United Kingdom General Elections: December 12th, 2019

[cp]

FYI, Dominic Raab is having another wretched night at the hustings in Esher & Walton. Follow Lewis Goodall for a play by play.

[Oryxslayer]

I saw the hype rise up on twitter. Everyone needs to watch Neil eviscerate Sturgeon over the entire interview. Unfortunately, the SNP will survive because they got partisan loyalists these days who will stand firm with their identity of Scottish nationalism.

[jaichind]

I am surprised the Alex Salmond scandals are not hurting SNP that much.

[afleitch]

I saw the hype rise up on twitter. Everyone needs to watch Neil eviscerate Sturgeon over the entire interview. Unfortunately, the SNP will survive because they got partisan loyalists these days who will stand firm with their identity of Scottish nationalism.

It's Andrew Neil. I wouldn't expect anything different. Also colour me shocked that partisan loyalty exists in politics.

[Oryxslayer]

YouGov's releasing a similar model to their 2017 one supposedly on Wednesday. Last time their model came out a week out from the poll, this time  it will be two weeks. Therefore, there will likely be less certainty around the results and we should expect some change similar to a 538 live model, whereas the YouGov model from last time always had a 4% Tory lead.

Now, the model wasn't as perfect as hyped to be, but it was good. I have their last editions data downloaded for an GIS analysis when this 2019 version drops. One thing that does seem to be a consistency in their previous model though is that they missed the LD (and some unionist in Scotland) tactical voting effect that we have discussed at length here.

[Blair]

Some thoughts on the Lib Dems.

1.) Expectation Management- The Lib Dems were loudly boasting about how they were going to win 50-100 seats in this election, and how the polling was showing seats in London that are on paper safe labour as being Lib-Dem picks up. This is the reason why Chukka is running in Cities and Westminster rather than Twickenham (as the party was confident both him & Berger would win) The whole 'Jo for PM' and the push for an early election meant that the current result (12-18% & 10-20 MPs) looks a lot worse than they briefed and expected.

2.) Revoke A50- The A50 revoke was a poor policy & was ironically done because they thought Labour conference would have a strong remain policy (it didn't) No data to back it up, but I imagine it did a bit of harm to the sort of soft-Liberals they need in the South-West, South and other non-FBPE type seats.

3.) Poor Leader- Why isn't it Layla Moran? Well Lib Dem Party politics for one, but as someone not involved in the coalition she would have been miles better. I actually think Swinson has the worst of  all worlds- she voted for all of it, but wasn't a large enough voice to boast about doing anything (Both Davey & Cable for their faults could point to some things they'd done) Swinson's voting record is much like how a whole crop of Labour MPs got stuck voting for Iraq and got hit for it 5-10 years later (in internal rather than external elections)

4.) Big Two- The big two parties always steal oxygen; and iirc the Liberal Democrats tend to do better with a strong Labour leader because otherwise they lose a large chunk of the voters with a 'stop Corbyn/Miliband etc'. There's a reason the party does extremely well at by-election and locals, rather than the big national elections.

[CumbrianLeftie]

ICM today had the Tories ahead by 41-34 (the latter is the highest Labour score in any poll for quite a while) Together with the Welsh survey, a modest encouragement for them that things could yet move further.

[urutzizu]

I have been reading through the Tory manifesto and there strike me to be some quite severe inconsistencies on immigration policy, perhaps even deliberate ones:

They say the want an "Australian-style points system" where there is no preference on country of origin but rather only on points allocated based of education, english skills, criminal record etc. But they also say that they will bring down overall immigration numbers (p.20). And they state that immigrants entering will need a clear job offer.    

But that is not how the Australian system (or the Canadian one for that matter) work at all. Points-based Systems work on the principle that a job offer is not contingent for immigrating - those with a job offer and sponsored by their employer have already proven that their skills are needed - the Tory plans seem to impose double requirements - that defeats the entire point behind a points-based system.
Also Points-based systems do not decrease the numbers immigrating - quite the opposite - Australia and Canada have far higher immigration per capita then Britain does. Some 30% of Australias population is born abroad.
My hunch is that they are (or they are banking on voters) confusing it with Australias policy of mandatory offshore detention for asylum seekers - but that has nothing to do with a points-based system.

They also want to stop people with criminal records (p.21) entering and also ban people from entering with EU national ID cards that can be forged easier than passports. But this cannot be enforced de facto. Ireland would still be obliged under EU law to accept EU citizens with criminal records and ID cards. Anyone could then freely pass on into NI and then into GB without any Border Checks.

This is not thought out.

[Coastal Elitist]

ICM today had the Tories ahead by 41-34 (the latter is the highest Labour score in any poll for quite a while) Together with the Welsh survey, a modest encouragement for them that things could yet move further.

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

I also noticed some weird regional crosstabs in other polls. Like the tories were leading in London in one and Scotland in another. Another one had Labour at 66% in the North East. They seem to be all over the place.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I have been reading through the Tory manifesto and there strike me to be some quite severe inconsistencies on immigration policy, perhaps even deliberate ones:

They say the want an "Australian-style points system" where there is no preference on country of origin but rather only on points allocated based of education, english skills, criminal record etc. But they also say that they will bring down overall immigration numbers (p.20). And they state that immigrants entering will need a clear job offer.    

But that is not how the Australian system (or the Canadian one for that matter) work at all. Points-based Systems work on the principle that a job offer is not contingent for immigrating - those with a job offer and sponsored by their employer have already proven that their skills are needed - the Tory plans seem to impose double requirements - that defeats the entire point behind a points-based system.
Also Points-based systems do not decrease the numbers immigrating - quite the opposite - Australia and Canada have far higher immigration per capita then Britain does. Some 30% of Australias population is born abroad.
My hunch is that they are (or they are banking on voters) confusing it with Australias policy of mandatory offshore detention for asylum seekers - but that has nothing to do with a points-based system.

They also want to stop people with criminal records (p.21) entering and also ban people from entering with EU national ID cards that can be forged easier than passports. But this cannot be enforced de facto. Ireland would still be obliged under EU law to accept EU citizens with criminal records and ID cards. Anyone could then freely pass on into NI and then into GB without any Border Checks.

This is not thought out.

You're assuming the aim is a coherent policy. That's not the case (and we essentially already have a points-based system.) The aim is to sound tough on immigration. Whether the policy actually works is not a relevant question as far as the Tories are concerned.

ICM today had the Tories ahead by 41-34 (the latter is the highest Labour score in any poll for quite a while) Together with the Welsh survey, a modest encouragement for them that things could yet move further.

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

I also noticed some weird regional crosstabs in other polls. Like the tories were leading in London in one and Scotland in another. Another one had Labour at 66% in the North East. They seem to be all over the place.

Regional subsamples aren't demographically balanced, often have pretty tiny sample sizes and shouldn't be taken seriously. It's safest to ignore them.

[afleitch]

Here's what concerns me.

The idea that the 'Jewish community' has a disproportionate amount of influence is an anti-semitic trope and not worthy of time or effort. However the focus on anti-semitism in Labour is so intense as to effectively be disproportionate (and not connected to the communit), certainly in relation to Islamophobic comments/views held and expressed by not only by your garden variety gammon, but by increasingly Modi influenced Hindu nationalists. Or some of the continuing attacks on women, such as the deliberate targeting of Stella Creasy by pro-life hardliners.

This isn't a reflection of any perceived collateral the Jewish community has, but is more a reflection of the motivations of politicians and the press who quite frankly don't give a sh!t about dogwhistle anti-semitism (see Ed Miliband's dad 2015)

I'm also increasingly concerned at how 'online' discourse on the right is. Like the use of the term 'Marxist' being used unironically in a lobster daddy way, the celebration of Boris' moral failings and the over arching theme of trying to 'own' the remainers.

[afleitch]

A link on the Stella Creasy situation

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/16/police-move-on-abortion-group-targeting-stella-creasy

Currently pregnant she is being targeted by a variety of pro-life groups (some unsurprisingly US linked)for helping move Northern Ireland towards the rUK's not exactly liberal abortion legislation.

[EastAnglianLefty]

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.

[cp]

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.

[Walmart_shopper]

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.

Yes, but the reflexive labeling of criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitic" is a really bad and Israel-supported habit that only makes it easier for people to shrug off authentic cases of racism. Does anyone really doubt that Jezza and Labour are subject to such scaremongering for any other reason than their rejection of the pro-Israel political narrative? This is mainly about Labour posing a considerable problem for Israel and not about actual anti-Semitism, even if there is a problem with anti-Semitism within some parts of Labour (just as there are anti-Semitic tendencies across the political spectrum in Europe). Reducing the anti-Semitism discussion to an obviously morally imperfect State of Israel is the dumbest thing in the world, but certain Jewish leaders and people looking to make political gain from them keep doing it, to their own detriment.

[Oryxslayer]

I have a lot to say on Antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other scapegoating within various European parties, but since nobody has the audacity to deny that this is an issue for Corybn and Labour then I think I will hold my tongue.

Anyway,

 https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1199302074330206209

On one hand, it's a big Labour gain. On the other  hand, said gains just bring the poll into line with the rest of the pack, so it may just be herding or weighting for Brexit voters.

[Oryxslayer]

YouGov poll remains with the  pack.

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1199372537836253184

[rob in cal]

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

[jaichind]

The CON-LAB gap does to be trending downward.

[Oryxslayer]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Oryxslayer]

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.

[cp]

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.

[CumbrianLeftie]

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