YouGov election estimates

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:46 pm

dsr wrote:Canterbury is a very odd one, because their prediction suggests that at the very minimum, Labour's vote will rise by 43%, and at best it will more than double; while the Conservative vote is predicted to drop even though 13.6% of the people voted UKIP last time, and UKIP aren't standing this time. I reckon they've got a glitch in the system there.

Last time it was Tory 42.9%, Labour 24.5%, UKIP 13.6%, LibDem 11.6%, Green 7%, Socialist 0.3%. The overall poll shows a 1.2% swing to Labour over the whole country, so why a 10.2% swing in Canterbury?

Don't over think it. It's probably among the outliers. Cherry picking individual constituencies isn't going to do you much good. It's like cherry picking one temperature buoy that shows an anomalous reading and then using that to question climate models. You're not going to get anywhere.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:57 pm

dsr wrote:Canterbury is a very odd one, because their prediction suggests that at the very minimum, Labour's vote will rise by 43%, and at best it will more than double; while the Conservative vote is predicted to drop even though 13.6% of the people voted UKIP last time, and UKIP aren't standing this time. I reckon they've got a glitch in the system there.

Last time it was Tory 42.9%, Labour 24.5%, UKIP 13.6%, LibDem 11.6%, Green 7%, Socialist 0.3%. The overall poll shows a 1.2% swing to Labour over the whole country, so why a 10.2% swing in Canterbury?

Exactly, Ukip only standing in about half of seats this time which will disproportionately help the tories, no polls can show this.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:32 pm

summitclaret wrote:"Hung parliament would be great btw, because we might finally get some sort of government by national consensus, rather than left or right policies rigidly enforced."

Absolute rubbish.On this occasion we would get the most left wing government ever seen in the uk, with a commy PM backed up by a left wing SNP leader. The approximate 40% right vote would have no representation. Scotland would get a vote on leaving as part of a deal, which could wreck whatever was left of the economy.

We would be taken to the cleaners by the EU and be lucky to get as good a deal as we already have.We would be at the mercy of Putin or anyone else that threatened us. We would be disowned by the USA, who would say you deserve what you get.

As happened 40 years ago, the brightest and best would either emigrate to avoid high tax or stop striving as much. Business will find ways to minimise profits to avoid high corp. tax and/or sit on cash and not pay dividends.

Shares would plunge ( this time it would be reality not Cameron/Osbourne ballocks), thereby putting ordinary peoples pensions at risk.

McClusky would be the PM in all but name.

A pointless inquiry would be made into Orgreave to revenge the peoples victory over Scargill and our soldiers from NI would be prosucuted.

More and more money would be thrown at everything as unemployment returned.

The Tories are unpopular because they always they have to cut to solve Labour's money tree mentality.

I don't know if anyone saw it, Sunday Times had a "spoof"* report from 2022 after Jeremy Corbyn had been PM for 5 years in a hung parliament result. Very funny. Yes, all the taxes JC wanted to raise failed - the high income earners/wealth all moved abroad. (The Laffer curve got a mention). Venezuela was referenced as JC's inspiration - and the same economically disasterous results. Royal family made to pay for Duke of Ed's funeral themselves. JC relented and paid for state funeral for QEII. Diane Abbott successfully negotiated Brexit - agreed to pay £84.6 billion "divorce bill" - later discovered EU had only asked for £48.6 billion, but JC stuck with the larger amount. 2021 UK returned to paying EU every year, so was "outside EU" but all the costs of being EU member were back and everything else. Unemployment up, taxes up - for the 95%. JC's government agreed that population needs to be re-trained in the benefits of "one nation socialism." The report ends with JC requesting "Charles Windsor III" to abdicate.

*At least we all have to hope it is a spoof article.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:35 pm

Did they do a spoof article for Theresa May aswell, or did they just reprint some of the things she's done over the last 7 years?

WadingInDeeper · Post by **WadingInDeeper** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:38 pm

Serious question. The assumption seems to be a lot of ukip voters will now vote tory. Bearing in mind the tories promised a referendum, are there statistics which suggest ukip voters were mainly tories?

Could it be a lot of ukip voters were former anti-eu labour voters, and will now return to labour?

WadingInDeeper · Post by **WadingInDeeper** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:39 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Did they do a spoof article for Theresa May aswell, or did they just reprint some of the things she's done over the last 7 years?

She didn't get to 2022, she pressed the button first.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:42 pm

WadingInDeeper wrote:Serious question. The assumption seems to be a lot of ukip voters will now vote tory. Bearing in mind the tories promised a referendum, are there statistics which suggest ukip voters were mainly tories?

Could it be a lot of ukip voters were former anti-eu labour voters, and will now return to labour?

Analysis that I have seen is that around 40% of Ukip votes could go back to the tories.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:45 pm

WadingInDeeper wrote:Serious question. The assumption seems to be a lot of ukip voters will now vote tory. Bearing in mind the tories promised a referendum, are there statistics which suggest ukip voters were mainly tories?

Could it be a lot of ukip voters were former anti-eu labour voters, and will now return to labour?

Based on the YouGov poll conducted over 1st and 2nd June 49% of UKIP voters from 2015 are intending to vote Tory this time compared with 20% of UKIP 2015 voters intending to vote Labour. UKIP are losing about 3/4 of their voters. (not including "don't know" and "will not vote")

WadingInDeeper · Post by **WadingInDeeper** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:52 pm

It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:57 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Did they do a spoof article for Theresa May aswell, or did they just reprint some of the things she's done over the last 7 years?

Not necessary, I assume. TM has already had 10 months as PM and, give or take, she's not indicating many significant changes from direction that her government has been following.

Oh, and the "5 years after Brexit" articles were all written last year. (Take your pick about which version you'd like to read).

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:58 pm

WadingInDeeper wrote:She didn't get to 2022, she pressed the button first.

I guess many of us would think she was holding PDT hand at the time!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:58 pm

WadingInDeeper wrote:It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

I love elections. Even though i haven't got what i wanted very often they're still absolutely fascinating. I do wish ours were more boring though through a more proportionally representative system. It's kind of embarrassing to see our leaders talk about how brilliant our democracy is when we're barely democratic at all.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:03 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I love elections. Even though i haven't got what i wanted very often they're still absolutely fascinating. I do wish ours were more boring though through a more proportionally representative system. It's kind of embarrassing to see our leaders talk about how brilliant our democracy is when we're barely democratic at all.

One of the better parts of the UK system are the individual constituencies - and the chance, that many voters appear to take, of voting for an individual because you admire that individual even though you don't like/support the party that individual (prospective) MP is a member of.

I'm not sure how you can retain this strength with a PR system, which I assume would appoint MPs based on a party list - with the establishment of each party first on those lists.

WadingInDeeper · Post by **WadingInDeeper** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:07 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I love elections. Even though i haven't got what i wanted very often they're still absolutely fascinating. I do wish ours were more boring though through a more proportionally representative system. It's kind of embarrassing to see our leaders talk about how brilliant our democracy is when we're barely democratic at all.

I've got my match sticks and cafine ready.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:25 pm

Paul Waine wrote:One of the better parts of the UK system are the individual constituencies - and the chance, that many voters appear to take, of voting for an individual because you admire that individual even though you don't like/support the party that individual (prospective) MP is a member of.

I'm not sure how you can retain this strength with a PR system, which I assume would appoint MPs based on a party list - with the establishment of each party first on those lists.

I'd argue that having a more overall proportionally representative government is more important than having about 40% of us with an MP we like.

But regardless, you only have to look at 2015's results to see just how awful and undemocratic our system is. Most people don't have their views represented because most MPs were elected with less than 50% of the vote in their constituencies and over 60% voted for a party other than the one that has complete control of parliament. That shouldn't be possible.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:34 pm

isn't it only 100 seats actually matter in a GE?

The rest never change hands or something (unless landslide)

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:00 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:isn't it only 100 seats actually matter in a GE?

The rest never change hands or something (unless landslide)

Thats the most incredible thing, none of the polling companies have targeted these 100 marginal seats !

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:06 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'd argue that having a more overall proportionally representative government is more important than having about 40% of us with an MP we like.

But regardless, you only have to look at 2015's results to see just how awful and undemocratic our system is. Most people don't have their views represented because most MPs were elected with less than 50% of the vote in their constituencies and over 60% voted for a party other than the one that has complete control of parliament. That shouldn't be possible.

So, what type of PR arrangement would you prefer?

Identification with constituency MP is very important. We could do that on transferable vote system - but isn't that what we rejected in 2012 (date may not be exact).

Saying, "but the majority voted for someone else" doesn't change the fact that "most people voted for the winner" in a FPTP system. Is it more democratic to appoint someone who got less votes than the one who got the most votes? Or is it more democratic to appoint someone who got the most "2nd preferences...?"

If we elect good quality MPs, MPs who are prepared to think for themselves and work hard for their constituents, isn't that the most democratic system? When all is said and done, all the majority political parties are coalitions of views, isn't that good democracy?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:07 pm

WadingInDeeper wrote:Serious question. The assumption seems to be a lot of ukip voters will now vote tory. Bearing in mind the tories promised a referendum, are there statistics which suggest ukip voters were mainly tories?

Could it be a lot of ukip voters were former anti-eu labour voters, and will now return to labour?

They could, but on the other hand there could also be former Labour voters who vote Tory because they want to make Brexit safe. It's wildly unlikely that Labour will get a majority, but possible that Labour and SNP could jointly form a government. How good a Brexit would Corbyn get if Sturgeon was his deputy PM?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:11 pm

Paul Waine wrote:So, what type of PR arrangement would you prefer?

Identification with constituency MP is very important. We could do that on transferable vote system - but isn't that what we rejected in 2012 (date may not be exact).

Saying, "but the majority voted for someone else" doesn't change the fact that "most people voted for the winner" in a FPTP system. Is it more democratic to appoint someone who got less votes than the one who got the most votes? Or is it more democratic to appoint someone who got the most "2nd preferences...?"

If we elect good quality MPs, MPs who are prepared to think for themselves and work hard for their constituents, isn't that the most democratic system? When all is said and done, all the majority political parties are coalitions of views, isn't that good democracy?

STV

Condescendingly linked video <3 Cabello

Also, if a majority voted for someone other than the winner than most people didn't vote for the winner.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:15 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Don't over think it. It's probably among the outliers. Cherry picking individual constituencies isn't going to do you much good. It's like cherry picking one temperature buoy that shows an anomalous reading and then using that to question climate models. You're not going to get anywhere.

It's not so much the "outlier" effect. When you plot actual data, there will always be outliers, because that's the way the world works. But when you plot predictions, there are only two reasons for this sort of outlier:

1 - there is something specific to Canterbury that means a vast Labour swing is expected;
2 - the modellers have included random variation to add a sort of realism;
3 - the model is wrong.

Number 2 seems a bit unlikely; number 1 is possible, but I'd like to know what the reason is; but I reckon most likely the program is somehow wrong. And if so, is it systematically wrong, or just a one-off glitch? I become a lot less trusting of any model if I know it has errors in it.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:19 pm

dsr wrote:It's not so much the "outlier" effect. When you plot actual data, there will always be outliers, because that's the way the world works. But when you plot predictions, there are only two reasons for this sort of outlier:

1 - there is something specific to Canterbury that means a vast Labour swing is expected;
2 - the modellers have included random variation to add a sort of realism;
3 - the model is wrong.

Number 2 seems a bit unlikely; number 1 is possible, but I'd like to know what the reason is; but I reckon most likely the program is somehow wrong. And if so, is it systematically wrong, or just a one-off glitch? I become a lot less trusting of any model if I know it has errors in it.

It doesn't necessarily mean that at all. It might just mean that the model doesn't fit there. It's making 650 predictions based on small sample sizes and trying to use statistical tricks to fill in the gaps in each constituency in order to simulate what a large poll would look like. Of course there are going to be constituencies where the model doesn't work well. That's just the nature of statistical modelling. There is no model for anything that can work in every situation.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:33 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:STV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How big would your constituencies be? We see a sort of STV on the European elections, now happily (

) redundant, but your example is based on an individual named basis which is certainly more acceptable as far as I 'm concerned. But the problem with smaller constituencies, eg. 3 person, is there's still a good deal of difficulty in smaller parties getting in (25% of the vote needed), while in larger constituencies, eg. 7 person, 12.5% of the vote will get you a seat. And the smaller the constituency, the more likely the anomaly is still there - eg. North East England 1999, Labour had 42% of the vote and 3 of the 4 MEPs.

But my big drawback is the loss of the local MP. I know who he is - Andrew Stephenson. I have met him, frequently. I knew Gordon Prentice, and he gave my parents a lift home from the station once. I once met would recognize John Lee, I would have recognized Doug Hoyle, and I was too young for David Waddington so I wouldn't have known him. But if the PEndle constituency stretches to include Burnley and Accrington, and possibly as far as Blackburn and Ribble Valley, what are the chances of me recognizing my MP, let alone meeting him? Especially if they are seen to represent the people who voted for them rather than their immediate geographical area?

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:45 pm

dsr wrote:
But my big drawback is the loss of the local MP. I know who he is - Andrew Stephenson. I have met him, frequently. I knew Gordon Prentice, and he gave my parents a lift home from the station once. I once met would recognize John Lee, I would have recognized Doug Hoyle, and I was too young for David Waddington so I wouldn't have known him. But if the PEndle constituency stretches to include Burnley and Accrington, and possibly as far as Blackburn and Ribble Valley, what are the chances of me recognizing my MP, let alone meeting him? Especially if they are seen to represent the people who voted for them rather than their immediate geographical area?

I'm so pleased you have come round to my way of thinking.
It's no so long ago we had a little disagreement on here, and I'm sure it was you that said that the boundaries should be re-drawn because they were all shapes and sizes, and I explained why it was important to have constituency MPs who represented a distinctive identifiable area, such as Burnley, even if the number of constituents in Burnley is smaller or larger than some of the neighbouring constituencies.
(If it wasn't you then I apologise, but I'm still pleased that this is your view)

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:57 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:I'm so pleased you have come round to my way of thinking.
It's no so long ago we had a little disagreement on here, and I'm sure it was you that said that the boundaries should be re-drawn because they were all shapes and sizes, and I explained why it was important to have constituency MPs who represented a distinctive identifiable area, such as Burnley, even if the number of constituents in Burnley is smaller or larger than some of the neighbouring constituencies.
(If it wasn't you then I apologise, but I'm still pleased that this is your view)

I think that they can go too far in redrawing the boundaries. It's the same thing as with STV - fairness is important, local representation is important, and how far do you trade them off? Clitheroe and Colne, my proposed new constituency, stretches from the other side of Earby to just short of Bamber Bridge. It's a nonsense area. They'd have been a lot more sensible to use current boroughs and constituencies as the base and tweak it a bit, rather than start from scratch. Leave Burnley intact, move Brierfield into Pendle, put the Yorkshire bits into Skipton, that sort of thing. I definitely think the boundaries should be redrawn, but they've been botched.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:04 pm

dsr wrote:I think that they can go too far in redrawing the boundaries. It's the same thing as with STV - fairness is important, local representation is important, and how far do you trade them off? Clitheroe and Colne, my proposed new constituency, stretches from the other side of Earby to just short of Bamber Bridge. It's a nonsense area. They'd have been a lot more sensible to use current boroughs and constituencies as the base and tweak it a bit, rather than start from scratch. Leave Burnley intact, move Brierfield into Pendle, put the Yorkshire bits into Skipton, that sort of thing. I definitely think the boundaries should be redrawn, but they've been botched.

If fairness is important then can we assume that means you think we should get rid of FPTP in favour of a system closer to PR?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:20 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:If fairness is important then can we assume that means you think we should get rid of FPTP in favour of a system closer to PR?

No. As I said, other things are important too. The perfectly fair PR system would split MPs in the exact proportion to votes - a sort of STV for one ginormous constituency - and that would be awful IMO. Politicians are already too far removed from the public. There are loads of imperfect political systems in the world - all political systems are imperfect - and I reckon ours, with all its faults, suits the country and (for the UK) is as good as or better than any other system would be. Your STV system has points where it is better than the current system and points where it is worse, and to my mind the good doesn't outweigh the bad, so I would like to keep things as they are.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:51 pm

dsr wrote:No. As I said, other things are important too. The perfectly fair PR system would split MPs in the exact proportion to votes - a sort of STV for one ginormous constituency - and that would be awful IMO. Politicians are already too far removed from the public. There are loads of imperfect political systems in the world - all political systems are imperfect - and I reckon ours, with all its faults, suits the country and (for the UK) is as good as or better than any other system would be. Your STV system has points where it is better than the current system and points where it is worse, and to my mind the good doesn't outweigh the bad, so I would like to keep things as they are.

In a democracy what can be more important than fairness?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:58 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:In a democracy what can be more important than fairness?

Here's a fair system:

1. Party leaders are elected by the pary membership, like Labour do now.
2. General election voting slips are the same across the country, and the party leader's name is the only name on them.
3. When the votes are counted, each party leader appoints the number of MPs proportionate to the votes received.

It's certainly fair, as fair as it could possibly be. But is it a perfect system? I reckon it could be improved by a little less devotion to fairness.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:59 pm

There are positives and negatives to every system, but if we are to keep the current system of FPTP, then I believe we should also retain the current boundaries, - with perhaps just a tiny bit of tweaking.
Just because one constituency has grown and another has shrunk doesn't really matter in my view, because in some constituencies an MP might get elected with 75% of the vote, and in another with as little as 34%
Take this as an example:
Constituency A: Conservative gets 55,000 votes Labour get 35,000, and others 10,000 = 1 Tory MP
Constituency B: Labour gets 32,000 votes Conservative gets 12,000, and others get 10,000 = 1 Labour MP.
So whilst one MP represents 100,000 constituents and the other only 54,000, the 2 MPS elected are statistically representative of the 2 constituencies as a whole.
(i.e. in those 2 particular constituencies combined: Labour and Tory both got 67,000 votes in total).
Now I'm not suggesting that it's as simple as that, and that the maths would balance throughout the country, but a FPTP system can throw up all sorts of anomalies, with potentially all 3 major parties getting broadly 33% each, or of course one party being totally dominant in some seats. (You still only get one MP whether you get 75% of the vote or 34%)
So unless we go for a full PR system of some kind, then I don't think matching constituencies numerically in terms of actual voters is as important as matching an MP to a distinctive defined town, or conurbation.
The idea of having (e.g.) half of Burnley with Accrington and the other half with Nelson and Brierfield is not a good one IMO.

Besides, populations of places continually go up and down, so it would potentially mean re-drawing the boundaries every 25 years or so, in order to maintain broadly the same number of voters in each constituency.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:12 am

dsr wrote:Here's a fair system:

1. Party leaders are elected by the pary membership, like Labour do now.
2. General election voting slips are the same across the country, and the party leader's name is the only name on them.
3. When the votes are counted, each party leader appoints the number of MPs proportionate to the votes received.

It's certainly fair, as fair as it could possibly be. But is it a perfect system? I reckon it could be improved by a little less devotion to fairness.

Doesn't sound like STV to me. And no, i wouldn't say that's a perfectly fair system but then i'm not saying we should only change FPTP for a perfect system.

The current system is undemocratic. It leaves more people unrepresented than represented and that shouldn't happen, ever. There is no good reason not to move to a more proportionally representative system. None. The only reason to keep FPTP is so that the two biggest parties can play Pong with our country's political direction every few elections and keep the smaller parties repressed.

Are you not embarrassed by bad the 2015 election results were?

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:18 am

I'd prefer to see full on PR, with a party list system chosen democratically by the members. It is still possible to serve constituencies via local offices, in which the concerns of local people are noted down and sent to Westminster, where they can be made available to all the parties. The worst things about a constituency MP - that they're too busy or don't like your politics can then be got around.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:25 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Doesn't sound like STV to me. And no, i wouldn't say that's a perfectly fair system but then i'm not saying we should only change FPTP for a perfect system.

The current system is undemocratic. It leaves more people unrepresented than represented and that shouldn't happen, ever. There is no good reason not to move to a more proportionally representative system. None. The only reason to keep FPTP is so that the two biggest parties can play Pong with our country's political direction every few elections and keep the smaller parties repressed.

Are you not embarrassed by bad the 2015 election results were?

Let's have a system that has PR in every individual constituency. Let's have all the constituencies of the same size, so that no votes are bigger than any other votes. Let's elect the MP for each of those constituencies - and then allow them to form coalitions with other like minded MPs representing other constituencies.

Then, just to make it interesting, let's allow as many political opinions as possible to take part in these elections. The candidate that get's the most votes in the constituency is the one that is elected as the MP. It's fair that the candidate who gets more votes than any other candidate is the winner.

Let's call this system Proportional Representation because the candidate that gets the greatest proportion of the votes is declared the winner.

There we are, we've got the perfect PR system. Democracy is good and democracy is fair.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:32 am

Paul Waine wrote:Let's have a system that has PR in every individual constituency. Let's have all the constituencies of the same size,

You're clever enough to know that that is simply not possible.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:34 am

nil_desperandum wrote:You're clever enough to know that that is simply not possible.

Hi nil_d, which part isn't possible?

Some people call the system I've described FPTP, but it can also be called a PR system.

Clarets4me · Post by **Clarets4me** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:39 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:I love elections. Even though i haven't got what i wanted very often they're still absolutely fascinating. I do wish ours were more boring though through a more proportionally representative system. It's kind of embarrassing to see our leaders talk about how brilliant our democracy is when we're barely democratic at all.

I come in peace, IT, and I know we disagree on a lot of political stuff... but I like you, love elections.I've stayed up through the night for every election since 1983, and like you have been disappointed on occasion..

I'd be interested what you think of the following..

Labour's increasing appeal to the young may largely be reflected in the piling up of increased majorities in safe Labour seats in London, Manchester, and some of the University towns, which have on average younger populations. There may be an effect if students have returned home " en masse " to their parental homes, depending on term times..

The collapse of the UKIP vote ( 13% down to 5% ) will have the same effect South of a line drawn from Bristol to Hull, just increasing existing Tory majorities. The interesting thing is where the former UKIP voters will go North of this, ie Midlands, Wales and the North ...will they go Labour or Tory, or merely not turn out..

Tim Farron's strategy of being the party of the 48% Remainer vote seems to have tanked ! Both Leavers & Remainers from 2015 Labour and Tory voters look likely forthe most part, to stick with their tradional allegences.. The Lib/Dems may well struggle to get back into double figures..

Scotland may see a small recovery for the Conservatives. Ruth Davidson is a effective leader, and I can see them going from just the one seat to perhaps 4 - 6 Seats. Labour are showing no sign of a real fightback, which they'll need to regain a majority UK Government.

The Midlands, Wales and the North-West will again be crucial. I can see some L/D recovery in the West Country, and Labour may retake/retain some marginals around Manchester/Merseyside and Leeds..

If I had to put the farm on it, I'd say a Tory majority of between 35 - 55 Seats, with a caveat for the " Shy Tory " factor !!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:39 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi nil_d, which part isn't possible?

Some people call the system I've described FPTP, but it can also be called a PR system.

No it can't. At least not without lying.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:41 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi nil_d, which part isn't possible?

Some people call the system I've described FPTP, but it can also be called a PR system.

The bit about all constituencies being the same size, of course.
You'd get it all sorted out, get the right number of people in each constituency, get all the ballot papers printed, and then the night before the election some annoying person would go and ruin it all by dieing.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:59 am

Clarets4me wrote:I come in peace, IT, and I know we disagree on a lot of political stuff... but I like you, love elections.I've stayed up through the night for every election since 1983, and like you have been disappointed on occasion..

I'd be interested what you think of the following..

Labour's increasing appeal to the young may largely be reflected in the piling up of increased majorities in safe Labour seats in London, Manchester, and some of the University towns, which have on average younger populations. There may be an effect if students have returned home " en masse " to their parental homes, depending on term times..

The collapse of the UKIP vote ( 13% down to 5% ) will have the same effect South of a line drawn from Bristol to Hull, just increasing existing Tory majorities. The interesting thing is where the former UKIP voters will go North of this, ie Midlands, Wales and the North ...will they go Labour or Tory, or merely not turn out..

Tim Farron's strategy of being the party of the 48% Remainer vote seems to have tanked ! Both Leavers & Remainers from 2015 Labour and Tory voters look likely forthe most part, to stick with their tradional allegences.. The Lib/Dems may well struggle to get back into double figures..

Scotland may see a small recovery for the Conservatives. Ruth Davidson is a effective leader, and I can see them going from just the one seat to perhaps 4 - 6 Seats. Labour are showing no sign of a real fightback, which they'll need to regain a majority UK Government.

The Midlands, Wales and the North-West will again be crucial. I can see some L/D recovery in the West Country, and Labour may retake/retain some marginals around Manchester/Merseyside and Leeds..

If I had to put the farm on it, I'd say a Tory majority of between 35 - 55 Seats, with a caveat for the " Shy Tory " factor !!

I'm not really sure it matters where the younger voters are, i thik the reason they don't typically turn out is a combination of them just not valuing their vote in their early adult years, coupled with politicians not really courting their vote by paying attention to their issues. In 2010 the Lib Dems overtly sought the student vote and the turnout noticably increased. And about the same rate turned out in 2015 too, but they ditched the Lib Dems since they broke their promises.

I wouldn't say the strategy of being the party of the 48% has tanked the Lib Dem support, but it hasn't worked the way they wanted. The Lib Dems were finished as a party when they broke their promises to their core voters in the coalition government. Their biggest supporters were consistently the two youngest age demos in each election from 2001 through 2010, and the support was growing, and sticking with them as these people got older. Then they got into government and completely let these people down. And from being their biggest supporters then because their smallest supporters. Literally the two worst age groups were the teo youngest, this after those groups have been their two best and growing. So these people, as they get older, won't be voting Lib Dem ever again unless something huge changes (like electoral reform maybe). This time they're voting Labour.

The Tory vote will recover in Scotland this time around, but not fully, and it might end up being UKIP-esque in that it's spread out too much for there to make major inroads into the SNPs dominance but then that's how our stupid electoral system works.

I don't think the Shy Tory phenomenom will be as big this time. Those people might be answering "don't know" in polls but it's unlikely they're answering "Labour". The media narrative of Corbyn still rings true for these kinds of people so if they're too scared to admit to a pollster that they're voting Tory they're surely not then saying they're voting Labour. But i think the Tories will increase their majority. I hope to **** i'm wrong but the Labour internal poll suggests they'll lose dozens of seats and if we learned anything from 2015 it's that internal polls can be more representative of the public than public polls.

Clarets4me · Post by **Clarets4me** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:43 am

I wouldn't disagree with much of that, although It's an interesting thought that perhaps 20% of the votes to be cast on Thursday are already in the hands of Returning Officers. In 2015, only 80% of votes were cast in Polling Stations, with the remaining 20% were Postal votes..

In the North-East, last time round, 33% of all votes were Postal Votes. UK wide, Postal voters had a turnout of over 85% in 2015, whereas the rest of the Electorate came in at around 62%..

The three Sunderland seats should be first to declare on Thursday, and if any of the Labour Candidates poll less than 20k, then Labour are in for a bad night, if they're 25,000 - 30,000 then it could be alot closer than people think... IMHO...

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:47 am

I can answer this one dsr.

It's not that they've got it wrong or even that their calculations are wrong.

It's just that they're outside the actuality of it all.

CharlieTurtle taught me all about it. The polls for the EU referendum and the last GE weren't wrong, they were just outisde the actuality.

RalphCoatesComb · Post by **RalphCoatesComb** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:28 am

Personally, I'm in the IDGAFF category. They are all in it for themselves and all pi$$ in the same pot.

These threads are so amusing. I little like Parliament itself with the Boo, Hiss, Rah Rah, Here Here taunts, jibes and squeals !

Roll on the Football Season, or 9th June, whichever comes first

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:34 am

Still no sign of the labour surge on the doorstep.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/06/05/po ... t-to-give/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

jollyjack · Post by **jollyjack** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:30 am

Lot of talk about the young Labour vote, but at the registration deadline did I hear correctly that 35% of 18-34 year-olds had failed to register? Not sure what the total figure of this demographic is but will have a significant effect. Lot of young opinions on social media, but I'm left thinking at least 1/3 of you haven't even registered, so you should maybe be keeping quiet. "Shy Tories" and "Ineligible Labour youth" should have a huge effect on the final result.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:37 am

Apparently 1 of these polls (might be survation ) which has it close has youth turnout at 90% ! All the evidence I have seen points to a tory majority of between 70 and 100. That's my prediction anyway.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:38 am

claretandy wrote:Apparently 1 of these polls (might be survation ) which has it close has youth turnout at 90% ! All the evidence I have seen points to a tory majority of between 70 and 100. That's my prediction anyway.

The Survation poll has all intended voter turnouts being a ridiculously high figure.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:56 am

Just seen a series of tweets from the Yorkshire post political correspondant saying that vote share of labour and tory are holding up and most ukip are splitting for the tories, could be a lot of labour seats in trouble in Yorkshire, similar reports coming from man chesterfield evening news correspondant.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:46 pm

The YouGov estimate is suggesting a continued narrowing of the Conservative lead.

Down to a 304 average estimate.

https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-electio ... e=web_push" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:00 pm

jollyjack wrote:Lot of talk about the young Labour vote, but at the registration deadline did I hear correctly that 35% of 18-34 year-olds had failed to register? Not sure what the total figure of this demographic is but will have a significant effect. Lot of young opinions on social media, but I'm left thinking at least 1/3 of you haven't even registered, so you should maybe be keeping quiet. "Shy Tories" and "Ineligible Labour youth" should have a huge effect on the final result.

Turnout at last Gen Election was 66% overall, so if 65% of 18-34 year olds have registered then I would consider that to be pretty high.
Don't forget it's much more difficult for students / young people to register, because you can't vote in your home constituency, but have to vote where you live. So if you've been a student since 2015, then you may have had a different address for each of the last 3 major elections, so it's not quite so simple as for the retired couple who may have been living in the same house for 50 years.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:07 pm

Canterbury's MP should still be in prison, after he drove on the wrong side of the road and killed someone.