United Kingdom General Election: July 4, 2024

[Hnv1]

[Oryxslayer]

Debate next week confirmed for ITV. Sunak and Starmer only. More specific details have yet to be announced.

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

Debate next week confirmed for ITV. Sunak and Starmer only. More specific details have yet to be announced.

Well this seems silly there. With the way things are going, it is not outside the realm of possibility for Reform or Lib Dem to perform effectively as well as the Conservatives. You can always direct more questions to the two leading parties. But they should have the five largest national parties for a national debate.

[Sir Mohamed]

In terms of desperate, poorly thought out policy proposals, this fake ad from a few years ago is starting to look closer to reality:

Hey, they still got a few months.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Debate next week confirmed for ITV. Sunak and Starmer only. More specific details have yet to be announced.

Well this seems silly there. With the way things are going, it is not outside the realm of possibility for Reform or Lib Dem to perform effectively as well as the Conservatives. You can always direct more questions to the two leading parties. But they should have the five largest national parties for a national debate.

I can’t see the Tories agreeing to a multi party debate, certainly not with Rishi attending. It’d be three against one (well four as they’d also invite the SNP). The Tories want a horse race that marginalises the legitimacy of the Lib Dems and Reform, they’d have to be morons to agree to a multi party debate (then again…)

And unlike in America there isn’t some historical norm of debating that he’d be embarrassingly breaking. Iirc 2010 was the first ever live debate, and just about every election before then one was mooted but rejected by a leader.

[Torrain]

Dan Hodges in shambles:
https://twitter.com/MarkerJParker/status/1795467793678078251

[afleitch]

https://twitter.com/JAHeale/status/1795455911139430537

'Verrrrry good night for the anoraks.'

[icc]

Debate next week confirmed for ITV. Sunak and Starmer only. More specific details have yet to be announced.

Well this seems silly there. With the way things are going, it is not outside the realm of possibility for Reform or Lib Dem to perform effectively as well as the Conservatives. You can always direct more questions to the two leading parties. But they should have the five largest national parties for a national debate.

I can’t see the Tories agreeing to a multi party debate, certainly not with Rishi attending. It’d be three against one (well four as they’d also invite the SNP). The Tories want a horse race that marginalises the legitimacy of the Lib Dems and Reform, they’d have to be morons to agree to a multi party debate (then again…)

And unlike in America there isn’t some historical norm of debating that he’d be embarrassingly breaking. Iirc 2010 was the first ever live debate, and just about every election before then one was mooted but rejected by a leader.

Completely wrong. The Tories would love nothing more than forcing Keir Starmer to share a stage with a load of minor party leaders (Greens, SNP, Plaid) hitting him from his left about Gaza, and it allows them to lean into their 'coalition of chaos' messaging.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Debate next week confirmed for ITV. Sunak and Starmer only. More specific details have yet to be announced.

Well this seems silly there. With the way things are going, it is not outside the realm of possibility for Reform or Lib Dem to perform effectively as well as the Conservatives. You can always direct more questions to the two leading parties. But they should have the five largest national parties for a national debate.

I can’t see the Tories agreeing to a multi party debate, certainly not with Rishi attending. It’d be three against one (well four as they’d also invite the SNP). The Tories want a horse race that marginalises the legitimacy of the Lib Dems and Reform, they’d have to be morons to agree to a multi party debate (then again…)

And unlike in America there isn’t some historical norm of debating that he’d be embarrassingly breaking. Iirc 2010 was the first ever live debate, and just about every election before then one was mooted but rejected by a leader.

Completely wrong. The Tories would love nothing more than forcing Keir Starmer to share a stage with a load of minor party leaders (Greens, SNP, Plaid) hitting him from his left about Gaza, and it allows them to lean into their 'coalition of chaos' messaging.

Why would they do that? Rishi is a consistently poor speaker and has no debating chops. They'd take turns getting free hits on the weak target that can generate soundbites for the News at Ten and social media. And ultimately however much they dislike Keir they all have far bigger beefs with this Tory government.
And for the realists in the Tory camp, the election is already lost and it's about saving the furniture. And the single biggest threat to the Tory backbenches is Reform being legitimised on a national stage and splitting the vote.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

🦀

https://twitter.com/MarwanData/status/1795186272954196368

I’m assuming the MRP would have the Lib Dems and Tories close, but with what approximate number? 50 would seem too low for the Tories, while 100 each seems too high. Granted, if it’s getting close to a Canada 1993 style wipeout, 50 could be about right.

[wbrocks67]

It's wild b/c the way that people treat the Conservative party and just continue to mock the hell out of them and their ridiculousness is the way you'd expect people here to treat the Republican party, but alas.

[icc]

Debate next week confirmed for ITV. Sunak and Starmer only. More specific details have yet to be announced.

Well this seems silly there. With the way things are going, it is not outside the realm of possibility for Reform or Lib Dem to perform effectively as well as the Conservatives. You can always direct more questions to the two leading parties. But they should have the five largest national parties for a national debate.

I can’t see the Tories agreeing to a multi party debate, certainly not with Rishi attending. It’d be three against one (well four as they’d also invite the SNP). The Tories want a horse race that marginalises the legitimacy of the Lib Dems and Reform, they’d have to be morons to agree to a multi party debate (then again…)

And unlike in America there isn’t some historical norm of debating that he’d be embarrassingly breaking. Iirc 2010 was the first ever live debate, and just about every election before then one was mooted but rejected by a leader.

Completely wrong. The Tories would love nothing more than forcing Keir Starmer to share a stage with a load of minor party leaders (Greens, SNP, Plaid) hitting him from his left about Gaza, and it allows them to lean into their 'coalition of chaos' messaging.

Why would they do that? Rishi is a consistently poor speaker and has no debating chops. They'd take turns getting free hits on the weak target that can generate soundbites for the News at Ten and social media. And ultimately however much they dislike Keir they all have far bigger beefs with this Tory government.
And for the realists in the Tory camp, the election is already lost and it's about saving the furniture. And the single biggest threat to the Tory backbenches is Reform being legitimised on a national stage and splitting the vote.

The (successful) Tory tactics in debates in 2015, 17 and 19 was to widen out the debates as far as they can to take in as many shades of fringe left opinion as possible and have their own representative try to stand above the fray. Of course that allows e.g. Plaid Cymru to have a shot at them, but those 'moments' only really serve to galvanise some strand of leftish opinion rather than actually weakening the Conservatives.

The Greens / SNP / Plaid would all absolutely take their shots against Labour, and strategically they would be correct to do so. Labour are a much bigger threat to their chances than the Conservatives.

And Sunak isn't a great debater, but he did fine standing in for Johnson in 2019. And let's not kid ourselves that there is some magnetic speaker in one of the opposition parties. Starmer, Davey, Tice, Swinney and whatever no mark is currently leading the Green Party are just as uncharismatic as Sunak.

Sunak's real weakness is not in debating his opponents (not that he's brilliant) but in interacting with the public.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Something to note is that the audiences for televised debates are already significantly smaller than in 2010. The novelty factor has worn off, which in turn means that a higher proportion of people watching will be partisans.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Debate next week confirmed for ITV. Sunak and Starmer only. More specific details have yet to be announced.

Well this seems silly there. With the way things are going, it is not outside the realm of possibility for Reform or Lib Dem to perform effectively as well as the Conservatives. You can always direct more questions to the two leading parties. But they should have the five largest national parties for a national debate.

I can’t see the Tories agreeing to a multi party debate, certainly not with Rishi attending. It’d be three against one (well four as they’d also invite the SNP). The Tories want a horse race that marginalises the legitimacy of the Lib Dems and Reform, they’d have to be morons to agree to a multi party debate (then again…)

And unlike in America there isn’t some historical norm of debating that he’d be embarrassingly breaking. Iirc 2010 was the first ever live debate, and just about every election before then one was mooted but rejected by a leader.

Completely wrong. The Tories would love nothing more than forcing Keir Starmer to share a stage with a load of minor party leaders (Greens, SNP, Plaid) hitting him from his left about Gaza, and it allows them to lean into their 'coalition of chaos' messaging.

Why would they do that? Rishi is a consistently poor speaker and has no debating chops. They'd take turns getting free hits on the weak target that can generate soundbites for the News at Ten and social media. And ultimately however much they dislike Keir they all have far bigger beefs with this Tory government.
And for the realists in the Tory camp, the election is already lost and it's about saving the furniture. And the single biggest threat to the Tory backbenches is Reform being legitimised on a national stage and splitting the vote.

The (successful) Tory tactics in debates in 2015, 17 and 19 was to widen out the debates as far as they can to take in as many shades of fringe left opinion as possible and have their own representative try to stand above the fray. Of course that allows e.g. Plaid Cymru to have a shot at them, but those 'moments' only really serve to galvanise some strand of leftish opinion rather than actually weakening the Conservatives.

The Greens / SNP / Plaid would all absolutely take their shots against Labour, and strategically they would be correct to do so. Labour are a much bigger threat to their chances than the Conservatives.

And Sunak isn't a great debater, but he did fine standing in for Johnson in 2019. And let's not kid ourselves that there is some magnetic speaker in one of the opposition parties. Starmer, Davey, Tice, Swinney and whatever no mark is currently leading the Green Party are just as uncharismatic as Sunak.

Sunak's real weakness is not in debating his opponents (not that he's brilliant) but in interacting with the public.

When you're 20 points underwater it's a bit late to try and scheme to split the opposition vote. That's irrelevant at this point. To hold whatever furniture they can the Tories need to squash Reform and try and woo some voters back from Labour. 2 hours of fearmongering about Labour Danger while pretending Reform doesn't exist vaguely serves those goals.

Something to note is that the audiences for televised debates are already significantly smaller than in 2010. The novelty factor has worn off, which in turn means that a higher proportion of people watching will be partisans.

Given that Reform voters are apparently disproportionately politically engaged, they may make up an outsized proportion of the TV audience. Given the whole campaign seems targeted towards them Rishi might play it up even more.

[WD]

Looking good Mr. Prime Minister

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1795485183073775620

[Torrain]

There's more:
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1795478013594735043

[kwabbit]

Are the models that have the Lib Dems gaining a bunch of seats while getting less than their vote share in 2019 robust? It feels like these models were built primarily using data from a string of Conservative victories and they get warped once the Conservatives fall below a certain point.

[oldtimer]

🦀

https://twitter.com/MarwanData/status/1795186272954196368

I’m assuming the MRP would have the Lib Dems and Tories close, but with what approximate number? 50 would seem too low for the Tories, while 100 each seems too high. Granted, if it’s getting close to a Canada 1993 style wipeout, 50 could be about right.

Once the Conservatives drop bellow 20% in vote share, they pretty much evaporate in terms of seats.

[oldtimer]

Are the models that have the Lib Dems gaining a bunch of seats while getting less than their vote share in 2019 robust? It feels like these models were built primarily using data from a string of Conservative victories and they get warped once the Conservatives fall below a certain point.

I think south of the Severn-Wash line the LD would get lots of seats from tactical voting like in 1997.

North of that line it's Labour, with a bit of Reform along the UKIP coast, that would be the main beneficiaries.

Here is an example of generic Tory safe midlands seat

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

2019

CON 60
LAB 15
LD 10

Now according to polls it ought to be:

CON 30
LAB 20
REF 20
LD 15

Generic safe Tory seat in the rural south:

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

2019

CON 60
LAB 15
LD 15

Now according to polls it ought to be:

CON 30
LAB 25
LD 25
REF 10

As you see it wont take much effort to completely wipeout the Conservatives, but the wipeout would benefit different parties in different cultural regions, and tactical voting could play a role to suppress the Conservative seats numbers even more.

[Oryxslayer]

Looking good Mr. Prime Minister

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1795485183073775620

The important thing about this poll is the massive 12K oversample size. This affords us the possibility to actually go into certain crosstabs, and treat them with some viability (whereas in any normal poll you are just asking to make a fool of yourself).

The following is the regional breakdowns without any don't know responces, cause those are about 10-15% across the board:

Northeast (330 weighted):

53% Labour
24% Conservative
14% RefUK
6% Lib-Dem
3% Green

Northwest (907 weighted):

58% Labour
17% Conservative
11% RefUK
6% Green
5% Lib-Dem
3% Other

Yorkshire (668 weighted):

51% Labour
21% Conservative
18% RefUK
4% Green
3% Lib-Dem
3% Other

West Midlands (741 Weighted):

51% Labour
22% Conservative
14% RefUK
8% Lib-Dem
4% Green

East Midlands (526 weighted):

44% Labour
24% Conservative
14% RefUK
13% Lib-Dem
4% Green

East (826 weighted):

46% Labour
22% Conservative
17% RefUK
9% Lib-Dem
6% Green

Southwest (759 weighted):

40% Labour
23% Conservative
20% Lib-Dem
11% RefUK
4% Green
2% Other

Southeast (1135 weighted):

40% Labour
26% Conservative
13% Lib-Dem
13% RefUK
6% Green
2% Other

London (1199 weighted):

45% Labour
26% Conservative
11% Lib-Dem
10% RefUK
7% Green
2% Other



Scotland (809 weighted):

35% Labour
28% SNP
22% Conservative
7% RefUK
5% Lib-Dem
2% Green
1% Other

Wales (457 weighted):

45% Labour
25% Conservative
13% RefUK
10% Plaid Cymru
4% Lib-Dem
3% Green


Is there anything interesting here? The relatively even distribution of support for all non-Lib-Dem parties makes me wonder if these have just become larger versions of the same skeptical crosstabs as regular polls. Same with the large Lib-Dem number in the east midlands (maybe the excel file had east and east midlands flipped?) but lacking any targets whatsoever.

[kwabbit]

Are the models that have the Lib Dems gaining a bunch of seats while getting less than their vote share in 2019 robust? It feels like these models were built primarily using data from a string of Conservative victories and they get warped once the Conservatives fall below a certain point.

I think south of the Severn-Wash line the LD would get lots of seats from tactical voting like in 1997.

North of that line it's Labour, with a bit of Reform along the UKIP coast, that would be the main beneficiaries.

Here is an example of generic Tory safe midlands seat

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

2019

CON 60
LAB 15
LD 10

Now according to polls it ought to be:

CON 30
LAB 20
REF 20
LD 15

Generic safe Tory seat in the rural south:

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

2019

CON 60
LAB 15
LD 15

Now according to polls it ought to be:

CON 30
LAB 25
LD 25
REF 10

As you see it wont take much effort to completely wipeout the Conservatives, but the wipeout would benefit different parties in different cultural regions, and tactical voting could play a role to suppress the Conservative seats numbers even more.

I'm assuming national polls can't capture movement from tactical voting then? It seems like the Lib Dems would have to rise in vote share to win those seats, given that they are projected to majorly benefit from tactical voting in 10-20% of the electorate, but it would also make sense if national polls could not pick up on that. Basically the difference between the party vote and the constituency vote in MMP.

[Torrain]

Are the models that have the Lib Dems gaining a bunch of seats while getting less than their vote share in 2019 robust? It feels like these models were built primarily using data from a string of Conservative victories and they get warped once the Conservatives fall below a certain point.

Lib Dem tactical voting spikes in elections when the Tories leave office, making it much more efficient. In 1997, they received a lower share of the vote than in 1992, but more than doubled their seat count, from 20 to 46.

[oldtimer]

Are the models that have the Lib Dems gaining a bunch of seats while getting less than their vote share in 2019 robust? It feels like these models were built primarily using data from a string of Conservative victories and they get warped once the Conservatives fall below a certain point.

I think south of the Severn-Wash line the LD would get lots of seats from tactical voting like in 1997.

North of that line it's Labour, with a bit of Reform along the UKIP coast, that would be the main beneficiaries.

Here is an example of generic Tory safe midlands seat

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

2019

CON 60
LAB 15
LD 10

Now according to polls it ought to be:

CON 30
LAB 20
REF 20
LD 15

Generic safe Tory seat in the rural south:

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

2019

CON 60
LAB 15
LD 15

Now according to polls it ought to be:

CON 30
LAB 25
LD 25
REF 10

As you see it wont take much effort to completely wipeout the Conservatives, but the wipeout would benefit different parties in different cultural regions, and tactical voting could play a role to suppress the Conservative seats numbers even more.

I'm assuming national polls can't capture movement from tactical voting then? It seems like the Lib Dems would have to rise in vote share to win those seats, given that they are projected to majorly benefit from tactical voting in 10-20% of the electorate, but it would also make sense if national polls could not pick up on that. Basically the difference between the party vote and the constituency vote in MMP.

National polls didn't pick it up in 1997, that's why the Tories where surprised that they lost way more seats than predicted.

Tactical voting was heavy and broke along cultural regional lines, and it was pre-internet coordination.

Here was the swing map to give you an idea:

[Torrain]

Scotland (809 weighted):

35% Labour
28% SNP
22% Conservative
7% RefUK
5% Lib-Dem
2% Green
1% Other

I remain pretty sceptical (file it under "I want to believe, but I'm too jaded") but those numbers would produce some startling results:

• Lab 30
• Tory 14(!)
• SNP 7
• Lib Dem 5

[oldtimer]

Scotland (809 weighted):

35% Labour
28% SNP
22% Conservative
7% RefUK
5% Lib-Dem
2% Green
1% Other

I remain pretty sceptical (file it under "I want to believe, but I'm too jaded") but those numbers would produce some startling results:

• Lab 30
• Tory 14(!)
• SNP 7
• Lib Dem 5

I have been bullish on the Tories in Scotland as much as I'm bearish on them in England and Wales.

My 1st prediction months ago was that the Conservatives would retain only 6 seats, all of them in Scotland.

Scottish Conservatives are directly the opposite of non-scottish Conservatives on almost everything, resulting in a seesaw effect ( hated Thatcher, loved Major, loved May, hated Boris, love Sunak).