|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 16, 2021, 12:15:24 AM
News: Chaos in the capitol: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=422360

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: Gustaf, afleitch, Hash)
  United Kingdom General Elections: December 12th, 2019
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 70
Author Topic: United Kingdom General Elections: December 12th, 2019  (Read 94165 times)
rob in cal
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,911
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #925 on: November 26, 2019, 12:54:37 PM »

Some questions about postal voting. About how much of the electorate is expected to vote by mail, and are ballots already being mailed in?
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,020
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #926 on: November 26, 2019, 12:55:49 PM »

The CON-LAB gap does to be trending downward.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,075


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #927 on: November 26, 2019, 01:11:06 PM »

Some questions about postal voting. About how much of the electorate is expected to vote by mail, and are ballots already being mailed in?

As long as royal mail isn't on strike (there were worries when the election was called) postal voting will likely be up this cycle. Short daylight hours and cold weather are  going to dissuade more potential voters than usual from going to the polls in a traditional fashion. The campaign for those voters who cast ballots early ends when that ballot is in the mail or handed in at your count, so you have less time to campaign for them. Despite popular belief, it isn't just those who have made up their mind voting early. The deadline expired an hour ago for applying for a postal ballot, I'm not sure if they put out numbers. However, if that number is sufficiently large, Labour may have less time to win over voters than it appears.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,488
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #928 on: November 26, 2019, 02:19:05 PM »

At the last election about 18% of votes were cast via postal ballot. Broadly speaking, postal voters skew older and more partisan. Political parties like their most reliable supporters to register for postal votes, because it means there's no chance that they'll accidentally miss casting a vote that way, though this is more a benefit in local elections than General Elections. Rates are particularly high in places where the Blair government had experiments for a time with postal voting only in local elections - Newcastle, for instance - but once those exceptions are ignored, rates are pretty similar across the country.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,488
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #929 on: November 26, 2019, 02:29:44 PM »

One thing I noticed about that poll is the regional crosstabs show this vote in the South East
Conservative: 44%
Labour: 36%
Lib Dem: 15%

Seems like Labour is way to high there

ICM's 'South East' region includes London.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,075


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #930 on: November 26, 2019, 02:44:36 PM »

So Corbyn had a horrible interview with Neil, though it wasn't as well roasted as Sturgeons. I can't wait for the Boris interview, since it appears Neil will bat three for three.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,435
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #931 on: November 26, 2019, 02:57:27 PM »

So Corbyn had a horrible interview with Neil, though it wasn't as well roasted as Sturgeons. I can't wait for the Boris interview, since it appears Neil will bat three for three.

Yeah, I watched it. Corbyn came off peevish and was evasive at times that didn't make sense. That said, at other times Corbyn made good points and came off principled, especially on the waspi issue, while Neil seemed a bit obsessed with bean counting and bizarre specifics and hypotheticals (he did this with Sturgeon, too).

Truth be told, the more entertaining - and who knows, maybe informative - viewing was the online commentary reaction. Corbyn's backers were out in force saying he did well. Corbyn's opponents were as shrill and hyperbolic as ever. I struggle to see how either side's efforts will change anyone's opinion.
Logged
CumbrianLeftie
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,001
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #932 on: November 26, 2019, 07:27:02 PM »

What about Swinson - has Neil interviewed her already or did I just imagine it?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,488
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #933 on: November 26, 2019, 07:29:44 PM »

What about Swinson - has Neil interviewed her already or did I just imagine it?

No, that inevitable fiasco (I mean they're all going to be trainwrecks, the only question would be the size...) is yet to come. She had a bad ordinary interview with him about a month ago, apparently, which would explain your confusion.
Logged
God-Empress Stacey I of House Abrams
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,824
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #934 on: November 26, 2019, 09:13:04 PM »
« Edited: November 26, 2019, 10:49:01 PM by Mangez des pommes ! »

Well, at least all the leaders will presumably sit through the whole interview and not ragequit 10 minutes in. Which is more than can be said for a certain transatlantic "intellectual". Grin
Logged
Oryxslayer
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,075


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #935 on: November 26, 2019, 10:31:19 PM »

Okay, so since YouGov should be releasing a 2019 version of their very accurate 2017 model, I figured I will do a breakdown of their previous model. I know it’s late and most actual residents will be asleep, but I need to get this out in case YouGov’s model is released while I am asleep. There will be quite a lot of people, very likely some who are prominent, who will claim this is the word of god, and that we already know the end result. It is therefore prudent for me to look at what parts of the model we should trust, and what parts we should treat with as much skepticism as other election models.

Firstly, YouGov did not include Northern Ireland in their model last time around. If they do, it will hurt their model since Northern Irish politics do not necessarily conform to swing. Sectarian politics mean there is little swing between blocks, and it is all personalistic turnout. If they do add in a projection for Northern Ireland, we should therefore treat it with appropriate skepticism. From here forward, we are only going to concern ourselves with the 632 seats in Britain.

Including the Speaker, YouGov’s topline numbers last time around were 42% Conservative and 38% Labour, with 304 seats for team blue and 269 for Corbyn. If we only focus on this topline, then the model is exceedingly accurate, within the appropriate Margin of Error. They actually undershot Labour but 2% in the popular vote, but undershot the Conservatives in seats. Most of the errors between the big two can be explained by Scotland, which I will get to in a moment. If there was a house effect in the 2017 numbers, if projected Labour to be more vote efficient in England than it actually was. The topline is trustworthy, no matter how much it ends up differing or conforming to our herding expectations.

Going into the weeds a bit, YouGov got many of the most shocking calls of the night right in their seat-by-seat projections: Darlington staying red, Canterbury flipping to Labour, and Kensington throwing off the Tories. However, they also missed a few Labour-Tory calls, which can be seen below. The way how YouGov’s model worked on a seat by seat basis is they gave each party a ‘high’ and a ‘low’ forming an MOE in each seat. Seats were not really outside of their MOE, even when they were miscalls for the party. Therefore, we can conclude that the ‘secret sauce’ used between Labour and the Conservatives is going to have the final 2019 results somewhere within their MOE.


Seats that the  YouGov model projected incorrectly, colored for incorrect winner

It’s here where the model gets a bit less trustworthy. Focusing on English and welsh third parties as a whole the model fails to capture the level their vote was concentrated. This is understandable even when your model has a ton of respondents and data behind it. There are less PC and LIB voters numerically. It’s clear that those parties powered by tactical voting, localist campaigns, and concentrated voter activation are hard to model. The model gave the Lib-Dems 8 seats (one of which is Ceredigion so it’s also wrong), 2 seats for the PCs, and had Claire Wright win East Devon. For example, most models will decry the fact that Finchley and Golders Green can go Lib-Dem after returning less than 10% for team orange in 2017, but I don’t think anyone will be surprised if the seat has a 40% swing in two weeks.


Scottish Seats that the  YouGov model projected incorrectly, colored for incorrect winner

Finally, there is the peculiarity of Scotland. While labour on its own seems like the most underpolled, getting projected at one seat but winning seven, there is a general trend of the unionists overall getting polled at less seat than they should. On some level, this is similar to the Liberal Democrats getting undercounted when it comes to seats – tactical voting isn’t captured by models. Concentrated unionist strength flipped more seats than even weighted swing projected. For two cycles now Scotland has had a political trajectory unique to herself, and we should therefore not count out for tactical voting between the four in some fashion.

In Conclusion, respect the Red-Blue topline, be rationally skeptical of the minors and Scottish seats.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,075


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #936 on: November 26, 2019, 10:37:32 PM »

Hard Data on Mistaken Seats

Median Projected/Actual

(Many other actual margins were not near the projected average, but said errors did not result in seat flips)

Bolton West: 44.7% Labour, 43.9% Conservative / 47.9% Conservative, 46.1% Labour

Broxtowe: 44.8% Labour, 44% Conservative / 46.8% Conservative 45.3% Labour

Calder Valley: 46.2% Labour, 42.5% Conservative / 46.1% Conservative, 45.1% Labour

Carlisle: 47.1% Labour, 44.7% Conservative / 49.9% Conservative, 43.8% Labour

Copeland: 47.6% Labour, 42.7% Conservative / 49.1% Conservative, 43.1% Labour

Corby: 45.9% Labour, 44.1% Conservative / 49.2% Conservative, 44.7% Labour

Crewe and Nantwich: 44.8% Conservative, 44.5% Labour / 47.1% Labour, 47% Conservative

Finchley and Golders Green: 48.1% Labour, 37.5% Conservative / 47% Conservative, 43.8% Labour

Halifax: 45.3% Conservative, 44.6% Labour / 52.8%  Labour, 41.7% Conservative

Hastings & Rye: 48.3% Labour, 39.9% Conservative / 46.9% Conservative, 46.2% Labour

Hendon: 46.3% Labour, 40% Conservative / 48% Conservative, 46% Labour

North East Derbyshire: 45.6% Labour, 42.7% Conservative / 49.2% Conservative, 43.5% Labour

Peterborough: 46.6% Conservative, 45.6% Labour / 48.1% Labour, 46.6% Conservative

Portsmouth South: 35.9% Conservative, 35.4% Labour, 20.8% Lib-Dem / 41% Labour, 37.5% Conservative, 17.3% Lib-Dem

Pudsey: 47.4% Labour, 45.4% Conservative / 47.4% Conservative, 46.7% Labour

Preseli Pembrokeshire: 43.4% Labour, 39.8% Conservative / 43.4% Conservative, 42.6% Labour

Southampton Itchen: 46.5% Labour, 43.9% Conservative / 46.5% Conservative 46.5% Labour.

South Swindon: 48.8% Labour, 39% Conservative / 48.4% Conservative, 43.6% Labour

Stockton South: 45% Conservative, 44.4% Labour / 48.5% Labour, 46.9% Conservative

Thurrock: 45.4% Labour, 37% Conservative, 15.1% UKIP / 39.5% Conservative, 38.8% Labour, 20.1% UKIP

Walsall North: 44.5% Labour, 43.1% Conservative / 49.6% Conservative, 42.8% Labour

Third Party Seats

Arfon: 40.9% Labour, 36.8% Plaid, 20.7% Conservative / 40.8% Plaid, 40.5% Labour, 16.4% Conservative

Carshalton and Wallington: 40.8% Conservative, 36.2% Lib-Dem, 19.6% Labour / 41% Lib-Dem, 38.3% Conservative, 18.4% Labour

Ceredigion: 32.9% Lib-Dem, 22.1% Labour, 19.7% Plaid, 18.4% Conservative / 29.2% Plaid, 29% Lib-Dem, 20.2% Labour, 18.4% Conservative

Eastbourne: 43.5% Conservative, 41.2% Lib-Dem, 13.8% Labour / 46.9% Lib-Dem, 44.1% Conservative, 8.1% Labour

East Devon:
48.4% Indie, 34% Conservative / 48.5% Conservative, 35.2% Indie

North Norflok: 41.7% Conservative, 40.9% Lib-Dem, 17.4% Labour / 48.4% Lib-Dem, 41.7% Conservative, 9.9% Labour

Oxford West and Abingdon: 41.2% Conservative, 39.5% Lib-Dem, 16.7% Labour / 43.8% Lib-Dem, 42.4% Conservative, 12.6% Labour


Scottish Seats

(Scottish Politics is too hectic for percentages like the above seats)

Aberdeen South: SNP / Conservative

Angus: SNP / Conservative

Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock: SNP / Conservative

Banff and Buchan:
SNP / Conservative

Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross: SNP / Lib-Dem

Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill: SNP / Labour

East Lothian: SNP / Labour

Glasgow North East: SNP / Labour

Gordon: SNP / Conservative

Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath: SNP / Labour

Midlothian: SNP / Labour

Perth and North Perthshire: Conservative / SNP

Rutherglen and Hamilton West: SNP / Labour

Stirling: SNP / Conservative
Logged
Arkansas Yankee
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,175
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #937 on: November 26, 2019, 10:57:01 PM »

I'd argue the focus on Labour anti-semitism is perfectly proportionate - quite aside from the various horrorshows with e.g. holocaust deniers in the party, there are still way too many people who clearly have antisemitic attitudes to some degree (thinking in particular of the people who can't discuss it for two sentences without mentioning Israel). It's bad and we deserve the kicking we've been taking for it.

There is an issue in that racist attitudes in other parties don't receive sufficient attention, but I don't think we should be getting an easier ride to compensate.

Proportionate focus maybe, but the level of vitriol directed at Labour/Corbyn is totally out or proportion to the substance of the allegations being made. Granted, the tenor of the dialogue isn't much worse than, say, any random flame war about Israel or Trump or the EU/Brexit. But that's a pretty low bar to set.

I guess that is matter of opinion that even Tony Blair does not agree with you. Corbyn’s interview with Andrew Neil was a real disaster for Corbyn.
Logged
Arkansas Yankee
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,175
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #938 on: November 26, 2019, 11:02:11 PM »

So Corbyn had a horrible interview with Neil, though it wasn't as well roasted as Sturgeons. I can't wait for the Boris interview, since it appears Neil will bat three for three.
He still has to interview Swinson, too.  I think he will go 4 for 4.  If he gets Farage he’ll be 5 for 5.

But to make up ground Corbyn has to get positive reviews.
Logged
Arkansas Yankee
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,175
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #939 on: November 27, 2019, 12:51:07 AM »
« Edited: November 27, 2019, 01:01:11 AM by Arkansas Yankee »

Antisemitism was not Corbyn’s only problem in the interview.  He could not explain funding for his wild spending. Admitted lower income earners would pay more taxes.   Could not say he would give an order to kill a terrorist leader.  He could not explain how a  Britain he led could fit into NATO. He could not explain his Brexit position.

Everything in the interview was a disaster.

I actually think Boris will do ok in comparison.

Swinson will have to continue maintain she will not make Corbyn PM. That should lead to some interesting questions.
Logged
DaWN
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,384
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #940 on: November 27, 2019, 06:25:51 AM »



Fascinating thread on Tory prospects in the Home Counties. I'm not sure I think there's any prospects for more than one or two seat flips, but it certainly backs up what cp has been saying about his own seat on this forum. Perhaps we're in for an election where the Tories win a bunch of Labour heartlands in the North but lose Esher? Probably not, but interesting nonetheless.
Logged
Ishan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,426
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.95, S: -2.98

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #941 on: November 27, 2019, 06:51:50 AM »

Swinson is as charismatic as my mom.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,075


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #942 on: November 27, 2019, 08:31:00 AM »
« Edited: November 27, 2019, 08:36:15 AM by Oryxslayer »



Fascinating thread on Tory prospects in the Home Counties. I'm not sure I think there's any prospects for more than one or two seat flips, but it certainly backs up what cp has been saying about his own seat on this forum. Perhaps we're in for an election where the Tories win a bunch of Labour heartlands in the North but lose Esher? Probably not, but interesting nonetheless.

Heres my list of Realistically Possible (aka anything less than 99% chance of Con victory) Tory losses in the SW right now:

Wokingham, Reading West, Guildford, E&W, Wycombe, and Isle of Wight, Lewes, Hastings & Rye, Southampton Itchen, Winchester, Crawley, Spelthorne, Witney, Wantage, and the Milton Keynes.

That isn't much in one of the largest 'regions' of the UK. The problem for the opposition is that the Tories have large majorities, and if the Lib-Dems don't pour resources into every seat they will not see voters get activated. The majorities needed to be seriously reduced in a previous election, or the Lib-Dems needed to catch fire and be able to run a national not a targeted campaign. At the start of this campaign there was a serious chance of the SW holding a bunch of Tory loses, (I once mentioned the data was there for May to have a portillo moment if invested against) but the parties don't seem to want to serious campaign for Tory Remainers in the SW, outside of targeted strongholds.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,649


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #943 on: November 27, 2019, 09:17:30 AM »

A few points on Scotland last time.

The Tory gains, other than Stirling were not marginal. This is strongly indicative that they were 'won' before the campaign. It also makes them difficult to pick off this time.

The polls picked up a Labour surge but again missed the strength of it. Hence Labour's unexpected 'bawhair' gains from the SNP which were probably gained in the last few days. There was iirc a huge shift in 18-34 voting intentions during the campaign from SNP to Labour with no such shift in 55+ voters. These are easier regains for the SNP...on paper.

There was also a 're-sort' of No voters voting intentions continuing on from the 2016 Holyrood elections.
 

Logged
Babeuf
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 327


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #944 on: November 27, 2019, 10:43:56 AM »

Corbyn must be crazy, if he thinks anyone in the US wants to buy the NHS.

I am 76.  I have good medical insurance.  I would have little interest in dealing with the NHS.
He's not talking about individual Americans lol
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,488
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #945 on: November 27, 2019, 11:32:58 AM »

Can we please not have partisan slanging matches in this thread?
Logged
Oryxslayer
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,075


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #946 on: November 27, 2019, 11:50:54 AM »

Yes, if you wish to open a discussion on Corbyns 'leaks' (I mean they were just sitting on Reddit) it's the perfect topic for the international discussion board. We're here to discuss their impact electorally. We'll have to just wait and see for the long term impact, but the fact the documents were provided to the press as well may lead to "Corbyn said this but it actually says that." Corbyn after all has an interest in making this potential gun smoke as much as possible.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,488
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #947 on: November 27, 2019, 12:00:01 PM »

Turns out that the BBC have yet to schedule a feature-length Neil interview with Johnson. It appears that everyone else signed up and were allotted slots on the assumption that everyone was one board. I don't like Corbyn and I don't like feeling bad for him,* but this is really serious, a potential breach of the BBC's commitment to balance and political impartiality. Negotiations are supposedly ongoing, but that is just not good enough: they now have to set a date and empty-chair Johnson if he doesn't show up. This is very disturbing.

*I also think Neil's style of interview does not do our democracy any favours.
Logged
Ishan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,426
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.95, S: -2.98

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #948 on: November 27, 2019, 12:02:45 PM »

Yes, if you wish to open a discussion on Corbyns 'leaks' (I mean they were just sitting on Reddit) it's the perfect topic for the international discussion board. We're here to discuss their impact electorally. We'll have to just wait and see for the long term impact, but the fact the documents were provided to the press as well may lead to "Corbyn said this but it actually says that." Corbyn after all has an interest in making this potential gun smoke as much as possible.
j

My original post on the NHS WAS MERELY TO SAY Corbyn is crazy, if he states as campaign issue that Trump wants to buy the NHs.  There is no such paperwork. It is still crazy no matter how it is explained. Do you want a crazy man running your government.
The Conservatives want to fund the NHS and I'm pretty sure that even Farage doesn't support privatizing it.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,435
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #949 on: November 27, 2019, 12:59:14 PM »

Turns out that the BBC have yet to schedule a feature-length Neil interview with Johnson. It appears that everyone else signed up and were allotted slots on the assumption that everyone was one board. I don't like Corbyn and I don't like feeling bad for him,* but this is really serious, a potential breach of the BBC's commitment to balance and political impartiality. Negotiations are supposedly ongoing, but that is just not good enough: they now have to set a date and empty-chair Johnson if he doesn't show up. This is very disturbing.

*I also think Neil's style of interview does not do our democracy any favours.

This feels like more of one of those macho, strutting 'power moves' that campaigns like to pull; distract and frazzle your opponents for half a day by doing something that hints at an action you'd never actually take, but plausible enough that people worry.

If Johnson pulled out of the interview at this stage he would likely incur a far greater level of censure than anything he might trip over saying during a grilling. It would fuel the narrative of Johnson being evasive and untrustworthy - things that he's already weak on and doesn't want to reinforce if he can help it.

I could be wrong of course. Could be that the Tories are playing hardball with Neil behind the scenes, trying to get him to promise not to ask about a certain topic (Johnson's family, mistresses, etc.)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 70  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.07 seconds with 11 queries.