were 20/1 the last time I looked. Yes, Justine Greening has a very big majority, but Labour have a decent candidate and they did hold the seat from 1997-2005. A long-shot indeed but it does seem to be within the bounds of possibility?

Putney/Battersea has become far more 'yuppified' than areas like Finchley, which is more traditional wealth and champagne socialism, which I'd suggest make them a lot less likely to fall to LAB .

Yes, I'm not making any claim beyond the fact that there are less likely 20/1 shots. I would say, however, that socio-economic profile appears to be much less of a determiner of the outcome of London seats than elsewhere.

Everything is pointing to a very strong performance for Labour in London, and a dismal performance for Labour in Kent, Herts., and Essex.

Agreed. The Dover poll strikes me as particularly dire for Labour.

These seats show the brutality of FPTP when you start from a very low base.

UKIP trebling their vote and getting nowhere near.

SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon is taking listener calls on 5 Live.

Asked about worries that fiscal autonomy would leave Scotland worse off and without a welfare safety net, Ms Sturgeon says the policy "would be implemented over a period of years".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/live

So she wanted separation next year, but wants FFA 'when the oil price goes back up'

If the Government puts FFA in the Queen's Speech starting next year, will the SNP vote against?

EDIT: @schofieldkevin: Nicola Sturgeon sats full fiscal autonomy "would take several years to fully implement". But setting up a new state would take 18 months?

chestnut said:

Last few weeks' swings in ranked order:

8.5 NW City of Chester
7.5 NW Crewe and Nantwich
7.0 GL Finchley and Golders Green
6.0 EM Milton Keynes South
5.5 GL Harrow East
5.5 NW Wirral west
5.0 EM Nuneaton
5.0 GL Croydon Central
5.0 SE Hove
5.0 NW Rossendale and Darwen
5.0 NW South Ribble
4.0 NW Morecambe and Lunesdale
4.0 SW South Swindon
3.5 SE Southampton Itchen
3.5 YH Cleethorpes
3.0 NE Stockton South
3.0 WM Dudley South
3.0 WM Halesowen
2.0 NW Pendle
1.5 YH Pudsey
1.0 SE Dover
0.5 EE Harlow
0.5 EM Loughborough
0.5 NW Blackpool North
0.5 SW Gloucester
0.5 SW Worcester
-2.0 SW Kingswood
-3.5 SW NE Somerset

It would be interesting to see this list done ion date order, and then with the change (if any) in the swing since the date they were polled.

Have to admit, living in North London in the heart of champagne socialism, I am sceptical of this view that Labour is going to do extremely well in London. A lot of Labour-supporting friends are just not enthused: they do not think Ed is the right candidate.

The other thing I would say is that the Mansion Tax issue may be more of an issue than people are prepared to admit. Quite a few of the wealthier Labour supporters we know bring it up - they know it is not the right thing to admit that is why they are having doubts but it is a factor (and the Conservatives have been playing the theme of a "double whammy" of council tax rebanding and a Mansion Tax).

Think, on the night, Labour might be disappointed with its London performance given the hype.

MarqueeMark said:

Slightly surprised to see Harlow and Milton Keynes South going in such different directions...

Robert Halfon is a superb MP, that's why.

ThomasNashe said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Lots of those are very close, and could easily go either way.

Maybe the Conservatives should clone Mogg.

Yes, he comes across as authentic and independent-minded, whether you agree or don't with what he says. These days that in itself is enough to win the respect of many voters.

I think it's also why Simon Hughes will possibly buck the pro-Labour trend in London and hold on in Bermondsey. Going to be very close though.

Also, of course, Simon Hughes is the straight choice for Bermondsey.

bigjohnowls said:

Can anyone explain how right to buy proposal will protect number of houses available to rent.

If a person owns a house then they don't need to rent one.

JGC said:

Not sure you are quite correct about not comparing seats, look at Finchley & Harlow which are not far from each other with an almost identical result last time out. These figures very much confirm the subjective feelings that Labour is doing well (very well?) in London but not so well at all in the surrounding areas especially to the east.

I thought Labour might be doing a bit better in Dudley but the other places seem to be broadly in line with general expectations.

Agree with the last point. My comment on comparing seats is just statistical - if you compare any two, one will have a bigger swing, and it's risky to draw any conclusions from that, unless it's reproduced. You might be right about London/home counties.

Tissue_Price said:

Hi Nick

Is there still a proposal for a Broxtowe PB get-together pre-ecletion? If so could you post details?

Cheers

Hasn't been any response that I've seen, though Peter the Punter and tyson are both kindly coming up to help. If you're in the area, do drop me a note and we'll have a drink with them anyway!

AllyPally_Rob said:

Sounds like an excellent turnout Nick. Would I be right in saying Beeston is the wealthiest part of the constituency? Also Off topic but is the Crown Inn still going in Beeston? Used to be a decent pub when i visited that part of the world

Beeston is the largest town and mostly well off, though the wealthiest area is probably nearby Bramcote. As Ashcroft's last polls here show, there is a direct correlation between high income and Labour voting here - that's partly due to types of occupation (lots of lecturers and teachers and doctors) and partly a personal vote (my polite but wordy approach goes down better with this group than AS's punchy slogan-led style). AS has already tweeted plaintively that the hustings questions weren't what she'd have liked.

The Crown is doing fine! Come again. https://www.facebook.com/crowninnbeeston

bigjohnowls said:

Can anyone explain how right to buy proposal will protect number of houses available to rent.

Can anyone explain how the housing stock is reduced by right to buy. The fundemental remains, there are too few houses. If a renter becomes an owner it makes no difference.

If the capital is reinvested in additional social housing on a 1:1 basis, then the social housing stock should remain at least as numerous, but the demand for rented accommodation is reduced by 1 family for each house sold. If repacement is at 1.5:1, then social housing stock increases.

In theory it could create additional stock, but there is the 'if' of reinvesting the money.

Has anyone told the Tories that they will not be able to implement their policy of selling housing association housing at discount prices.Housing associations are non-profit making charities bound by the rules of the charity commission and are required to gain the full market value for their housing stock.Has anyone told the Tory policymakers about this or are they merely posturing? Another potential joke policy for the Tories.

Barnesian said:

Barnesian said:

I have now compared the ten Ashcroft marginals with my switching model.

Seven are in line. Three are not. These are:

Dover - where Lab is 7% less than my model and UKIP is 5% more. Con is in line. My interpretation is that UKIP is hitting Lab particularly hard in Dover.

Harlow - where Lab is 4% less than my model and Con is 3% higher. No obvious reason. I assume a particularly good Con candidate or campaign.

NE Somerset - where Lab is 11% less than my model and Con is 6% higher (and LD is 6% higher). This must be the Mogg effect and an ineffective LD squeeze. A Boris type situation??

Excluding NE Somerset, the average Con vote and Lab vote is within 1% of my model, The average LD vote is 3% higher than my model, UKIP 2% lower and Green 1% lower.

I'll now fine-tune my model, particularly my assumptions about LD switchers to UKIP and Green in non-LD marginals and see what the overall effect is. I suspect not a lot.

As I suspected, moving votes between the minor parties changes their share of the vote but has zero effect on number of seats.

My current predictions are:

... vote share ...seats
Con .. 34.6% ... 255
Lab .. 34.3% ... 284
LD .. 10.7% ... 33
UKIP ... 11.8% ...2
Grn .. 4.2% ... 1
SNP .. 3.8% ...54

What's scary about your (entirely plausible) outcome is that it is likely the government will be formed by the 2nd and the 6th party in terms of vote share.

JosiasJessop said:

Today might be the most important day of the campaign. If today's manifesto is poorly received, or does not shoot some of Labour's foxes, then the Conservatives are in even more trouble.

Sadly, I won't be able to watch the launch as I'll be at baby sensory. The babies will probably make more sense than the politicians. ;-)

The fact all the noise this morning - meaning the thing the Tories have chosen to put in the shop window - is about forcing housing associations to sell their properties to their social housing tenants at a discount, a policy which will excite no-one, suggests deep trouble may be the favourite...

roserees64 said:

Has anyone told the Tories that they will not be able to implement their policy of selling housing association housing at discount prices.Housing associations are non-profit making charities bound by the rules of the charity commission and are required to gain the full market value for their housing stock.Has anyone told the Tory policymakers about this or are they merely posturing? Another potential joke policy for the Tories.

What an odd comment
If you wre a Council tenant and your house was transferred to a HA (as hundreds of thousands have) then you will retain the RTB. Hence a HA will currently be selling houses at below market value.

How do I become a council tenant in the middle of London ?

Sounds like a fantastic investment

murali_s said:

JackW said:

BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS ****

The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 11th April Projection) :

Con 305 (-3) .. Lab 252 (+2) .. LibDem 30 (+2) .. SNP 38 (NC) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 2 (-1) .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1

Conservatives 21 seats short of a majority
......................................................................................

"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :

Bury North - Con Hold
Pudsey - Likely Con Hold
Broxtowe - TCTC
Warwickshire North - TCTC
Cambridge - LibDem Hold
Ipswich - Con Hold
Watford - TCTC
Croydon Central - Con Hold
Enfield North - Likely Lab Gain
Cornwall North - TCTC
Great Yarmouth - Con Hold
Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold
Ochil and South Perthshire - SNP Gain

Changes From 11 Apr - No Changes

TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes
Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes
Gain/Hold - Over 2500
.......................................................................................

ARSE is sponsored by Auchentennach Fine Pies (Est 1745)

WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
APLOMB - Auchentennach Pies Leading Outsales Mainland Britain

This will please the faithful here!

As far as I'm concerned, the direction of travel with these ARSE's is decent. Croydon Central - Con Hold; this seems very unlikely...

It's the faithless you have to feel sad for - poor sods.

Lib Dems losing 5/9.

@TGOHF
You could try to find out? Or you could wait for the housing statistics that are due fairly soon?
Doesn't bother me either way to be honest.

A couple of points on the Ashcroft poll:

1. The Labour advantage in the ground war does seem to be having an effect in these seats. On the second question the Conservatives do 0.2% better on average, Labour do 1.5% better on average (i.e an additional swing of 0.65% to Labour). Labour do better on the local question in every seat too. Normally this would not matter hugely - and shows the limits of a strong ground game. But it could make a difference in maybe 5 - 10 close seats.

2. While the Lab / Con battle is relatively consistent there is still a lot of variation - especially in the last couple of batches. Ashcroft's method means that he is picking up Conservatives surprises - seats that the Conservatives would lose on UNS, but he has ahead. But he may be missing Labour surprises which show the opposite (like C&N and F&GG in this poll).

Talking of Crewe and Nantwich and By-Election unwind...
Chloe in Norwich North - tick tock

Interesting results from the polling Lord, does look like the SW and SE are just not interested in Labour, the NW for some reason loves Ed (not Blackpool though it would appear) and Scotland is a bloodbath. All about the midlands marginals!
I've still got the Tories 5 to 10 ahead, but that's including what I expect on the day - a couple percent swing from pencil hoverers to the Govt. I also have the greens on 2, UKIP on 2

Peter_the_Punter said:

rcs1000 said:

Barnesian said:

Barnesian said:

I have now compared the ten Ashcroft marginals with my switching model.

Seven are in line. Three are not. These are:

Dover - where Lab is 7% less than my model and UKIP is 5% more. Con is in line. My interpretation is that UKIP is hitting Lab particularly hard in Dover.

Harlow - where Lab is 4% less than my model and Con is 3% higher. No obvious reason. I assume a particularly good Con candidate or campaign.

NE Somerset - where Lab is 11% less than my model and Con is 6% higher (and LD is 6% higher). This must be the Mogg effect and an ineffective LD squeeze. A Boris type situation??

Excluding NE Somerset, the average Con vote and Lab vote is within 1% of my model, The average LD vote is 3% higher than my model, UKIP 2% lower and Green 1% lower.

I'll now fine-tune my model, particularly my assumptions about LD switchers to UKIP and Green in non-LD marginals and see what the overall effect is. I suspect not a lot.

As I suspected, moving votes between the minor parties changes their share of the vote but has zero effect on number of seats.

My current predictions are:

... vote share ...seats
Con .. 34.6% ... 255
Lab .. 34.3% ... 284
LD .. 10.7% ... 33
UKIP ... 11.8% ...2
Grn .. 4.2% ... 1
SNP .. 3.8% ...54

What's scary about your (entirely plausible) outcome is that it is likely the government will be formed by the 2nd and the 6th party in terms of vote share.

If I had to call the election right now (and I'd rather not) I too would come up with something like Barnesian's figures.

I too would also find it scary that the next Government would be formed by the 2nd and 6th most popular Parties, although in my case there would be an element of Schadenfreude, because I've always hated FPTP, and this kind of possible outcome is one reason why.

Would this be the outcome to finally convert mainstream tories to the cause of PR?

Bob__Sykes said:

JosiasJessop said:

Today might be the most important day of the campaign. If today's manifesto is poorly received, or does not shoot some of Labour's foxes, then the Conservatives are in even more trouble.

Sadly, I won't be able to watch the launch as I'll be at baby sensory. The babies will probably make more sense than the politicians. ;-)

The fact all the noise this morning - meaning the thing the Tories have chosen to put in the shop window - is about forcing housing associations to sell their properties to their social housing tenants at a discount, a policy which will excite no-one, suggests deep trouble may be the favourite...

Presumably it might excite those people in the properties who could have the chance to own their own home?

roserees64 said:

Has anyone told the Tories that they will not be able to implement their policy of selling housing association housing at discount prices.Housing associations are non-profit making charities bound by the rules of the charity commission and are required to gain the full market value for their housing stock.Has anyone told the Tory policymakers about this or are they merely posturing? Another potential joke policy for the Tories.

That's an interesting caveat.

I'm sure the Tories have done their homework on that. Surely?

Should be noted that the Greens aren't standing in South Ribble or Crewe and Nantwich.

nigel4england said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

Finchley looks like a classic example of UKIP voting against an EU referendum and for a Labour government.

I hope these pr>cks are proud of themselves.

Insult the people you need to come back to the fold, excellent strategy that has worked brilliantly thus far.

I don't want ghastly toxic racist loonies back in the fold. I actually want all UKIPpers to just leave the country they utterly hate, like they are constantly threatening to do in the Telegraph comments.

There is something profoundly unBritish about UKIP.

Sean_F said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

I'm in F & GG and I think I was canvassed by UKIP the other day. I'm not sure as I didn't answer the door, but when I checked outside a few minutes later, there was a strong lingering smell of wee and an angry atmosphere.

Meanwhile Labour's leaflets fail to mention the mansion tax, Ed Miliband or indeed any tax rises at all!

Very unlikely that UKIP would have canvass teams in that seat. It's a very weak seat for them (as the poll shows). If the Tories lose this very wealthy seat, it will be all their own fault.

UKIP not losing their deposit in Finchley shows up their problems with vote efficiency to my mind.

Compare to the Lib Dems losing over half their deposits in these seats.

bigjohnowls said:

Can anyone explain how right to buy proposal will protect number of houses available to rent.

By reducing the rental demand at an identical rate.

bigjohnowls said:

Sky News poll of polls projection - EICIPM

Lab 282, Con 271

Heavily skewered by all the internet polls of course.

Talking of which, anybody know when the the first Mori poll will be out this week?

ThomasNashe said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

rcs1000 said:

Barnesian said:

Barnesian said:

I have now compared the ten Ashcroft marginals with my switching model.

Seven are in line. Three are not. These are:

Dover - where Lab is 7% less than my model and UKIP is 5% more. Con is in line. My interpretation is that UKIP is hitting Lab particularly hard in Dover.

Harlow - where Lab is 4% less than my model and Con is 3% higher. No obvious reason. I assume a particularly good Con candidate or campaign.

NE Somerset - where Lab is 11% less than my model and Con is 6% higher (and LD is 6% higher). This must be the Mogg effect and an ineffective LD squeeze. A Boris type situation??

Excluding NE Somerset, the average Con vote and Lab vote is within 1% of my model, The average LD vote is 3% higher than my model, UKIP 2% lower and Green 1% lower.

I'll now fine-tune my model, particularly my assumptions about LD switchers to UKIP and Green in non-LD marginals and see what the overall effect is. I suspect not a lot.

As I suspected, moving votes between the minor parties changes their share of the vote but has zero effect on number of seats.

My current predictions are:

... vote share ...seats
Con .. 34.6% ... 255
Lab .. 34.3% ... 284
LD .. 10.7% ... 33
UKIP ... 11.8% ...2
Grn .. 4.2% ... 1
SNP .. 3.8% ...54

What's scary about your (entirely plausible) outcome is that it is likely the government will be formed by the 2nd and the 6th party in terms of vote share.

If I had to call the election right now (and I'd rather not) I too would come up with something like Barnesian's figures.

I too would also find it scary that the next Government would be formed by the 2nd and 6th most popular Parties, although in my case there would be an element of Schadenfreude, because I've always hated FPTP, and this kind of possible outcome is one reason why.

Would this be the outcome to finally convert mainstream tories to the cause of PR?

Who knows?

Do they have a sense of irony? They would be holding on to power if they had supported AV instead of torpedoing it, but I suspect they still dream of Overall Majorities of the size once delivered to them by the Great She PM.

ThomasNashe said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

ThomasNashe said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Lots of those are very close, and could easily go either way.

Maybe the Conservatives should clone Mogg.

Yes, he comes across as authentic and independent-minded, whether you agree or don't with what he says. These days that in itself is enough to win the respect of many voters.

I think it's also why Simon Hughes will possibly buck the pro-Labour trend in London and hold on in Bermondsey. Going to be very close though.

Also, of course, Simon Hughes is the straight choice for Bermondsey.

I believe he apologised (rightly) to Peter Tatchell for that a long time ago.

Just as soon as he could afford to. Job done.