politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With so much potential tactical voting the overall national
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With so much potential tactical voting the overall national party vote shares won’t mean as much
There’s lots of talk at the moment about the electoral “system being bust” and “no longer fit for purpose”. What is being pointed to are possible disparities between national aggregate vote shares and the total of MPs each party ends up with on Friday morning.
Comments
-
first?0
-
Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.
The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.0 -
I take it Mike that the Com Res last night is the one that was in your table for today and it has just come out a few hours early ?
If so today is about ICM. If the tories are to have any chance of having the most seats it will need to show a lead of at least 5, tactical voting or no.0 -
surbiton said:
Good Morning
Based on the last three opinion polls in England, Wales and Scotland and carrying out separate UNS* calculations, the following are the results:
Seats:
Lab 291, Con 261, SNP 54, LD 18, PC 3, UKIP 3, GRN 1, SPK 1. Total = 632
Sources:
Survation 04/05 May Sample size 1276 England only
Lab 34, Con 35, LD 9, UKIP 17, Grn 4
Seats:
Lab 259, Con 253, LD 16, UKIP* 3, Grn 1, Spk 1 Total = 533
Yougov 29Apr/1 May Sample size 1162 Scotland only
SNP 49, Lab 26, Con 15, LD 7, UKIP 2, Grn 1
Seats:
Lab 4, Con 0, LD 1, SNP 54 Total = 59
Yougov 28/30 Apr Sample size 1146 Wales only
PC 13, Lab 39, Con 26, LD 6, UKIP 12, Grn 3
Seats:
Lab 28, Con 8, LD 1, PC 3, Total = 40
Apart from the 3 UKIP adjustments no manual adjustments were done. No "feeling" , "gut instinct".
It is possible that
the opinion polls are wrong;
the UNS is not suitable. Whilst I would agree with Scotland and Wales due small numbers involved, in England with 533 seats, the law of averages should work out roughly.
* 3 UKIP seats were manually adjusted. Clacton, Thanet S and Thurrock. 2 were taken from the Tories and 1 from Labour.0 -
I see the Mail have produced a tactical voting guide. Should cheer up Nick Palmer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069464/How-vote-tactically-Red-Ed-Constituency-constituency-guide-50-key-seats-help-Labour-Number-10.html0 -
I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.0
-
Given up on Scotland then ?surbiton said:I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.
0 -
When the last polls come out tonight, I will do my separate UNS simulations.
Any poll which will give England [ or E&W ], Scotland separately.0 -
No. Statistically, Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls. It is better to look at it separately.Alanbrooke said:
Given up on Scotland then ?surbiton said:I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.
The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]0 -
I see the Mail are telling people in Middleton and Heywood and Dudley North to vote Ukip.Alanbrooke said:
I see the Mail have produced a tactical voting guide. Should cheer up Nick Palmer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069464/How-vote-tactically-Red-Ed-Constituency-constituency-guide-50-key-seats-help-Labour-Number-10.html0 -
makes sense if you want to keep Ed out of No 10, if the Tories had any sense they'd be pushing this line themselves in several other seats where they're no-hopers.tlg86 said:
I see the Mail are telling people in Middleton and Heywood and Dudley North to vote Ukip.Alanbrooke said:
I see the Mail have produced a tactical voting guide. Should cheer up Nick Palmer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069464/How-vote-tactically-Red-Ed-Constituency-constituency-guide-50-key-seats-help-Labour-Number-10.html0 -
I reckon the best score to use for UKIP will be the highest of the phone pollsters.surbiton said:
No. Statistically, Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls. It is better to look at it separately.Alanbrooke said:
Given up on Scotland then ?surbiton said:I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.
The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]
Why? Because at the Euros in 2014 (excepting YouGov), and in all the recent European elections, internet pollsters have tended to overstate insurgent parties, and phone pollsters to understate them. In the UK in 2015 there is a similar pattern emerging, with internet pollsters giving UKIP an average of 3 or 4% more than the phone pollsters.
That gives us a 13% GB number for UKIP, which is probably 14% in England. And which probably means 4-5 seats for UKIP, unless there is tactical voting against them.0 -
Scotland mucks up the overall GB pollssurbiton said:
No. Statistically, Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls. It is better to look at it separately.Alanbrooke said:
Given up on Scotland then ?surbiton said:I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.
The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]
I think you've just provoked the gods of Nattery Surby.0 -
0
-
Does anyone know when the ICM is likely to be published today?0
-
Scores for UKIP seem to be converging across pollsters.rcs1000 said:
I reckon the best score to use for UKIP will be the highest of the phone pollsters.surbiton said:
No. Statistically, Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls. It is better to look at it separately.Alanbrooke said:
Given up on Scotland then ?surbiton said:I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.
The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]
Why? Because at the Euros in 2014 (excepting YouGov), and in all the recent European elections, internet pollsters have tended to overstate insurgent parties, and phone pollsters to understate them. In the UK in 2015 there is a similar pattern emerging, with internet pollsters giving UKIP an average of 3 or 4% more than the phone pollsters.
That gives us a 13% GB number for UKIP, which is probably 14% in England. And which probably means 4-5 seats for UKIP, unless there is tactical voting against them.0 -
Flippancy aside, if you look at my calculations below, SNP 54 seats would not have come about if I took a GB poll. It would be meaningless.Alanbrooke said:
Scotland mucks up the overall GB pollssurbiton said:
No. Statistically, Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls. It is better to look at it separately.Alanbrooke said:
Given up on Scotland then ?surbiton said:I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.
The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]
I think you've just provoked the gods of Nattery Surby.
The Labour figure may look high ! But remember Labour won 353 seats with 35% in 2005. So, if the polls stay in the 33-35% range and take 35 seats or so away from Labour [ Scotland ], Labour largest party is still likely.
Having said that, I thought in the England only Survation [ below ], the UKIP percentage is too high, in my opinion. That has hurt the Tory numbers.0 -
iDavidL said:I take it Mike that the Com Res last night is the one that was in your table for today and it has just come out a few hours early ?
If so today is about ICM. If the tories are to have any chance of having the most seats it will need to show a lead of at least 5, tactical voting or no.
I understand that there might be another final final ComRes and that other firms are trying to squeeze extra surveys
I've no idea about ICM poll publication time.
0 -
Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.
But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.0 -
In the 3 polls I have used below, UKIP [ Eng only ] was 17%. GB wide with the other two included, it became 15.12%. Personally, I think it is too high and some of it belongs to the Tories.Sean_F said:
Scores for UKIP seem to be converging across pollsters.rcs1000 said:
I reckon the best score to use for UKIP will be the highest of the phone pollsters.surbiton said:
No. Statistically, Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls. It is better to look at it separately.Alanbrooke said:
Given up on Scotland then ?surbiton said:I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.
The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]
Why? Because at the Euros in 2014 (excepting YouGov), and in all the recent European elections, internet pollsters have tended to overstate insurgent parties, and phone pollsters to understate them. In the UK in 2015 there is a similar pattern emerging, with internet pollsters giving UKIP an average of 3 or 4% more than the phone pollsters.
That gives us a 13% GB number for UKIP, which is probably 14% in England. And which probably means 4-5 seats for UKIP, unless there is tactical voting against them.0 -
Thanks.MikeSmithson said:
iDavidL said:I take it Mike that the Com Res last night is the one that was in your table for today and it has just come out a few hours early ?
If so today is about ICM. If the tories are to have any chance of having the most seats it will need to show a lead of at least 5, tactical voting or no.
I understand that there might be another final final ComRes and that other firms are trying to squeeze extra surveys
I've no idea about ICM poll publication time.0 -
I'm really starting to wonder about the potential for a Shy Labour "Embarrassed by Ed" vote.
People who won't admit to being Labour in polite company because it means they are voting for Ed.0 -
Anthony Wells predicts Con 277, Lab 267, Lib Dem 29, SNP 52, Others 25.0
-
As we have seen with House of Lords reform the debate over what replaces it can be used to indefinitely postpone reform by those who benefit from the status quo.DavidL said:Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.
The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.0 -
I think that hurts the Tories with Panelbase, as well.surbiton said:
In the 3 polls I have used below, UKIP [ Eng only ] was 17%. GB wide with the other two included, it became 15.12%. Personally, I think it is too high and some of it belongs to the Tories.Sean_F said:
Scores for UKIP seem to be converging across pollsters.rcs1000 said:
I reckon the best score to use for UKIP will be the highest of the phone pollsters.surbiton said:
No. Statistically, Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls. It is better to look at it separately.Alanbrooke said:
Given up on Scotland then ?surbiton said:I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.
The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]
Why? Because at the Euros in 2014 (excepting YouGov), and in all the recent European elections, internet pollsters have tended to overstate insurgent parties, and phone pollsters to understate them. In the UK in 2015 there is a similar pattern emerging, with internet pollsters giving UKIP an average of 3 or 4% more than the phone pollsters.
That gives us a 13% GB number for UKIP, which is probably 14% in England. And which probably means 4-5 seats for UKIP, unless there is tactical voting against them.
0 -
When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.DavidL said:Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.
But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.0 -
The only way you'll get electoral reform is if someone with the power to implement it sees advantage. That could only happen if they fear that they'll be hammered under FPTP in a subsequent election.OblitusSumMe said:
As we have seen with House of Lords reform the debate over what replaces it can be used to indefinitely postpone reform by those who benefit from the status quo.DavidL said:Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.
The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.0 -
You still need to get 500 turkeys to vote for Christmas.DavidL said:Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.
The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.
What we need is a constitutional convention to look at the entire UK-wide settlement, including the voting system. The chances of getting one are close to zero. There are too many interests on all sides only to willing to put party before country. And that could well lead to the break-up of the UK.
0 -
UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.surbiton said:
When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.DavidL said:Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.
But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.0 -
On topic - yes, it's all about individual seats. In E&W Labour will do best in its own marginals, will stand still in its safe seats and will struggle to overcome even small Tory leads in their marginals - particularly in the Midlands. They'll also pock up only a small handful of LD seats. In Scotland it will be carnage.0
-
On topic, yes, it's all about individual seats, but a lot of what happens in one individual seat is cancelled out in another, which is why UNS is pretty good at predicting Lab vs Con.0
-
Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.Sean_F said:
UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.surbiton said:
When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.DavidL said:Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.
But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.
The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !0 -
While I agree that a Constitutional Convention is needed, I cannot see our current politicians delivering it. If they did convene such a meeting then I would expect a dogs breakfast.SouthamObserver said:
You still need to get 500 turkeys to vote for Christmas.DavidL said:Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.
The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.
What we need is a constitutional convention to look at the entire UK-wide settlement, including the voting system. The chances of getting one are close to zero. There are too many interests on all sides only to willing to put party before country. And that could well lead to the break-up of the UK.0 -
Is it a smart idea for the Mail to push the idea that UKIP and the Tories are interchangable?0
-
We have a voting system and a constitutional settlement that are both actively accelerating the break-up of the UK. Yet we do not have a political class willing to put aside party advantage to come up with something better. It is very sad.foxinsoxuk said:
While I agree that a Constitutional Convention is needed, I cannot see our current politicians delivering it. If they did convene such a meeting then I would expect a dogs breakfast.SouthamObserver said:
You still need to get 500 turkeys to vote for Christmas.DavidL said:Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.
The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.
What we need is a constitutional convention to look at the entire UK-wide settlement, including the voting system. The chances of getting one are close to zero. There are too many interests on all sides only to willing to put party before country. And that could well lead to the break-up of the UK.
0 -
@Surbiton, your results don't make sense. You have compared three rather different opinion polls across three different countries. That's not, in my view, the best way to carry out a UNS prediction, even if such a thing exists.
If done crudely, plugging Comres (figures remarkably close to latest ICM, who got closest last time, again not to say they will this time) I come up with a UNS of Con 304, Lab 300, Lib 16.
However, because UNS takes no account of the SNP surge, that's clearly not likely to happen. So let's assume that Labour lose 35 seats in Scotland, which is probably at the optimistic end for them. That leaves them on 265, with the SNP on 41. In other words, because of a considerable churn, Labour and the Tories pretty much stand still.
Now immediately we have a problem. Even assuming Clegg hangs on in Sheffield Hallam, with that result he would surely have to resign. They also have no deputy leader as Malcolm Bruce is leaving. I'm not sure what the rules are for succession - I am guessing that either the senior members would appoint an interim leader (surely Cable) or the Party President (Farron) would take charge. Both would doubtless rule out a formal coalition with the Conservatives.
However, even if we add up Lib+Lab+SNP - a group which (the SNP apart) would hardly have a democratic mandate - we don't get to 323 (we fall one short). Indeed, such a group would only be a fraction ahead of Con/DUP (assume 9-10). At that point, the remaining odds and sods come into play: PC, Greens surely for Labour, which adds on four votes, any UKIP MPs likely for Con. As a result, we end up with pretty much a dead heat and quite possibly some votes going through on Bercow's say-so. In an official confidence motion or on the Queen's speech, he is obliged to support the government because if the House has not specifically said it has no confidence in the government, technically that means it does have confidence. So getting the chance to form that government becomes absolutely crucial. Would Labour be able to do it? Candidly, the numbers are against them. Add one point to the Tories and knock one off Labour, which is unlikely but not implausible, and it becomes near-impossible.
Or, the Lib Dems could look at the maths and admit that C and S with the Tories, however unpalatable to the survivors, makes arithmetical sense and should therefore be allowed for a couple of years while they try to rebuild their own activist base in preparation for another election.
Which means it is not surprising that there are rumours flooding around that Labour are panicking about their prospects. It would not however explain their apparently giving up in some low-hanging marginals (e.g. Northampton and Ipswich). That strikes me as something more than arithmetic in play.0 -
Beware herding !Sean_F said:
Scores for UKIP seem to be converging across pollsters.rcs1000 said:
I reckon the best score to use for UKIP will be the highest of the phone pollsters.surbiton said:
No. Statistically, Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls. It is better to look at it separately.Alanbrooke said:
Given up on Scotland then ?surbiton said:I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.
The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]
Why? Because at the Euros in 2014 (excepting YouGov), and in all the recent European elections, internet pollsters have tended to overstate insurgent parties, and phone pollsters to understate them. In the UK in 2015 there is a similar pattern emerging, with internet pollsters giving UKIP an average of 3 or 4% more than the phone pollsters.
That gives us a 13% GB number for UKIP, which is probably 14% in England. And which probably means 4-5 seats for UKIP, unless there is tactical voting against them.0 -
The Greens could do similiar damage to Milibandsurbiton said:
Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.Sean_F said:
UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.surbiton said:
When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.DavidL said:Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.
But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.
The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !
0 -
I think we will start to talk about RUNS in future. Swings are going to be regional and will involve different parties. UKIP will clearly be a much bigger factor East of Watling Street and the Pennines, for example. The Greens will do better in the South. And there will be significant anti-Labour tactical voting for probably the first time outside Scotland.edmundintokyo said:On topic, yes, it's all about individual seats, but a lot of what happens in one individual seat is cancelled out in another, which is why UNS is pretty good at predicting Lab vs Con.
0 -
Whilst I think Dave has actually been a really good PM, I think as a politician he has basically failed. Imagine where we'd be if the UKIP phenomenon had simply never happened. If Dave had been more Maggielike and championed the conservative (small c) core vote. The Tories would be 15 points ahead in the polls and heading for a huge majority. Metrosexual Dave split the right. That he's nonetheless ahead in the polls is frankly amazing. Not sure it'll save him though.0
-
FPT:
@NickPalmer said:
Enjoyable mini-pbmeet in Broxtowe - Tyson, Roger, Tissue Price, Pulpstar, TSE, FoxinSox - 3 Lab, 2 Con, 1 LibDem - we only needed a ScotNat and a Kipper to make it a plausible poll panel. Tyson has been canvassing and is staying on to help in the final days. We agreed to make all comments non-attributable...
Impressed that you've finished series 4 of GoT, MikeK - is that from Virgin Atlantic, or a boxed set, or what?
--------
It's a boxed set, Nick. Worth every penny and a solace for those that don't make it tomorrow.
0 -
Is that initial seat distribution based on GB polling? If so, you're double-counting Labour losses to the SNP. If you want to count Scottish seats separately, you need to add a couple of % to the Labour share you get from the GB poll before you run UNS on it.ydoethur said:
However, because UNS takes no account of the SNP surge, that's clearly not likely to happen. So let's assume that Labour lose 35 seats in Scotland, which is probably at the optimistic end for them. That leaves them on 265, with the SNP on 41. In other words, because of a considerable churn, Labour and the Tories pretty much stand still.0 -
The theoretical arguments against asymmetric devolution are now about to become very real.SouthamObserver said:
We have a voting system and a constitutional settlement that are both actively accelerating the break-up of the UK. Yet we do not have a political class willing to put aside party advantage to come up with something better. It is very sad.foxinsoxuk said:
While I agree that a Constitutional Convention is needed, I cannot see our current politicians delivering it. If they did convene such a meeting then I would expect a dogs breakfast.SouthamObserver said:
You still need to get 500 turkeys to vote for Christmas.DavidL said:Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.
The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.
What we need is a constitutional convention to look at the entire UK-wide settlement, including the voting system. The chances of getting one are close to zero. There are too many interests on all sides only to willing to put party before country. And that could well lead to the break-up of the UK.
Sometimes ruling castes are prepared to set aside self-interest in the face of a greater danger, but it's rare.0 -
Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...
YouGov's methology changed at data point number 72 and took 5 days to fully impact upon the moving average.0 -
If voters wanted a small c, right-wing party in charge wouldn't UKIP be about to win the election? The Tories tried small c in 2001 and 2005. It did not work out.Patrick said:Whilst I think Dave has actually been a really good PM, I think as a politician he has basically failed. Imagine where we'd be if the UKIP phenomenon had simply never happened. If Dave had been more Maggielike and championed the conservative (small c) core vote. The Tories would be 15 points ahead in the polls and heading for a huge majority. Metrosexual Dave split the right. That he's nonetheless ahead in the polls is frankly amazing. Not sure it'll save him though.
0 -
Good Morning all.
Last day before Judgement Day and all that...................0 -
Definitely. But as yet the numbers are lower. Some of them are transfers from LD all of whom might not have come to Labour.Pulpstar said:
The Greens could do similiar damage to Milibandsurbiton said:
Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.Sean_F said:
UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.surbiton said:
When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.DavidL said:Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.
But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.
The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !0 -
I am not convinced. I think a Tory core vote agenda would have been as unsuccessful as it was under Hague or Howard. The Conservatives chose Cameron for the same reason that Blair won the Labour contest in 94. They were sick of losing elections.Patrick said:Whilst I think Dave has actually been a really good PM, I think as a politician he has basically failed. Imagine where we'd be if the UKIP phenomenon had simply never happened. If Dave had been more Maggielike and championed the conservative (small c) core vote. The Tories would be 15 points ahead in the polls and heading for a huge majority. Metrosexual Dave split the right. That he's nonetheless ahead in the polls is frankly amazing. Not sure it'll save him though.
I am not a Cameron fan, but can see why he was needed.0 -
There is barely any Green - Con switching though, whereas there is some UKIP - Labour switching. Sure the effect is lower than UKIP but it could cost Labour a few seats.surbiton said:
Definitely. But as yet the numbers are lower. Some of them are transfers from LD all of whom might not have come to Labour.Pulpstar said:
The Greens could do similiar damage to Milibandsurbiton said:
Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.Sean_F said:
UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.surbiton said:
When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.DavidL said:Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.
But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.
The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !0 -
How are you remotely going to get SNP seat figures on a GB wide UNS. It wouldn't give SNP even 10 seats !ydoethur said:@Surbiton, your results don't make sense. You have compared three rather different opinion polls across three different countries. That's not, in my view, the best way to carry out a UNS prediction, even if such a thing exists.
If done crudely, plugging Comres (figures remarkably close to latest ICM, who got closest last time, again not to say they will this time) I come up with a UNS of Con 304, Lab 300, Lib 16.
However, because UNS takes no account of the SNP surge, that's clearly not likely to happen. So let's assume that Labour lose 35 seats in Scotland, which is probably at the optimistic end for them. That leaves them on 265, with the SNP on 41. In other words, because of a considerable churn, Labour and the Tories pretty much stand still.
Or, the Lib Dems could look at the maths and admit that C and S with the Tories, however unpalatable to the survivors, makes arithmetical sense and should therefore be allowed for a couple of years while they try to rebuild their own activist base in preparation for another election.
Which means it is not surprising that there are rumours flooding around that Labour are panicking about their prospects. It would not however explain their apparently giving up in some low-hanging marginals (e.g. Northampton and Ipswich). That strikes me as something more than arithmetic in play.
Because of the SNP phenomenon, Scotland calculations has to be done separately. There is no other way out.
Please note when I use separate polls for the 3 countries, I am not using unweighted subsets. These are proper weighted polls in their own right.0 -
Yes, for sure. It could have hurt Labour in Bristol West but Labour may have escaped.Pulpstar said:
There is barely any Green - Con switching though, whereas there is some UKIP - Labour switching. Sure the effect is lower than UKIP but it could cost Labour a few seats.surbiton said:
Definitely. But as yet the numbers are lower. Some of them are transfers from LD all of whom might not have come to Labour.Pulpstar said:
The Greens could do similiar damage to Milibandsurbiton said:
Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.Sean_F said:
UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.surbiton said:
When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.DavidL said:Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.
But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.
The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !0 -
The exit pollsters have a few plausible scenarios which they can't possibly cover:
Mahoosive tactical unionist voting in the privacy of the ballot box and then people saying they voted for their preferred party
A collapse of the Green vote, and people saying they voted Green as they'd have liked to have done - to Labour's benefit
See above but collapse of UKIP to Con.
0 -
A very good proof that the Lab/Lib/Con 's are all basically one party:
Only gone and done it again. All in it together #Lab #Con #Thanet #Folkestone Liberate yourselves... #VoteUKIP pic.twitter.com/zFKYDL2nxz
— The Rebel Yell (@Rebel_Rock_On) May 5, 20150 -
A lot of the kipper vote comes from Labour, LD, DNV and BNP; so not just Con. The effect of this is to dilute the impact on the number of seats. By taking votes from all parties they wind up having little net effect on the number of Con seats.surbiton said:
Definitely. But as yet the numbers are lower. Some of them are transfers from LD all of whom might not have come to Labour.Pulpstar said:
The Greens could do similiar damage to Milibandsurbiton said:
Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.Sean_F said:
UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.surbiton said:
When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.DavidL said:Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.
But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.
The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !0 -
I suppose that if one takes the view that it would be best that UK stayed together then one could say that:Sean_F said:
The theoretical arguments against asymmetric devolution are now about to become very real.SouthamObserver said:
We have a voting system and a constitutional settlement that are both actively accelerating the break-up of the UK. Yet we do not have a political class willing to put aside party advantage to come up with something better. It is very sad.foxinsoxuk said:
While I agree that a Constitutional Convention is needed, I cannot see our current politicians delivering it. If they did convene such a meeting then I would expect a dogs breakfast.SouthamObserver said:
You still need to get 500 turkeys to vote for Christmas.DavidL said:Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.
The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.
What we need is a constitutional convention to look at the entire UK-wide settlement, including the voting system. The chances of getting one are close to zero. There are too many interests on all sides only to willing to put party before country. And that could well lead to the break-up of the UK.
Sometimes ruling castes are prepared to set aside self-interest in the face of a greater danger, but it's rare.
1. A proportional voting system (e.g STV) would limit the extent of the SNP success, which FPTP exaggerates.
2. The avoidance of a referendum on leaving the European Union would be a good thing, since Scotland is very much in favour of remaining in the EU.
So, if you are in favour of the union, you should hope for a Miliband victory. He is against leaving the EU and theoretically at least in favour of electoral reform.0 -
ICM is key.If that shows a narrowing like Ashcroft,then it is still neck and neck.I expect MORI to revert to the mean from the outlier last time.
So far,only 1 point Labour online lead vs 2 and 3 point Tory phone poll lead.
I will go for between 0-2 point Con lead on the night.0 -
And large numbers of WWC who said they would vote Labour but actually vote UKIPPulpstar said:The exit pollsters have a few plausible scenarios which they can't possibly cover:
Mahoosive tactical unionist voting in the privacy of the ballot box and then people saying they voted for their preferred party
A collapse of the Green vote, and people saying they voted Green as they'd have liked to have done - to Labour's benefit
See above but collapse of UKIP to Con.0 -
He said the other day he didn't support PRlogical_song said:
I suppose that if one takes the view that it would be best that UK stayed together then one could say that:Sean_F said:
The theoretical arguments against asymmetric devolution are now about to become very real.SouthamObserver said:
We have a voting system and a constitutional settlement that are both actively accelerating the break-up of the UK. Yet we do not have a political class willing to put aside party advantage to come up with something better. It is very sad.foxinsoxuk said:
While I agree that a Constitutional Convention is needed, I cannot see our current politicians delivering it. If they did convene such a meeting then I would expect a dogs breakfast.SouthamObserver said:
You still need to get 500 turkeys to vote for Christmas.DavidL said:Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.
The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.
What we need is a constitutional convention to look at the entire UK-wide settlement, including the voting system. The chances of getting one are close to zero. There are too many interests on all sides only to willing to put party before country. And that could well lead to the break-up of the UK.
Sometimes ruling castes are prepared to set aside self-interest in the face of a greater danger, but it's rare.
1. A proportional voting system (e.g STV) would limit the extent of the SNP success, which FPTP exaggerates.
2. The avoidance of a referendum on leaving the European Union would be a good thing, since Scotland is very much in favour of remaining in the EU.
So, if you are in favour of the union, you should hope for a Miliband victory. He is against leaving the EU and theoretically at least in favour of electoral reform.0 -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069464/How-vote-tactically-Red-Ed-Constituency-constituency-guide-50-key-seats-help-Labour-Number-10.html#comments
Daily Mail tactical guide - Seems judging by the comments people hate being told what to do !0 -
This is another !TheKitchenCabinet said:
And large numbers of WWC who said they would vote Labour but actually vote UKIPPulpstar said:The exit pollsters have a few plausible scenarios which they can't possibly cover:
Mahoosive tactical unionist voting in the privacy of the ballot box and then people saying they voted for their preferred party
A collapse of the Green vote, and people saying they voted Green as they'd have liked to have done - to Labour's benefit
See above but collapse of UKIP to Con.0 -
Or vice versa...TheKitchenCabinet said:
And large numbers of WWC who said they would vote Labour but actually vote UKIPPulpstar said:The exit pollsters have a few plausible scenarios which they can't possibly cover:
Mahoosive tactical unionist voting in the privacy of the ballot box and then people saying they voted for their preferred party
A collapse of the Green vote, and people saying they voted Green as they'd have liked to have done - to Labour's benefit
See above but collapse of UKIP to Con.0 -
I think one problem for the LDs (and one reason why they may be at the very low end of expectations) is that Tory-inclined voters who previously backed them in LD / Tory seats and who even might have been inclined to vote for them again, will be worried that the LDs could end up doing a deal with Labour post-election - so they will vote Conservative on safety grounds.
If I had been Clegg, I would be a lot more forceful from early on in highlighting the benefits of the Coalition and suggesting a continuation would be his preferred option.0 -
Tony Blair thought the Conservatives could win from the right.foxinsoxuk said:
I am not convinced. I think a Tory core vote agenda would have been as unsuccessful as it was under Hague or Howard. The Conservatives chose Cameron for the same reason that Blair won the Labour contest in 94. They were sick of losing elections.Patrick said:Whilst I think Dave has actually been a really good PM, I think as a politician he has basically failed. Imagine where we'd be if the UKIP phenomenon had simply never happened. If Dave had been more Maggielike and championed the conservative (small c) core vote. The Tories would be 15 points ahead in the polls and heading for a huge majority. Metrosexual Dave split the right. That he's nonetheless ahead in the polls is frankly amazing. Not sure it'll save him though.
I am not a Cameron fan, but can see why he was needed.
I don't see anything in UKIP's platform that would have repelled Mrs T.0 -
True - there only really are about 11 Lib Dem-Lab marginals and places like Gorton and Bristol West look like they're heading onto the pyre anyway.TheKitchenCabinet said:I think one problem for the LDs (and one reason why they may be at the very low end of expectations) is that Tory-inclined voters who previously backed them in LD / Tory seats and who even might have been inclined to vote for them again, will be worried that the LDs could end up doing a deal with Labour post-election - so they will vote Conservative on safety grounds.
If I had been Clegg, I would be a lot more forceful from early on in highlighting the benefits of the Coalition and suggesting a continuation would be his preferred option.0 -
Very true - although I don't believe the "Shy Labour" view: saying they vote Labour tends to make people feel morally superior to others.foxinsoxuk said:
Or vice versa...TheKitchenCabinet said:
And large numbers of WWC who said they would vote Labour but actually vote UKIPPulpstar said:The exit pollsters have a few plausible scenarios which they can't possibly cover:
Mahoosive tactical unionist voting in the privacy of the ballot box and then people saying they voted for their preferred party
A collapse of the Green vote, and people saying they voted Green as they'd have liked to have done - to Labour's benefit
See above but collapse of UKIP to Con.0 -
Wrong type of modernisationPatrick said:Whilst I think Dave has actually been a really good PM, I think as a politician he has basically failed. Imagine where we'd be if the UKIP phenomenon had simply never happened. If Dave had been more Maggielike and championed the conservative (small c) core vote. The Tories would be 15 points ahead in the polls and heading for a huge majority. Metrosexual Dave split the right. That he's nonetheless ahead in the polls is frankly amazing. Not sure it'll save him though.
0 -
I'm telling in my ward tomorrow - who else is out and about for the GE?
I generally hate polling day. It's boring as the TV/radio talk about everything else instead. Then there's the hiatus between 10pm and about 2am when it's all talking head speculation...MikeK said:Good Morning all.
Last day before Judgement Day and all that...................0 -
Anthony Wells prediction
Con 277,Lab 267,Lib Dem 29,SNP 52.
He is also only predicting 10 Con gains from Lib Dem.0 -
A big question for the reliability of the polls for the kipper vote is how many of those DNVs are still DNVs come Friday.foxinsoxuk said:
A lot of the kipper vote comes from Labour, LD, DNV and BNP; so not just Con. The effect of this is to dilute the impact on the number of seats. By taking votes from all parties they wind up having little net effect on the number of Con seats.surbiton said:
Definitely. But as yet the numbers are lower. Some of them are transfers from LD all of whom might not have come to Labour.Pulpstar said:
The Greens could do similiar damage to Milibandsurbiton said:
Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.Sean_F said:
UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.surbiton said:
When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.DavidL said:Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.
But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.
The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !
My feeling is that it will be quite a lot.0 -
Tony Blair was not always correct!anotherDave said:
Tony Blair thought the Conservatives could win from the right.foxinsoxuk said:
I am not convinced. I think a Tory core vote agenda would have been as unsuccessful as it was under Hague or Howard. The Conservatives chose Cameron for the same reason that Blair won the Labour contest in 94. They were sick of losing elections.Patrick said:Whilst I think Dave has actually been a really good PM, I think as a politician he has basically failed. Imagine where we'd be if the UKIP phenomenon had simply never happened. If Dave had been more Maggielike and championed the conservative (small c) core vote. The Tories would be 15 points ahead in the polls and heading for a huge majority. Metrosexual Dave split the right. That he's nonetheless ahead in the polls is frankly amazing. Not sure it'll save him though.
I am not a Cameron fan, but can see why he was needed.
I don't see anything in UKIP's platform that would have repelled Mrs T.
He defeated two Conservative campaigns led from the right. He may well have relished a further one.
And while Farage is an admirer of Maggie, I am not at all convinced that she would reciprocate. Maggie was a tribal Tory and would have hated splitters, she highly valued loyalty.0 -
Tories and Labour in a real funk and showing their true colours , self interest over democracy , together they will stoop to any level to keep their snouts in the trough. Both deserve to be obliterated and hopefully we will be free of both come Friday.DavidL said:Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.
The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.0 -
Me too - what's the forecast for 7th ? The weather today is horrid - and I'm in court giving evidence at 0930 - I'll get soaked on the way thereLestuh said:
A big question for the reliability of the polls for the kipper vote is how many of those DNVs are still DNVs come Friday.foxinsoxuk said:
A lot of the kipper vote comes from Labour, LD, DNV and BNP; so not just Con. The effect of this is to dilute the impact on the number of seats. By taking votes from all parties they wind up having little net effect on the number of Con seats.surbiton said:
Definitely. But as yet the numbers are lower. Some of them are transfers from LD all of whom might not have come to Labour.Pulpstar said:
The Greens could do similiar damage to Milibandsurbiton said:
Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.Sean_F said:
UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.surbiton said:
When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.DavidL said:Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.
But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.
The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !
My feeling is that it will be quite a lot.0 -
Eve of Poll SUPER ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :
777 minutes0 -
Who is going to win the prize turnip award though ?malcolmg said:
Tories and Labour in a real funk and showing their true colours , self interest over democracy , together they will stoop to any level to keep their snouts in the trough. Both deserve to be obliterated and hopefully we will be free of both come Friday.DavidL said:Ruth Davidson is hoping to get 500K votes in Scotland but I think this ambition is going to be highly prone to this phenomenon with Tory voters voting tactically for Labour in Murphy's seat, some of the Edinburgh seats, Gordon and Inverness like never before.
The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.0 -
Just about says it all Alan , what a sh**y countryAlanbrooke said:
Scotland mucks up the overall GB pollssurbiton said:
No. Statistically, Scotland mucks up the overall GB polls. It is better to look at it separately.Alanbrooke said:
Given up on Scotland then ?surbiton said:I am not sure why people just look at the GB wide polls. Look at the England only polls. They are more relevant.
The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]
I think you've just provoked the gods of Nattery Surby.0 -
Neoconservatism just isn't very popular with the British people. Cameron will have lost two elections.Patrick said:Whilst I think Dave has actually been a really good PM, I think as a politician he has basically failed. Imagine where we'd be if the UKIP phenomenon had simply never happened. If Dave had been more Maggielike and championed the conservative (small c) core vote. The Tories would be 15 points ahead in the polls and heading for a huge majority. Metrosexual Dave split the right. That he's nonetheless ahead in the polls is frankly amazing. Not sure it'll save him though.
0 -
I think we're past the point where polling tells us anything, it's boot on ground and actual votes nowSMukesh said:ICM is key.If that shows a narrowing like Ashcroft,then it is still neck and neck.I expect MORI to revert to the mean from the outlier last time.
So far,only 1 point Labour online lead vs 2 and 3 point Tory phone poll lead.
I will go for between 0-2 point Con lead on the night.0 -
Tactical voting - blues for yellows to keep out reds and greens.
Greens send stuff about nationalisation, more state control, vote for what you believe in as if I wanted to back throwbacks to the '70s. Their candidate rides a bloody tricycle/rickshaw round Clifton and thinks this is cool forward looking stuff.
Had more leaflets focussed on 20 somethings who may be studying at Uni Bristol or UWE, but says something about a weak database or analysis. Left Unity & Independent leaflest arrived yesterday, but vote had been posted.
I don't want the Greens to hold the seat, nor do I want Labour, so should I have voted Con when the candidate has been busy campaigning for Chris Skidmore in Kingswood, or did I hold my nose vote for a LD or just spoil the ballot paper?0 -
@chrisg000 of this parish passim is a great Twitter feed to follow
https://twitter.com/chrisg0000/status/5958466316244213760 -
Good morning, everyone.
If The Witcher 3 came out a fortnight earlier, I could've just played that for six hours and occasionally flicked onto electoral coverage. Oh well
0 -
Out of curiosity do you have any evidence to back up these 'rumours' ?ydoethur said:
Which means it is not surprising that there are rumours flooding around that Labour are panicking about their prospects. It would not however explain their apparently giving up in some low-hanging marginals (e.g. Northampton and Ipswich). That strikes me as something more than arithmetic in play.
Five years ago we were told by a Scottish PBer that Darling had given up hope in Edinburgh SW - he won by over 8000 votes.
0 -
@Aidan_Kerr1: James Scott is comparing his suspension to Alex Salmond's. This guy is gold. http://t.co/h39sWa6t8V0
-
No relation??Scott_P said:@Aidan_Kerr1: James Scott is comparing his suspension to Alex Salmond's. This guy is gold. http://t.co/h39sWa6t8V
0 -
Worse than BNP. How did UKIP choose this guy to be their candidate?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-england-325950030 -
It may be just my connection, but Vanilla is feeling rather slow - do we have a back-up in case the servers meltdown during tomorrow?
0 -
Voting Conservative was absolutely the correct thing to dodr_spyn said:Tactical voting - blues for yellows to keep out reds and greens.
Greens send stuff about nationalisation, more state control, vote for what you believe in as if I wanted to back throwbacks to the '70s. Their candidate rides a bloody tricycle/rickshaw round Clifton and thinks this is cool forward looking stuff.
Had more leaflets focussed on 20 somethings who may be studying at Uni Bristol or UWE, but says something about a weak database or analysis. Left Unity & Independent leaflest arrived yesterday, but vote had been posted.
I don't want the Greens to hold the seat, nor do I want Labour, so should I have voted Con when the candidate has been busy campaigning for Chris Skidmore in Kingswood, or did I hold my nose vote for a LD or just spoil the ballot paper?
0 -
I think tactical voting just leads to buyers remorse. Just think about those Labour inclined voters who voted LD tactically last time.dr_spyn said:Tactical voting - blues for yellows to keep out reds and greens.
Greens send stuff about nationalisation, more state control, vote for what you believe in as if I wanted to back throwbacks to the '70s. Their candidate rides a bloody tricycle/rickshaw round Clifton and thinks this is cool forward looking stuff.
Had more leaflets focussed on 20 somethings who may be studying at Uni Bristol or UWE, but says something about a weak database or analysis. Left Unity & Independent leaflest arrived yesterday, but vote had been posted.
I don't want the Greens to hold the seat, nor do I want Labour, so should I have voted Con when the candidate has been busy campaigning for Chris Skidmore in Kingswood, or did I hold my nose vote for a LD or just spoil the ballot paper?
Vote for the party whose policies you are most aligned to. Sometimes the simple solution is the correct one.0 -
Weather should be a lot better tomorrow:Plato said:Me too - what's the forecast for 7th ? The weather today is horrid - and I'm in court giving evidence at 0930 - I'll get soaked on the way there
Lestuh said:
A big question for the reliability of the polls for the kipper vote is how many of those DNVs are still DNVs come Friday.foxinsoxuk said:
A lot of the kipper vote comes from Labour, LD, DNV and BNP; so not just Con. The effect of this is to dilute the impact on the number of seats. By taking votes from all parties they wind up having little net effect on the number of Con seats.surbiton said:
Definitely. But as yet the numbers are lower. Some of them are transfers from LD all of whom might not have come to Labour.Pulpstar said:
The Greens could do similiar damage to Milibandsurbiton said:
Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.Sean_F said:
UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.surbiton said:
When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.DavidL said:Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.
But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.
The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !
My feeling is that it will be quite a lot.
Largely fine in the South, more showery further north but nothing too horrendous.
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rtavn361.gif0 -
They might still do it thoughPulpstar said:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069464/How-vote-tactically-Red-Ed-Constituency-constituency-guide-50-key-seats-help-Labour-Number-10.html#comments
Daily Mail tactical guide - Seems judging by the comments people hate being told what to do !0 -
Labour will also be losers along with the other two though. Won't pick up many seats in England and Wales whilst the loss of Scotland will make it very hard to ever win a working majority again. Further down the line I am sure they worry about UKIP emulating the SNP trick.another_richard said:
Out of curiosity do you have any evidence to back up these 'rumours' ?ydoethur said:
Which means it is not surprising that there are rumours flooding around that Labour are panicking about their prospects. It would not however explain their apparently giving up in some low-hanging marginals (e.g. Northampton and Ipswich). That strikes me as something more than arithmetic in play.
Five years ago we were told by a Scottish PBer that Darling had given up hope in Edinburgh SW - he won by over 8000 votes.0 -
Watford Constituency Update :
Following my lunchtime chat yesterday with a Conservative source I shall be tapping into the LibDem team later this morning and I'll report back this afternoon.
0 -
Literally thank Heavens for that!murali_s said:
Weather should be a lot better tomorrow:Plato said:Me too - what's the forecast for 7th ? The weather today is horrid - and I'm in court giving evidence at 0930 - I'll get soaked on the way there
Lestuh said:
A big question for the reliability of the polls for the kipper vote is how many of those DNVs are still DNVs come Friday.foxinsoxuk said:
A lot of the kipper vote comes from Labour, LD, DNV and BNP; so not just Con. The effect of this is to dilute the impact on the number of seats. By taking votes from all parties they wind up having little net effect on the number of Con seats.surbiton said:
Definitely. But as yet the numbers are lower. Some of them are transfers from LD all of whom might not have come to Labour.Pulpstar said:
The Greens could do similiar damage to Milibandsurbiton said:
Even on the generous Survation poll, Thanet South would have gone to the Tories. Thurrock would have been Labour.Sean_F said:
UKIP's impact. is ambiguous. They threaten to take more Conservative than Labour seats, but they inflict an opportunity cost on Labour. Rochester, Thurrock, Thanet South were all Labour from 1997-2010.surbiton said:
When the results come out and it will be around that sort of number, you will see what damage it has done to the Tories.DavidL said:Unless the pollsters have serious issues it is very difficult now to see UKIP getting less than 12% GB. That is a remarkable achievement and a serious strand of UK opinion, more than twice the SNP + PC put together.
But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.
The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !
My feeling is that it will be quite a lot.
Largely fine in the South, more showery further north but nothing too horrendous.
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rtavn361.gif0 -
They shouldn't be remorseful, they got a much better outcome than they would have got if they'd voted Labour, both policy-wise and strategically.foxinsoxuk said:
I think tactical voting just leads to buyers remorse. Just think about those Labour inclined voters who voted LD tactically last time.
Obviously that's assuming they didn't bollocks it up and vote Lib in a Lab/Con marginal, which quite a few tactical voters did...0 -
You never know .... Ed landslide ....Pulpstar said:
Labour won't win Watford - that's as far as I'm going to predict !JackW said:Watford Constituency Update :
Following my lunchtime chat yesterday with a Conservative source I shall be tapping into the LibDem team later this morning and I'll report back this afternoon.
0 -
That is the problem of gaming the system, sometimes you just make things murkier!edmundintokyo said:
They shouldn't be remorseful, they got a much better outcome than they would have got if they'd voted Labour, both policy-wise and strategically.foxinsoxuk said:
I think tactical voting just leads to buyers remorse. Just think about those Labour inclined voters who voted LD tactically last time.
Obviously that's assuming they didn't bollocks it up and vote Lib in a Lab/Con marginal, which quite a few tactical voters did...
0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
