Based on the new YouGov model the Conservatves, if the election was held tomorrow, would most likely be ~18 seats short of an overall majority while they're still likely to be the party with the most seats. The model says there's a 95% level of confidence that they will end up with between 265 and 340 seats.

Labour would equally as likely have about 261 seats with the 95% confidence being between 230-301

Lib dems are at 10 seats (3-18)

SNP 47 (26-55)

and the rest are somewhere between irrelevence and IDGAF.

By all means take it with a pinch of salt but don't blindly dismiss it. This model was created by data scientists who are not idiots. It always had Leave receiving more votes than Remain. It also showed Clinton as winning the popular vote by a narrow margin. So accept it with caution but don't be surprised at all if the result on June 8th for the Tories and Labour fall in the 95% confidence interval of June 7th estimates


If you want to read more about the methodology its limitiations and an FAQ about it follow these links.
Methodology - https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/31/ho ... ion-works/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
FAQ - https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/31/yo ... n-model-q/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As a statto who interacts with the pollsters regularly because I'm sad like that, I just cannot see it.

Corbyn has got a boost in the inner cities where young people gather, and who may well vote, but those Labour marginals elsewhere remain vulnerable on the Brexit issue. I see clever people overthinking it all the time, this is one of those times I suspect. Ipsos Mori probably the best out there.

By the way I predicted 100 seat majority before Mays useless campaign, now 50 majority.

I thought it would be close...

and then I watch Question time the other night and I am now convinced Tories will win easily.

You must be someone who wants to nuke the world then!

Wheels ha e all come off last month's person! Slated in tax now, her alleged top topic! 'Don't bet your house on it!' Ha!

If Labour by a miracle do get in ... how long will it be this time before we are bankrupted again.

CrosspoolClarets wrote:As a statto who interacts with the pollsters regularly because I'm sad like that, I just cannot see it.

Corbyn has got a boost in the inner cities where young people gather, and who may well vote, but those Labour marginals elsewhere remain vulnerable on the Brexit issue. I see clever people overthinking it all the time, this is one of those times I suspect. Ipsos Mori probably the best out there.

By the way I predicted 100 seat majority before Mays useless campaign, now 50 majority.

I wouldn't be surprised either if the Tories end up with way more than 340 seats either because it's so uncertain how high turnout is going to be among younger voters. They're the wild card. If they turn out at any rate close to the over 40 vote then we're looking at the Tories losing their majority by quite a margin but if youth turnout is the same at 2015 then i think we're looking at an increased majority for the Tories and all the things that that brings with it.

Young voters are consistently a let down when it comes to turn out, probably because neither of the two big parties fight their cause, but this time they have no excuse. Labour are fighting their cause and if they don't turn out to vote this time then they are essentially telling politicians that courting their vote is a waste of time, and it'll be a long time before party bothers to try it.

lovebeingaclaret wrote:If Labour by a miracle do get in ... how long will it be this time before we are bankrupted again.

When were we bankrupted?

CrosspoolClarets wrote:As a statto who interacts with the pollsters regularly because I'm sad like that, I just cannot see it.

Corbyn has got a boost in the inner cities where young people gather, and who may well vote, but those Labour marginals elsewhere remain vulnerable on the Brexit issue. I see clever people overthinking it all the time, this is one of those times I suspect. Ipsos Mori probably the best out there.

By the way I predicted 100 seat majority before Mays useless campaign, now 50 majority.

Well I can and I never was one who thought that there would be a landslide for the Tories. JC will cripple the nation with his tax and spend but he has one major thing going for him IMO.He does not personalise anywhere near as much as TM and the additive value is he has a "costed manifesto" which should appeal to most voters-students, the young, the elderly and those who take out and put little in. TM has put out a "back of the fag packet manifesto" that half the cabinet seem to have known little about. She seems to have a tiny number of close (and it seems dipstick) advisers who will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. anything less than a 50 seat majority will be a disaster for TM and I just don't see her getting there.
The future must be bright for budding politicians though. If you want to know how not to succeed- watch how TM has conducted herself

Is this model based on an 18-24 year old turnout of 80% +?

(2015 turnout for this age was ~44%)

May has been terrible, but Corbyn has been very good, in fact all the opposition leaders have come across a lot better than May has.

Calling an election gave everybody a platform to have a go, and the only one who has almost chucked it in is May.

Still see them winning, but they have given other parties a chance, and maybe a decent opposition is back (which is a good thing)

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.

barba wrote:Is this model based on an 18-24 year old turnout of 80% +?

(2015 turnout for this age was ~44%)

I'm not sure there's any reason to believe that the model is suggesting any age group turns out to vote at 80% plus.

Lancasterclaret 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.

In theory Yes! Sadly all of our politicians can't even agree within their own parties, so the chances of them working cross party in the best interest of all us is fanciful at best.

Imploding Turtle wrote:When were we bankrupted?

When there was no money left in the bank? As endorsed by a treasury minister and in the 70s when we needed to go cap in hand for money from the IMF when we were acknowledged as the sick man of Europe?

The consistent fact is that in both those case it was Labour in charge.

Lancasterclaret wrote:May has been terrible, but Corbyn has been very good, in fact all the opposition leaders have come across a lot better than May has.

Calling an election gave everybody a platform to have a go, and the only one who has almost chucked it in is May.

Still see them winning, but they have given other parties a chance, and maybe a decent opposition is back (which is a good thing)

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.

Could be very damaging I reckon.

Fanciful maybe, but there is a lot going on and it has to be sorted. They will know that if they mess that up, then they won't be in positions of power for very long.

Whatever happens, it has to be governed for the good of the whole country, not just special interest groups.

lovebeingaclaret wrote:When there was no money left in the bank? As endorsed by a treasury minister and in the 70s when we needed to go cap in hand for money from the IMF when we were acknowledged as the sick man of Europe?

The consistent fact is that in both those case it was Labour in charge.

Are we ignoring the fact that the Tories borrow more and repay less than Labour, and that Labour didn't cause the global crash, and that it was actually the Conservatives that repealed the laws in the UK that made the banking crisis here possible? Or are we only sticking to the facts that you like?

Caballo wrote:In theory Yes! Sadly all of our politicians can't even agree within their own parties, so the chances of them working cross party in the best interest of all us is fanciful at best.

It's better than a party receiving a minority of the vote and then telling the majority of voters to get ****** by enacting a manifesto that most people voted against.

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm not sure there's any reason to believe that the model is suggesting any age group turns out to vote at 80% plus.

A model with these variations would certainly use voter turnout in part. I read 80% but without empirical evidence to support will leave as hearsay

Of course they'll make estimations of voter turnout for each grouping, but 80% will be so few variations that i doubt any of the runs that included such a turnout percentage for 18-24 year olds would have fallen within the 95% confidence interval. I'm almost certain it wouldn't.

There must be a huge momentum towards Labour at the moment, but probably too late for them to overturn the Tory's lead; there are too many UKIP and right-leaning Tories around (as Brexit vote shows). At the beginning of this election, there is no way I would have voted Labour. After Corbyn's very impressive transformation, there isn't anyone else I would vote for. People need to get a reality grip on concerns he will not use nuclear weapons as it a completely hypothetical situation anyway (who really believes we will be in a nuclear war within 5 years!). Unlikely Pendle will overturn the Tory majority, but we live in hope! Expect a comfortable Tory win.

lovebeingaclaret wrote:If Labour by a miracle do get in ... how long will it be this time before we are bankrupted again.

Well maybe a future Labour government won't be forced to find £850 billion to bail out the banks?. It actually makes the cost of Corbyn's spending plans seem trivial by comparison.

nil_desperandum wrote:Well maybe a future Labour government won't be forced to find £850 billion to bail out the banks as a consequence of a Conservative deregulation of banks?. It actually makes the cost of Corbyn's spending plans seem trivial by comparison.

added a bit.

USC wrote: Unlikely Pendle will overturn the Tory majority, but we live in hope! Expect a comfortable Tory win.

Interestingly I had a v long debate with a Tory door-to-to door canvasser this morning. I explained why I couldn't vote for Mrs May, and he actually admitted that he thought she had been a real liability during this campaign, and that her performance on QT had been awful.
He was then joined by a 2nd campaigner, who happens to be a friend of mine. They both said that based on what they had been hearing they are not at all confident of holding the seat. I then reassured them that despite my vote, I thought it would be comfortable, but they said that they were really concerned by the way the campaign was going.

Imploding Turtle wrote:added a bit.

Sorry IT, I don't understand that.
EDIT: SORRY, get it now, you altered my original post and I couldn't be bothered to re-read it! (Like)

nil_desperandum wrote:but they said that they were really concerned by the way the campaign was going.

We live in hope!

Imploding Turtle wrote:Are we ignoring the fact that the Tories borrow more and repay less than Labour, and that Labour didn't cause the global crash, and that it was actually the Conservatives that repealed the laws in the UK that made the banking crisis here possible? Or are we only sticking to the facts that you like?

I'll stick with the facts thanks.

I feel with the latest atrocities and what has gone before I have no energy to continue this thread. What I will do is bookmark this thread and bring it back if Corbyn manages to get in and after he's created yet another financial meltdown as will happen.

lovebeingaclaret wrote:I'll stick with the facts thanks.

Only some of them though, and that's why I can't respect your point of view. It's wilfully incomplete.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Are we ignoring the fact that the Tories borrow more and repay less than Labour, and that Labour didn't cause the global crash, and that it was actually the Conservatives that repealed the laws in the UK that made the banking crisis here possible? Or are we only sticking to the facts that you like?

Hang on - for years you've been saying that the financial crisis wasn't the government's fault because it was a world event. Now are you saying that it was the government's fault? Not the Labour government, obviously, but the Conservative government of 11+ years earlier?

dsr wrote:Hang on - for years you've been saying that the financial crisis wasn't the government's fault because it was a world event. Now are you saying that it was the government's fault? Not the Labour government, obviously, but the Conservative government of 11+ years earlier?

No i'm not. The global financial crisis didn't happen because our banks were ****. It all kicked off in October 2008 when Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers hit the wall. But there was a credit crunch in the UK going on for a couple of years leading up to the 2008 crash, and the fact that banks were allowed, not just in London but in America too with the repeal of Glass-Steagal, to gamble in the markets with depositers money as opposed to just investors money is what caused that particular crunch. If we weren't already going through that then the 2008 crash wouldn't have been so hard on the UK. I blame the Conservatives for repealing the regulation, and i blame Labour for not re-applying it.

But i will argue against you when you try to tell me that Labour caused it all, and that isn't inconsistent with anything i've said.

Imploding Turtle wrote:No i'm not. The global financial crisis didn't happen because our banks were ****. It all kicked off in October 2008 when Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers hit the wall. But there was a credit crunch in the UK going on for a couple of years leading up to the 2008 crash, and the fact that banks were allowed, not just in London but in America too with the repeal of Glass-Steagal, to gamble in the markets with depositers money as opposed to just investors money is what caused that particular crunch. If we weren't already going through that then the 2008 crash wouldn't have been so hard on the UK. I blame the Conservatives for repealing the regulation, and i blame Labour for not re-applying it.

But i will argue against you when you try to tell me that Labour caused it all, and that isn't inconsistent with anything i've said.

Well, you can't argue against me when I say Labour caused it all, because I've never argued that. There was a global crash that wasn't Labour's fault. What I have always argued is that countries that believed they had abolished boom and bust, and therefore had decided to spend spend spend and borrow borrow borrow, were a lot worse off than countries that were still friends with Prudence.

It's stupid to borrow when times are good, because you're going to have to borrow more when the bad times come.

(And don't get me started on public-private finance. If a plc prepared their accounts on the basis that the government does, and that's all governments not just the Labour one, thy would be struck off the Stock Exchange and their directors would be in jail. Have you heard of finance leases? The government hasn't. Add those to the UK balance sheet, and I'd like to see what the National Debt is then.)

Not to be one of those boring lefties telling the truth all the time, but the Tories have borrowed more in seven years than Labour did in thirteen.

Wexford_Claret wrote:Not to be one of those boring lefties telling the truth all the time, but the Tories have borrowed more in seven years than Labour did in thirteen.

Is it really that difficult to understand

Wexford_Claret wrote:Not to be one of those boring lefties telling the truth all the time, but the Tories have borrowed more in seven years than Labour did in thirteen.

This is what it looks like when people blame Obama for America's debt exploding from 2009 onwards. This is up there with that level of nonsense.

I wouldn't pin much hope on YouGov. I am a member and never received a survey on it. So clearly they pick and choose who receives them. This in turn gives a false poll. I've talked to many Labour voters who would never usually vote Tory but are doing this time because of Corbyn and I live in a Labour stronghold.

ThinLizzy wrote:I wouldn't pin much hope on YouGov. I am a member and never received a survey on it. So clearly they pick and choose who receives them. This in turn gives a false poll. I've talked to many Labour voters who would never usually vote Tory but are doing this time because of Corbyn and I live in a Labour stronghold.

You're a member of YouGov? You do know that they don't use their website's membership to decide on who to survey, right?

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's better than a party receiving a minority of the vote and then telling the majority of voters to get ****** by enacting a manifesto that most people voted against.

Which electoral system would you prefer?

Caballo wrote:Which electoral system would you prefer?

STV

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

A decent shout, linking the video was a little condescending but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you're usually trying to explain things to Ringo.

lovebeingaclaret wrote:If Labour by a miracle do get in ... how long will it be this time before we are bankrupted again.

I think you will find that the Tories and LibDems between them, all under Tory Chancellorship - 'Austerity for the masses but not the rich' policy have made us all poorer and the country bankrupt already.

What sort of survey gives a 95% certainty answer with a 100 seat spread of likelihood?

We could all of have guessed that for free!

Most polls seem to give the Conservatives a 50-60 majority. Probably about right.

Would they be happy with that?

It almost feels like Labour have peaked a little too soon.

In terms of the campaign itself there seems little scope for Labour to gain any significant ground this week.

There's also a big question mark regards turning support into votes. The Tories are historically better at this.

Making a decent dent in the Conservative majority ought to be seen as a success given where the respective parties stood when the election was called.

The most worrying aspect has been Theresa May's extremely poor personal performance and the possible consequences for the country as a result.

EarbyClaret wrote:
The most worrying aspect has been Theresa May's extremely poor personal performance and the possible consequences for the country as a result.

I think that that is the major thing that's come out of this election. Unless she gets a majority of about 100, then I think she is mortally wounded by her incompetence, narcissism and cowardice during this campaign.

I think when videos are posted with JerIRAmy with terrorists and codeming Bin Ladins death the polls will swing

bfcjg wrote:I think when videos are posted with JerIRAmy with terrorists and codeming Bin Ladins death the polls will swing

But then this is rather damning of the government regarding police cuts.
https://www.thecanary.co/2017/06/04/for ... cks-video/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bfcjg wrote:I think when videos are posted with JerIRAmy with terrorists and codeming Bin Ladins death the polls will swing

But do you think there's actually anyone in the UK who's not already fully aware of this?. It's been rammed down our throats since 2015.
It's very old news, and a lot of people are now looking to the present and the future.
He wouldn't be my choice, but I can see beyond his past.
It's the future of the NHS, education, the Dementia tax, police cuts, potential rises in income tax, ending the triple lock and winter payments for pensioners, etc. etc. that people should be focusing on.
Now of course, you may agree with the Tories on most or all of these. If so: vote for the hapless Mrs May, if however you disagree with the Tories on most of these, then vote for the hapless Mr Corbyn. it's not a great choice I grant you.

All the Tories and their media have done for 2 years, is seek to undermine Corbyn. When their own 'Stable Theresa' campaign blew up in their face...and they found that 'Conservative' was actually more successful than 'May', all they have done is feed the gullible with the Corbyn smears.

For all his faults, Corbyn is truthful and the Labour manifesto, at last gives people hope. The Tories are bankcorrupt.

IanMcL wrote:I think you will find that the Tories and LibDems between them, all under Tory Chancellorship - 'Austerity for the masses but not the rich' policy have made us all poorer and the country bankrupt already.

So the Conservative Lib Dem coalition made cuts that were "too far, too fast" but also didn't cut enough? Meaning that we are STILL not yet on top of Gordon Brown's spending binge on welfare for middle class people.

So the Conservatives still spent less and borrowed less than Miliband's Labour but they should have made even deeper cuts to spending? And yet we are STILL not yet on top of Gordon Brown's spending binge

... and having failed to get the deficit and the debt under control in nearly 9 year the answer now is to borrow even more and spend EVEN more under Jeremy Corbyn?

Hilarious "logic".

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_na ... chart.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

take in the first graph and see what 7 years of Gideons austerity have done for Britain.
The man whose sole aim was to clear the national debt.
Whilst the working man has had the 1% foot on his throat the rich just get richer. 5% off their tax helped, obviously.

minnieclaret wrote:http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_na ... chart.html

take in the first graph and see what 7 years of Gideons austerity have done for Britain.
The man whose sole aim was to clear the national debt.
Whilst the working man has had the 1% foot on his throat the rich just get richer. 5% off their tax helped, obviously.

I'm assuming your deliberately confusing deficit and debt.