YouGov election estimates

[claretandy]

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;

Not going to happen, all the evidence from the doorstep plus decline of ukip points to a tory majority of between 70 and 150.

[Spijed]

#AshcroftModel
LordAshcroftPolls.com
“central estimate is Con majority of 64 – but 78 if turnout matches 2015”

[Imploding Turtle]

#AshcroftModel
LordAshcroftPolls.com
“central estimate is Con majority of 64 – but 78 if turnout matches 2015”

This is probably closer to what will happen. Without knowing the specifics of the YouGov model it's difficult to have faith on it when other models forecast much different results. But it might just be because it's a relatively new model with few real test cases.

[Spijed]

Would a 64-78 majority be considered enough of a success for the Conservatives in the present circumstances?

[nil_desperandum]

#AshcroftModel
LordAshcroftPolls.com
“central estimate is Con majority of 64 – but 78 if turnout matches 2015”

Who would be happy with that sort of result?
Hardly a ringing endorsement for May (gaining about 30 seats), but probably good enough for her to stay on.
A defeat for Labour, but much better than expected, and probably good enough for Corbyn to stay on.

Would it lead to a new centre-left party? Probably not because it's not devastatingly bad for the left.
Happiest: Tories because they've got a majority, but seriously damaged and with many doubting their leader.
Unhappiest: Lib Dems. Very few seats, and little prospect for improvement.
Unhappy: The majority I think, since they would like to see a more credible leadership of the opposition, or a fresh start on the left, and this is unlikely to happen if Labour only lose about 25 seats. (I say 25, because I envisage the Tories gaining about 5 seats in Scotland).
Basically, not really the result anyone wanted, but Team TM will claim it as a big victory, even though margin of victory was slashed to about 30% of what they expected.

[Imploding Turtle]

Probably. It'll certainly be a relief for them.

[OffTheBar]

Haven't read much about their model but it seems odd when they say it worked for the last GE, the referendum and Trump (if I read that correctly). I assume they explain it, but I can't see how those elections can use an even similar model.

Perhaps they've overfitted to make it work? It's a very tough science, particularly in the U.K. 538 and Nate Silver have shown it can work in the US, but they have way more data to use.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

I think the Tories have missed a trick not making Greg Knight prime minister.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Gt7lWRtfve8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HatfieldClaret]

Would a 64-78 majority be considered enough of a success for the Conservatives in the present circumstances?

It wouldn't be too bad. Previous forecasts of a 150 - 200 majority was just daft pie in the sky stuff.

[Imploding Turtle]

Haven't read much about their model but it seems odd when they say it worked for the last GE, the referendum and Trump (if I read that correctly). I assume they explain it, but I can't see how those elections can use an even similar model.

Perhaps they've overfitted to make it work? It's a very tough science, particularly in the U.K. 538 and Nate Silver have shown it can work in the US, but they have way more data to use.

They won't have overfitted anything. If you have to do that then the results a model generates are worthless, and it's extremely hard to believe that genuine data scientists would do that.

I think the model will have been relevant to those two elections because they are looking at local turnout with small samples and simulating what a large sample poll of that constituency would most likely show. They use voters in other constituencies to help with the simulation too. This can probably work for any constituency where there are plenty of other constituencies from which to help simulate larger samples, which there certainly are in America.

[nil_desperandum]

It wouldn't be too bad. Previous forecasts of a 150 - 200 majority was just daft pie in the sky stuff.

With a lead of around 20 points going into the campaign, I don't think it was pie in the sky at all.
People have to admit that Corbyn, (although unelectable) has come across rather better during the campaign than both his supporters and critics would have imagined, May has come across a lot worse than was expected, and the rest of the Tory big hitters are increasingly conspicuous by their absence. Are they distancing themselves from May, or is she hiding the likes of Hammond, Leadsom, Hunt and Fox away?

[OffTheBar]

They won't have overfitted anything. If you have to do that then the results a model generates are worthless, and it's extremely hard to believe that genuine data scientists would do that.

Of course, but it's hard to know if you have done that. I'm just sceptical about those three elections being comparable from a model perspective. But, as I say I haven't done much reading of what they say. Sounds like they've done something similar to previous private polls, which did supposedly predict the last GE well. Let's see. It's certainly a surprising prediction. If they're right about the closeness, they will look great...but doesn't mean they were actually correct!

[mkmel]

At least the worst scenario of a large Tory majority looks very unlikely.

So they won't be able to run amok.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

They'll win the reduced majority then will replace May as PM.

[dsr]

I doubt they could replace May as PM, not formally anyway. I suppose internal pressure could be brought on her to resign, but who has enough gravitas to wield the axe, when it's likely to end his/her own ambitions too? The Tories have (at least, so far as I know) no mechanism for deselecting the leader when that leader is Prime Minister, and they aren't going to force a vote of no confidence.

[dsr]

#AshcroftModel
LordAshcroftPolls.com
“central estimate is Con majority of 64 – but 78 if turnout matches 2015”

Who would be happy with that sort of result?
Hardly a ringing endorsement for May (gaining about 30 seats), but probably good enough for her to stay on.
A defeat for Labour, but much better than expected, and probably good enough for Corbyn to stay on.

That's the bit the Tories might be happy with. When Parliament was sitting normally, people were quite happy with May and quite opposed to Corbyn. During electioneering, May's stock has gone down and Corbyn's back up; if Corbyn suddenly appears 'respectable', he might stay on long enough to lose the next election as well!

(And if the Tories don't get an overall majority, this post is programmed to self destruct sometime in the middle of Thursday night! )

[nil_desperandum]

I doubt they could replace May as PM, not formally anyway. I suppose internal pressure could be brought on her to resign, but who has enough gravitas to wield the axe, when it's likely to end his/her own ambitions too? The Tories have (at least, so far as I know) no mechanism for deselecting the leader when that leader is Prime Minister, and they aren't going to force a vote of no confidence.

Mrs May has well-known serious health issues, which she does well to keep under control. It does cross my mind though that it might be rather convenient for both her and the party to "find the job a bit tougher on her health than she imagined", and step down at some point, (once they have decided amongst themselves who could replace her.)
Assuming she is re-elected I might put a few bob on Amber Rudd taking over.

[HatfieldClaret]

People have to admit that Corbyn, (although unelectable) has come across rather better during the campaign than both his supporters and critics would have imagined, May has come across a lot worse than was expected, and the rest of the Tory big hitters are increasingly conspicuous by their absence. Are they distancing themselves from May, or is she hiding the likes of Hammond, Leadsom, Hunt and Fox away?

Frighteningly, can't disagree with you there ND.

[john'sroseyspecs]

That's the bit the Tories might be happy with. When Parliament was sitting normally, people were quite happy with May and quite opposed to Corbyn. During electioneering, May's stock has gone down and Corbyn's back up; if Corbyn suddenly appears 'respectable', he might stay on long enough to lose the next election as well!

(And if the Tories don't get an overall majority, this post is programmed to self destruct sometime in the middle of Thursday night! )

So i am!

[nil_desperandum]

Frighteningly, can't disagree with you there ND.

Actually, apart from some extremists at both ends of the political spectrum, I think there's fairly general agreement amongst both Tories and Labour supporters as to how this campaign has gone so far. The Tory canvasser who knocked on my door was in despair at the lack of leadership, and how it was that "foot-soldiers" like him were doing all the work, and taking all the flack in the absence of more senior figures.
It's also true that despite being a party divided, Labour have done a pretty good job at getting out there and trying to get their message out - irrespective of the merits of the message. (Or at least I've seen a lot of Labour activists in my area).

[mdd2]

It is hard to believe the opinion polls when one sees the hustings. I fear for our country whoever gets in but I am a little more concerned when it comes to Labour. Personally despite how i have cast my vote I think they are going to win. As each day goes by they look more in control of events. Even after the attacks in Manchester and London JC was better IMO than TM. Compared with the likes of Wilson, Callaghan and Blair JC is pretty hopeless as on orator but fortunately for him he is up against TM. Whoever decided that she should be at the forefront of everything in the campaign needs to be put out to grass along with TM whatever the result. The Tories efforts have matched Michael Foot's from 1983 IMO except the Tories look to be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[UpTheBeehole]

As someone hoping and praying for a Labour win for me, my other half, my kids, my parents and my grandparents, I will still go to bed on Thursday night expecting to wake up and see the disappointing news that the Tories have won.

Anything other than that will make my year.

[Spijed]

I doubt they could replace May as PM, not formally anyway. I suppose internal pressure could be brought on her to resign, but who has enough gravitas to wield the axe, when it's likely to end his/her own ambitions too? The Tories have (at least, so far as I know) no mechanism for deselecting the leader when that leader is Prime Minister, and they aren't going to force a vote of no confidence.

What's Michael Heseltine up to these days?

[nil_desperandum]

What's Michael Heseltine up to these days?

I seem to recall that the Tories sacked him because he expressed a view that contradicted Mrs May's policies. She wouldn't have the capacity to debate with him - so he had to go.

[Walton]

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;

Oh, that's where it is

[Walton]

Not going to happen, all the evidence from the doorstep plus decline of ukip points to a tory majority of between 70 and 150.

How's that working out for you Clare?

[ClaretAndJew]

Not going to happen, all the evidence from the doorstep plus decline of ukip points to a tory majority of between 70 and 150.

Genius

[Pimlico_Claret]

Not going to happen, all the evidence from the doorstep plus decline of ukip points to a tory majority of between 70 and 150.

LMFAO

[kentonclaret]

claretandy fotgot to add "all the evidence from the doorstep of Number 10".