United Kingdom General Election: July 4, 2024

[CumbrianLefty]

The polls in Scotland have been gradually trending to Labour for around two years, though. The idea that - even leaving aside actual "events, dear boy" - the SNP would maintain its previous dominance if Labour were cleaning up in England was never that credible. Some people just like to back winners.

[DL]

is it plausible to think the Tories would win even 6 seats in Scotland when there support is down as much as it is? I know that if you do a strict swing analysis there are some seats that were close SNP/Tory contests last time that would notionally go Tory now because the SNP vote is down even more than than the Tory vote compared to 2019 - but I wonder if that will happen in real life or whether SNP losses will be more in areas where Labour is competitive and they may hold their own in seats where they are the clear tactical anti-Tory choice?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As I've noted before, the biggest single mystery of this election looks (at present) to be the performance of the Conservatives in Scotland: it is quite plausible that it may be a rare ray of light in an otherwise extremely bleak night, but it is equally plausible that they might get wiped out again, and I'm not sure if we'll get a clear indication either way until the votes start to be counted.

[Oryxslayer]

is it plausible to think the Tories would win even 6 seats in Scotland when there support is down as much as it is? I know that if you do a strict swing analysis there are some seats that were close SNP/Tory contests last time that would notionally go Tory now because the SNP vote is down even more than than the Tory vote compared to 2019 - but I wonder if that will happen in real life or whether SNP losses will be more in areas where Labour is competitive and they may hold their own in seats where they are the clear tactical anti-Tory choice?

It's hard to do swing calculations based on the national picture in Scotland, maybe even mistake. Cause the picture is Unionist vs Nationalist to many, with the national overall mood just determining who has the opportunity against the SNP in the most areas.

So yes, we should expect more two-way races - with say approximately 80% of the vote for the top two - than the overall picture shows. This is of course cause a section of the Unionist vote is after more than a decade of SNP realignment are primed to vote tactically. Yes, this includes Labour for the Conservatives and Conservatives for Labour. There is plenty of local and by-elections from just last year if you need it.

Obviously, the people who will vote tactically are not the SNP -> Labour voters. The seats where those votes will matter are numerous and in the central belt. There, the Labour coalition will be Regular Labour votes, SNP -> Labour, and tactical voters from the Tories and Lib-Dems. Despite the differing reasons for voting Labour, with each group likely needing it's own messaging, the overall result is a wide coalition. This is why Rutherglen was such a blowout. It's also probably the case that this same coalition exists for the Lib-Dems in their 4 mainland targets, except maybe in Caithness.

The issue with the Tory seats is that the coalition is very different. Yes, the Tories are down nationally. But when we look at things from the Unionist perspective, why would a voter who has a unionist MP right now risk letting in the SNP? They have incentives to vote Tory even if their true preferences would be Labour in the the vast majority of seats. Similarly, the SNP -> Lab voters are not going to be voting for a hardline Unionist position. So the vast majority are going to stay with the SNP with the minority maybe voting for one of the minor parties if they can't stomach the SNP after the scandals. So the Tories hold their own, even during a overall disaster.

These differences in voter behavior are not captured by the simple swing models, which is why its hard to explain. For these Labour takes much more from the SNP than the Cons, which pushes the SNP below the Tories in their current seats. It's this nuance that leads to theories about the Tories gaining a seat or two off a energized and tactical Labour base, cause they are still going to be the Unionist candidate in a few more seats than their present 6. It's also why there has been previously large swings in the seat count - in both directions - and likely will be once more.

[Harry Hayfield]

Change in region on Election 2019
Great Britain: Con -22% Lab +14% Lib Dem -3% SNP -2% Con to Lab swing: 18%
Scotland: SNP -12% Lab +17% Con -9% Lib Dem -3% Con to Lab swing: 13%
Wales: Lab +6% Con -14% Plaid +1% Lib Dem unchanged Reform +5% Con to Lab swing: 10%

That suggests that Scotland and Wales are lagging behind England in Labour's popularity and therefore it is possible that Labour would only recover five of their Welsh losses to Con from 2019 and in Scotland may prevent the SNP from wining any of their Con targets

[patzer]

Well, Wales has the popular backlash to 20mph, and Scotland has tactical unionist voting for the Tories in parts of the country where Labour is very weak.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well, Wales has the popular backlash to 20mph, and Scotland has tactical unionist voting for the Tories in parts of the country where Labour is very weak.

A significantly online thing, and almost certainly overrated as a major factor in the next GE - look at how the opposition to ULEZ in the London area has abated now most realise they won't have to pay it.

[Wiswylfen]

Well, Wales has the popular backlash to 20mph, and Scotland has tactical unionist voting for the Tories in parts of the country where Labour is very weak.

Really? I thought that was in Sunderland.

[Conservatopia]

Well, Wales has the popular backlash to 20mph, and Scotland has tactical unionist voting for the Tories in parts of the country where Labour is very weak.

A significantly online thing, and almost certainly overrated as a major factor in the next GE - look at how the opposition to ULEZ in the London area has abated now most realise they won't have to pay it.

It's definitely a real offline backlash and a rather different issue to ULEZ, but I doubt it will change many votes so you're right overall. It's unlikely a factor in the relative performance versus England.

Well, Wales has the popular backlash to 20mph, and Scotland has tactical unionist voting for the Tories in parts of the country where Labour is very weak.

Really? I thought that was in Sunderland.

[YL]

YouGov have some polling in various demographic groups; see the Twitter thread starting below for details.

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1752281504728707076

- the usual ridiculous age divide
- something of an education divide, though note that this seems to be mostly among older voters
- weak gender gap
- little effect of "class" (though of course they mean the dubious ABCDE system)

Caveat: I don't know how well weighted these samples are. Caveat 2: as usual I suspect Reform UK are over-polled (but note how like Tories their supporters look).

[Pericles]

Horrific trends for the Tories and what a humiliation to just throw away a realignment. I know that Labour getting only 44% of 2017-2019 switchers will be made the story by some people, of course that's way better than the 29% the Tories are clinging to with this group.

[JimJamUK]

- the usual ridiculous age divide
- something of an education divide, though note that this seems to be mostly among older voters
- weak gender gap
- little effect of "class" (though of course they mean the dubious ABCDE system)

A shame they didn’t break this down by age as well, as IIRC previous breakdowns show a decent bit of social grade voting once you separate out by age group. Of course, if they showed this regularly then it might undermine the methodological choice in the 1st place…

[DL]

I'm a bit mystified at how the Tories still manage to do as well as they do among people 70 and over. Its not as if the Labour Party is some newfangled party that old people have never voted for. Briton who are 70+ are of a generation who likely would have voted in large numbers for Labour in the 70s and 80s and again in the big Blair landslides. So who are the people who consistently voted Labour in the 70s, 80s, 90s and to some extent in the 00s - who are now steadfastly sticking with the Tories under Sunak or else flirting with Reform UK?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Different polling firms often show quite different patterns, and (for whatever reason) YouGov's have shown a particularly extreme one for age for quite some time. This may relate to their surveying methods (though, for a complicated set of other reasons, this does not actually invalidate headline polling numbers).

Anyway, what is true regardless is that a certain proportion of people over a certain age (not everyone! Not a majority! Not close to it!) did very well out of now phased-out workplace pension schemes and consequentially swung about a mile to the right on retirement. Government policies have also tended to insulate, again especially better off, pensioners from economic shocks and from the impact of the austerity policies that characterized the first half of the Conservatives now long stint in power.

[JimJamUK]

I'm a bit mystified at how the Tories still manage to do as well as they do among people 70 and over. Its not as if the Labour Party is some newfangled party that old people have never voted for. Briton who are 70+ are of a generation who likely would have voted in large numbers for Labour in the 70s and 80s and again in the big Blair landslides. So who are the people who consistently voted Labour in the 70s, 80s, 90s and to some extent in the 00s - who are now steadfastly sticking with the Tories under Sunak or else flirting with Reform UK?

Quite a large number of people. Overwhelmingly they voted Leave (and hold correlated socially conservative/authoritarian views) and have done relatively well out of the current government (the state pension has risen faster than other benefits, and ridiculous property prices benefit people who largely own their own home).

Honestly, Labour should be content that they are getting a noticeably average swing among pensioners, somewhat unwinding the massive swing to the Tories over the last few elections. That the Tories still lead among them just shows how massive that swing really has been.

[Oryxslayer]

I'm a bit mystified at how the Tories still manage to do as well as they do among people 70 and over. Its not as if the Labour Party is some newfangled party that old people have never voted for. Briton who are 70+ are of a generation who likely would have voted in large numbers for Labour in the 70s and 80s and again in the big Blair landslides. So who are the people who consistently voted Labour in the 70s, 80s, 90s and to some extent in the 00s - who are now steadfastly sticking with the Tories under Sunak or else flirting with Reform UK?

The normal way to understand age gaps (beyond the classic argument of changing cultures and one party no longer appearing to a voter the same as it once was) is differential turnout. People who enter the electorate ASAP with passion and ideals tend to gravitate towards parties promising those ideals and change. That in many countries means the Left, but in many more with less glamour means the Right.  As the overall electorate ages though, more and more people enter the voter pool and progressively drown out the ideologically committed. And the later you enter the pool, more often the issues that will motivate you align with parties most in tune with your generation. Retired cohorts usually have the highest turnout, meaning new voters who care about retiree issues.


Then there is also the morbid theory that people who worked in the mines, factories, and other strenuous jobs from that time are going to die earlier. Not exactly young, but health complications are going to be more prevalent than commuting for a 9-5 from one's London suburb. Not sure how much weight one should assign to this over other explanations though.

[morgieb]

YouGov have some polling in various demographic groups; see the Twitter thread starting below for details.

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1752281504728707076
- the usual ridiculous age divide
- something of an education divide, though note that this seems to be mostly among older voters
- weak gender gap
- little effect of "class" (though of course they mean the dubious ABCDE system)

Caveat: I don't know how well weighted these samples are. Caveat 2: as usual I suspect Reform UK are over-polled (but note how like Tories their supporters look).

So assuming I'm reading this correctly (I might not be) the Tories are 4th amongst under 40's? Wow. How on earth do they expect to win elections going forward?

[TheTide]

YouGov have some polling in various demographic groups; see the Twitter thread starting below for details.

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1752281504728707076
- the usual ridiculous age divide
- something of an education divide, though note that this seems to be mostly among older voters
- weak gender gap
- little effect of "class" (though of course they mean the dubious ABCDE system)

Caveat: I don't know how well weighted these samples are. Caveat 2: as usual I suspect Reform UK are over-polled (but note how like Tories their supporters look).

So assuming I'm reading this correctly (I might not be) the Tories are 4th amongst under 40's? Wow. How on earth do they expect to win elections going forward?

They shouldn't expect anything, but circumstances do change. They weren't that far behind Labour amongst young voters (still under 40 now of course) in 2015. That said, the problem is that parties such as the Lib Dems could potentially take their place as the more market orientated party. The lack of political talent within the Tories is also a pretty obvious issue.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Then there is also the morbid theory that people who worked in the mines, factories, and other strenuous jobs from that time are going to die earlier. Not exactly young, but health complications are going to be more prevalent than commuting for a 9-5 from one's London suburb. Not sure how much weight one should assign to this over other explanations though.

Glasgow aside, I don't think you'll see that effect in crosstabs where the oldest group is 70+. What may be more relevant is years of good health - if you're 85 and in good health, you're more likely to still be voting than somebody who is effectively housebound and a decade younger.

[DL]

I'm a bit mystified at how the Tories still manage to do as well as they do among people 70 and over. Its not as if the Labour Party is some newfangled party that old people have never voted for. Briton who are 70+ are of a generation who likely would have voted in large numbers for Labour in the 70s and 80s and again in the big Blair landslides. So who are the people who consistently voted Labour in the 70s, 80s, 90s and to some extent in the 00s - who are now steadfastly sticking with the Tories under Sunak or else flirting with Reform UK?

The normal way to understand age gaps (beyond the classic argument of changing cultures and one party no longer appearing to a voter the same as it once was) is differential turnout. People who enter the electorate ASAP with passion and ideals tend to gravitate towards parties promising those ideals and change. That in many countries means the Left, but in many more with less glamour means the Right.  As the overall electorate ages though, more and more people enter the voter pool and progressively drown out the ideologically committed. And the later you enter the pool, more often the issues that will motivate you align with parties most in tune with your generation. Retired cohorts usually have the highest turnout, meaning new voters who care about retiree issues.


Then there is also the morbid theory that people who worked in the mines, factories, and other strenuous jobs from that time are going to die earlier. Not exactly young, but health complications are going to be more prevalent than commuting for a 9-5 from one's London suburb. Not sure how much weight one should assign to this over other explanations though.

FWIW we don't see quite the same pattern in other Anglo countries - in the US Biden tends to do better among those over 65 than he does among 45-64 year olds. Similarly in Canada about the only groups that still favours the Trudeau Liberals are women over 65!

[TheTide]

This is a good thread. Quite a bit that goes against what is usually assumed or remembered.

https://twitter.com/RealLiv04/status/1752363471587491850?s=20

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Anyway, what is true regardless is that a certain proportion of people over a certain age (not everyone! Not a majority! Not close to it!) did very well out of now phased-out workplace pension schemes and consequentially swung about a mile to the right on retirement.

Come to think of it, I'm reasonably sure that every British-based poster here will know at least one person like this, and probably multiple.

[Wiswylfen]

Anyway, what is true regardless is that a certain proportion of people over a certain age (not everyone! Not a majority! Not close to it!) did very well out of now phased-out workplace pension schemes and consequentially swung about a mile to the right on retirement.

Come to think of it, I'm reasonably sure that every British-based poster here will know at least one person like this, and probably multiple.

Can't say I do.

[Wiswylfen]

YouGov have some polling in various demographic groups; see the Twitter thread starting below for details.

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1752281504728707076
- the usual ridiculous age divide
- something of an education divide, though note that this seems to be mostly among older voters
- weak gender gap
- little effect of "class" (though of course they mean the dubious ABCDE system)

Caveat: I don't know how well weighted these samples are. Caveat 2: as usual I suspect Reform UK are over-polled (but note how like Tories their supporters look).

So assuming I'm reading this correctly (I might not be) the Tories are 4th amongst under 40's? Wow. How on earth do they expect to win elections going forward?

They haven't understood that they're going to die yet.

[Vosem]

Not to be morbid, but life expectancy in most developed countries is in the late 70s or early 80s. By the time you hit 70 a significant number of individuals have died, and you don't really have a cross-section of society; the people you do have will be disproportionately successful in many ways, and in particular they will have been healthier during their lives.

How much worse than 1997 can the result be expected to be for the Tories in terms of seat count, given depolarization since then? Is something like "Liberal Democrats become the Official Opposition" a pipe dream or a realistic prospect? (Also, there's a lot of skepticism over the 'Reform UK' surge being real. Is there a time when we'll know whether it is or isn't? Also, are most 'Reform UK' voters individuals who despise the Tories but can't actually envision themselves voting for a party not on the right, or are they against-all voters who might well end up casting a vote for Labour or the Lib Dems to turf the Sunak government?)

https://twitter.com/RealLiv04/status/1752363475123237110

I found the Leader of the Opposition rankings fascinating -- Britain didn't have a Watergate, so what caused the enormous decline in trust for political figures in the late 1960s? Up to the 1966 election, all the premiers and opposition leaders (...except Attlee, who set up the NHS) are above water, but then in 1970 Wilson and Heath -- the same candidates as in 1966 -- have net negative approval. Starting with 1970, Britain has had 14 election years, but only four times did an incumbent have positive net approval (Thatcher in '83, Major in '92 -- why was Labour expected to win that one again? -- Blair in '01, and May in '17, which LOL), and only twice did an opposition leader have the approval of the public (Blair in '97 and Cameron in '10, which again LOL).

What changed in the late 1960s which seemed to cause such a dramatic decline in trust in the political class? Or is this just an artifact of the way the data is presented?