United Kingdom General Elections: December 12th, 2019

[Tender Branson]

https://twitter.com/greenrascal_/status/1200034860531888128
https://twitter.com/laurenonizzle/status/1200408318478442496

[Away, haul away, we'll haul away, Joe!]

What in the world is the Mr. Burns map? The European elections?

[God-Empress Stacey I of House Abrams]

What in the world is the Mr. Burns map? The European elections?

Yes.

[cp]

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1200824832042164225

Labour closing the gap with accelerating speed. Still outside the margin of error for a tie, though.

[urutzizu]

Hm. This one shows a different story.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1200852564457205760

Also noticable is that even with the BMG one there seems to be on the face of it no direct Cons to Lab transfers. But that is impossible to tell by only the headline figures of course.

[UncleSam]

I mean those polls seem consistent with conservatives in the low forties and Labour within a couple points of 33.

Where is the Green Party in the second poll, btw?

[Oryxslayer]

Mods, can we please kick out the troll?

[Oryxslayer]

The biggest difference between ComRes and BMG is probably the polling dates. BMG polled Thursday/Friday, ComRes Wednesday/Thursday. Last week we had on bombshells news story each day, the kind of story that could have reoriented the campaign if it was given time to stew. But, we didn't, and instead the voting opinions could very well differ drastically depending on which stories are captured. I suspect we may see more variation tomorrow between those polled early in the week, those polled later, and those polled all 5 days.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Hm. This one shows a different story.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1200852564457205760

ComRes put out two polls a week at present rather than one - those figures are compared with the midweek poll. Compared with their last weekend poll there's no shift in the lead. In general they have been (a bit bizarrely given the reputation they used to have) one of the more stable pollsters this time round.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The biggest difference between ComRes and BMG is probably the polling dates.

Yes, the fact that the main commissioners of polling during an election are the Sunday papers is... problematic. Note that Panelbase polls at the same time as the Sunday glut but releases on Saturday. Doesn't mean their findings are older.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1200869070410846209

Another weekend poll. Their one of the  outliers  with the Tories that high though.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1200884503704678402

I don't think this would change the seat-by-seat model that much if it was the results of their next 100K polled respondents.

[GoTfan]

Why is it that in two succeeding campaigns, the Tories have lost ground as polling day gets closer?

[Silent Hunter]

Why is it that in two succeeding campaigns, the Tories have lost ground as polling day gets closer?

Because May wasn't a campaigner and Boris has a tendency to be a 'clown'.

[Oryxslayer]

If you don't like Constituency Polls, look away now.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1200857453904220161

The Tories lead by 13% when told only Gauke candidate a real shot of defeating them, and 12% when told the Lib-Dems. YouGov rates this seat as Likely Conservative, and this poll conforms to that rating, with the Tories always around 50%, but not by much.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1200856948893196289

Beaconsfield had a reasonable non-tory base back in 2017. It appears Grieve has bit into the Conservative vote, but not by much. When told the only party with a realistic shot at winning against the Tories was Labour, the margin matched 2017's Tory landslide. When told it was only Grieve with a realistic shot at winning in a 1v1, he still loses, 54%-45%. YouGov rates the seat as Likely Conservative, and Grieve's large voteshare coupled with independent uncertainty justify that rating.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1200856360721760257

Frankly, I'm not sure why they polled this seat. It's more or less safe Tory, no matter how many Lib-Dems want to return to the good old days. It voted for leave and gave the Tories a majority in 2017.  The Tories lead by 32% and 19% when told only Labour and the Lib-Dems have a realistic shot at winning the seat. YouGov rates the Seat as Safe Tory, and nothing should change that.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1200855028229115905

This was a Lib-Dem target not that long ago, and it's one of the few constituencies we actually have two constituency polls of. Last poll the Lib-Dems were within striking distance of Labour, that's all gone now. Shows just how much constituency polls can vary because of their small voter pool, and it also shows what happens when the Lib-Dems pull their targeted resources and their voters scatter. When told there are  only two realistic parties: Labour and the Tories, Labour leads by 52% to 44%. When told it is only the Lib-Dems and the Tories, The Lib-Dems  only lead by 44% to 43%, since labour keeps a hold on 10% of the vote. YouGov rates the seat as Likely Labour, and I see no reason to change that because the  Lib-Dem base seems happy to cast Red ballots now that the  party has no chance.

Now for the big one:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1200855757362782209

When told that only Labour and the Conservative's have a chance of winning, Raab wins in a landslide. When told that it's a Lib-Dem verses Conservative race with no other threats, it's a 48%-48% tie. Even though this is an uncertain constituency poll, this confirms Raad has royally screwed up. The Lib-Dems were right to target this seat and it looks like they are got a  real race on their hand. Raab's personal problems make him an ideal target for the Lib-Dems. I think the Lab-Con numbers here also are  important, since they show that Corbyn is worse  of a fit for the seat than Raab. YouGov rates this as likely Tory, but I get the feeling from everything going on here that this is going to be one of the seats YouGov and other models miss because of how the Lib-Dems targete their campaign resources.

[adma]

Why is it that in two succeeding campaigns, the Tories have lost ground as polling day gets closer?

Because May wasn't a campaigner and Boris has a tendency to be a 'clown'.

And Labour has this odd tendency to return to the mean, or some approximation thereof.  (Scotland's 2015 paradigm shift excepted.)

[CumbrianLeftie]

Maybe the YouGov poll is actually the most interesting one out of that lot, given their tendency going back almost two years now as Tory-friendly - Labour equalling their highest rating since the launch of Change UK (remember them?) and the second lowest YouGov lead since Johnson became PM.

As for Opinium - lol. Literally nobody - including in Tory HQ - actually believes they are ahead 46-31.

[Pericles]

I agree Opinium is highly unlikely to be right, but a caveat is that with recent polling errors, a pro-Tory polling error can't be ruled out and that would lead to a Opinium style landslide. In 2015 after all nobody thought that the Tories would win a majority, and in 2017 insiders in both parties thought even to the end that the Tories were headed for an increased majority. The conventional wisdom is not a reliable indicator. Of course this goes the other way too, it is entirely possible that the polls underrate Labour as in 2017 and that, along with potentially a late Labour surge, could cause a hung parliament (the YouGov MRP model makes that seem less likely and is concerning, but that was a snapshot of how things stood last week and even MRP is not error-free).

[Arkansas Yankee]

Maybe the YouGov poll is actually the most interesting one out of that lot, given their tendency going back almost two years now as Tory-friendly - Labour equalling their highest rating since the launch of Change UK (remember them?) and the second lowest YouGov lead since Johnson became PM.

As for Opinium - lol. Literally nobody - including in Tory HQ - actually believes they are ahead 46-31.

You are probably mostly correct.
But is it possible the other pollsters are over herding to 2017 results?  Is it possible they might over compensentate for tactical voting?

Because a pollster notifies the polled person with the tactical choice, does not mean all the voters really get the notice.  It also does not mean all of the possible shifters will actually shift.

And finally there may be no reliable way to gage shifting Leavers, who may be shifting in greater numbers than in 2017.

Let’s wait till 12/13 to judge the pollsters.

[Oryxslayer]

Maybe the YouGov poll is actually the most interesting one out of that lot, given their tendency going back almost two years now as Tory-friendly - Labour equalling their highest rating since the launch of Change UK (remember them?) and the second lowest YouGov lead since Johnson became PM.

As for Opinium - lol. Literally nobody - including in Tory HQ - actually believes they are ahead 46-31.

You are probably mostly correct.
But is it possible the other pollsters are over herding to 2017 results?  Is it possible they might over compensentate for tactical voting?

Because a pollster notifies the polled person with the tactical choice, does not mean all the voters really get the notice.  It also does not mean all of the possible shifters will actually shift.

And finally there may be no reliable way to gage shifting Leavers, who may be shifting in greater numbers than in 2017.

Let’s wait till 12/13 to judge the pollsters.

Yes, the big worry is that pollsters have overcorrected since 2017 (as pollsters tend to do when their previous house effect was off) and BoJo is on track for an even bigger majority than it seems thanks to previous nonvoters. Hell, their previous overcorrectiong from when the pollsters missed 2015 was part of the reason why Corbyn's surge was totally off the radar. The issue with this line of thought though is that the MRP poll seems to suggest that overcorrection is going on to a slight degree, but it's main effect is the solidification of already expected Tory flips, rather than padding an already large margin. But yes, the best play as I always say, is to watch the tracking average models and see what 10 days bring.

[Quislings Anonymous]

I wouldn’t be shocked to see the Lib Dems underperform popular vote polling while exceeding the number of predicted seat wins at this point. Something like 11% with 26 seats would not surprise me at this point.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Lib Dems are 13 in every recent poll. Labour is 31-34. But the Conservatives are 39-46, a much wider range.

[cp]

Lib Dems are 13 in every recent poll. Labour is 31-34. But the Conservatives are 39-46, a much wider range.

I wouldn’t be shocked to see the Lib Dems underperform popular vote polling while exceeding the number of predicted seat wins at this point. Something like 11% with 26 seats would not surprise me at this point.

I suspect this will be the case. To what extent it occurs may decide the outcome of the election (i.e. Tory majority or not). Mounting evidence suggests substantial numbers of voters in the SE are either not voting for the Tories this time and/or tactically supporting Lab/Lib as the best chance to defeat the local Tory candidate.

On the subject of polling that Oryx brought up, it occurred to me last night that we have to control for at least two different types of error when assessing how much a polling firm, or the industry more generally, might be indicating something inaccurate. The first error has to do with how polling firms measure a person's propensity to vote. Whether a person is 1/10 likely to vote on e-day, 5/10, or 10/10 affects how polling firms weight their samples and, hence, how their top line numbers turn out. This is what was behind the 2017 GE and 2016 referendum polling error. Most firms assumed lower propensity, Labour/Leave leaning voters wouldn't turn out, but they did.

The second error has to do with a person's choice of vote, i.e. the likelihood that a person, of any though usually high propensity to vote, will choose Party X instead of Party Y or Z. This type of polling error is what was behind the missed calls in 2015 and 1992. Lots of people who said they could vote Tory but also Labour or Lib Dem decided, largely at the last minute, to back Tories in large enough numbers to deliver them a majority that the polls indicated wasn't likely.

So, which error is more likely to be at work in this election? Because 2017 saw a failure to accurately measure propensity to vote, it's reasonable to assume pollsters have adjusted for this. That doesn't mean they've *fixed* it, mind you, just that they've made a new set of assumptions to determine voter propensity. High rates of voter registration, greater interest/investment in the election, and changing demographics are all confounding factors, too. I'll also note that in virtually every survey taken in the past two months, the pre-weighting results for Lab/Tory has been a tie.

On the other hand, how likely is it that pollsters will be embarrassed because a crucial bloc of voters change their minds at the last minute? Obviously, we won't know until the votes start getting counted, but there's evidence to suggest there may be potential for this. If one is to believe the constituency polls (yes, yes, I know) for Portsmouth South, Esher & Walton, Beaconsfield, Warwick, and slew of Northern Labour held seats , there are substantial numbers of voters willing to shift their support. This indicates the potential for further sudden changes that pollsters might not be equipped to anticipate or detect. There's also the matter of the Tories draining  their well of Brexit/UKIP voters but Labour still having lots of potential Lib Dem voters to squeeze in the next 10 days.

All told, I don't know which of these errors is more likely to manifest. But then, neither do the pollsters.

[Walmart_shopper]

Maybe the YouGov poll is actually the most interesting one out of that lot, given their tendency going back almost two years now as Tory-friendly - Labour equalling their highest rating since the launch of Change UK (remember them?) and the second lowest YouGov lead since Johnson became PM.

As for Opinium - lol. Literally nobody - including in Tory HQ - actually believes they are ahead 46-31.

You are probably mostly correct.
But is it possible the other pollsters are over herding to 2017 results?  Is it possible they might over compensentate for tactical voting?

Because a pollster notifies the polled person with the tactical choice, does not mean all the voters really get the notice.  It also does not mean all of the possible shifters will actually shift.

And finally there may be no reliable way to gage shifting Leavers, who may be shifting in greater numbers than in 2017.

Let’s wait till 12/13 to judge the pollsters.

Yes, the big worry is that pollsters have overcorrected since 2017 (as pollsters tend to do when their previous house effect was off) and BoJo is on track for an even bigger majority than it seems thanks to previous nonvoters. Hell, their previous overcorrectiong from when the pollsters missed 2015 was part of the reason why Corbyn's surge was totally off the radar. The issue with this line of thought though is that the MRP poll seems to suggest that overcorrection is going on to a slight degree, but it's main effect is the solidification of already expected Tory flips, rather than padding an already large margin. But yes, the best play as I always say, is to watch the tracking average models and see what 10 days bring.

As I recall the MRP weighted awfully heavily for Brexit views, thus the extreme result in the North and Midlands. But the assumption that Brexit matters to voters more than it actually does may be why Labour is being underestimated and why they seem to be surging. Voters in Labour-Leave constituencies aren't going to suddenly flock to the party of Jacob "you should have just left the building" Rees-Mogg because of Brexit, even though the prevailing narrative is that surely they'll do exactly that. It's a really dumb narrative, honestly. Red Labour Leave voters don't become Tories, they become simply Red Labour Leave voters. That's why the decision of the Brexit Party to leave those constituencies uncontestes is by no means an automatic gamechanger.

[Arkansas Yankee]

IT CAN NOW BE SAID EMPHATICALLY THE 2019 BRITISH ELECTION IS NOT GOING PLAY OUT IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE 2017 ELECTION.  LABOUR IS NOT GOING TO CREEP UP IN VOTING STRENGTH TO CREATE  A HUNG PARLIAMENT.

THE ONLY QUESTION REMAINING IS THE SIZE OF TORY MAJORITY.  THE PROOF FOLLOWS:

The Delta Poll in today’s Telegraph has the following significant information:
1.   Tories rising 2% from it’s midweek poll to 45%.
2.   Labour rises 2% to 32%.
3.   The Tory lead remains at +13%. 
4.   The Lib. Dems drop 1% to 15%. 
5.   Brexit remains at 3%
6.   The Tories take the votes of 70% of Leavers and 22% of Remainers
7.   Labour takes 15% of Leavers and 45% of Remainers.
8.   Lib. Dems take 5% of Leavers and 26% of Remainers
9.   Brexit takes 7% of Leavers and 0% of Remainers.
10.   This pol takes the Opinium poll showing a Tory lead of 15% with out of outlier status.
11.   Since 11/12/19 there have been 12 polls showing the Tories getting at least 43% of the vote.

The polls url is http://www.deltapoll.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Deltapoll-MoS191130.pdf

[cp]

Maybe the YouGov poll is actually the most interesting one out of that lot, given their tendency going back almost two years now as Tory-friendly - Labour equalling their highest rating since the launch of Change UK (remember them?) and the second lowest YouGov lead since Johnson became PM.

As for Opinium - lol. Literally nobody - including in Tory HQ - actually believes they are ahead 46-31.

You are probably mostly correct.
But is it possible the other pollsters are over herding to 2017 results?  Is it possible they might over compensentate for tactical voting?

Because a pollster notifies the polled person with the tactical choice, does not mean all the voters really get the notice.  It also does not mean all of the possible shifters will actually shift.

And finally there may be no reliable way to gage shifting Leavers, who may be shifting in greater numbers than in 2017.

Let’s wait till 12/13 to judge the pollsters.

Yes, the big worry is that pollsters have overcorrected since 2017 (as pollsters tend to do when their previous house effect was off) and BoJo is on track for an even bigger majority than it seems thanks to previous nonvoters. Hell, their previous overcorrectiong from when the pollsters missed 2015 was part of the reason why Corbyn's surge was totally off the radar. The issue with this line of thought though is that the MRP poll seems to suggest that overcorrection is going on to a slight degree, but it's main effect is the solidification of already expected Tory flips, rather than padding an already large margin. But yes, the best play as I always say, is to watch the tracking average models and see what 10 days bring.

As I recall the MRP weighted awfully heavily for Brexit views, thus the extreme result in the North and Midlands. But the assumption that Brexit matters to voters more than it actually does may be why Labour is being underestimated and why they seem to be surging. Voters in Labour-Leave constituencies aren't going to suddenly flock to the party of Jacob "you should have just left the building" Rees-Mogg because of Brexit, even though the prevailing narrative is that surely they'll do exactly that. It's a really dumb narrative, honestly. Red Labour Leave voters don't become Tories, they become simply Red Labour Leave voters. That's why the decision of the Brexit Party to leave those constituencies uncontestes is by no means an automatic gamechanger.

Should that prove to be the case, the likely result will be a Labour government. It also ought to (but probably won't) prompt a great deal of reflection among commentators and psephologists. The ur-narrative of the past 3 1/2 years has focused on this nearly-mythic group.