|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 3, 2019 12:41:35 GMT
Dagenham is one of those seats Labour should have lost last time on paper, but Cruddas runs a tight ship and I'd give him a decent chance of winning even if this poll indicated things were the other way around for most of London Labour. The Rainham end, though smaller, is very 'south Essex' in its preferences. I think Dagenham itself is likely to stay Labour. To an extent - after all, they still gave UKIP 7% last time. BxP may well do better than the Conservatives here though they surely have no hope now (it could have been a long shot for them at the start of the campaign). I know it's all the rage to tout Starmer these days if you're looking for a future Labour leader outside of the Socialist Campaign Group, but I think Cruddas is one of the few up to the job. I'm not personally in favour of some of his policy ideas, but he sees the same kind of problems that Corbynism aims to address, and highlighted them long before they culminated in the defeat of 2010. I doubt he'll have the appetite to go for the role, but in an explicitly anti-fascist party, he'd have more credentials than most of the majority now classed as moderates.
|
|
|
YouGov
Dec 3, 2019 12:34:31 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 3, 2019 12:34:31 GMT
Labours vote is up more amongst leavers than remainers. Should be a relief for Jon Cruddas Dagenham is one of those seats Labour should have lost last time on paper, but Cruddas runs a tight ship and I'd give him a decent chance of winning even if this poll indicated things were the other way around for most of London Labour.
|
|
|
YouGov
Dec 3, 2019 12:25:43 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 3, 2019 12:25:43 GMT
Still some LibDems/Greens that Labour can win over on that reading, not looking too bad. (and we do actually have a thread for London polls!) Particularly when you consider the high concentration of LD votes in a few outer London constituencies where we are out of contention. I don't see the LD surge in the metropolitan remain seats. I can assure you it was very real a month or two ago, but I was last in the Ealing/Hounslow area in October so haven't been able to get much of a good grip on local politics there since then. I would imagine that's where the squeeze hit hardest as a few old friends/neighbours I've talked to etc have confided they're switching, and more so than in Manchester.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 2, 2019 20:57:10 GMT
For the irredeemably thick amongst us, what does FB mean on such websites? Is this some version of FBPE? I was tempted to ask too, but feared I might regret it. Anything beginning with F in a dating website has to be approached with caution, I suspect. Senior Lib Dem claims dating people who list their sex as female 'must be approached with caution', endorses grindr.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 2, 2019 18:33:13 GMT
It is interesting in theory, but look at the sizes of those subsamples. Some of the margins of error there are going to be ridiculous. agreed though they are a similar size to tge Survation constituency polls 150 (at least one of the unweighted numbers) != 400-500 They're a similar size to certain US primary polls which are often treated far more seriously than they should be.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 2, 2019 18:27:53 GMT
Interesting to note that Deltapoll breaks numbers into marginal and safe seats. Tory lead in marginals is 9 points. A swing of 3.5 in comparison with the 6.5 national swing It is interesting in theory, but look at the sizes of those subsamples. Some of the margins of error there are going to be ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 2, 2019 17:17:01 GMT
The most plausible path to the factions working together is the dissolution of the factions, presumably after a crushing defeat like a Yes vote - i.e. SLAB and SCON cease to exist, merging into a unionist party. Judging by the experience in Southern Ireland, Unionism will be dead (barring any twitching) by the next election. The SNP morphs into turns into some sort of FF/FG party with no ideology at all, while the Conservative and Labour try and re-assert a left-right axis to politics. A Yes vote wouldn't immediately be followed by independence. I'd expect a merger to happen, if at all, in the interim period.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 2, 2019 17:04:00 GMT
The most plausible path to the factions working together is the dissolution of the factions, presumably after a crushing defeat like a Yes vote - i.e. SLAB and SCON cease to exist, merging into a unionist party.
|
|
|
ICM
Dec 2, 2019 15:43:03 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 2, 2019 15:43:03 GMT
Static bruv. This election is over (famous last words.. lol). Less of a BxP vote to squeeze in marginals, so not quite static. Edit: on second thoughts, the Greens and Plaid also drop by one point each. It's mostly churn, then.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 2, 2019 13:47:16 GMT
Castro had a higher burn rate in the last quarter (Bennet ran a lean campaign by contrast), but has since cut staff. Bennet has the benefit of a coming boost to his profile as a senator during impeachment hearings, though he still has no hope of actually winning. Agreed on Williamson in theory as her campaign doesn't have much cash, but she can just keep scaling it down as long as the book sales come in. Delaney is poorer than the other two and seems to have wavered from his original stance of staying through 'til new hampshire, saying a couple of months ago that he'd stay until at least Iowa. That may yet change, but I agree he's less likely to drop out than Booker (who will, for the first time, not make a debate stage), Castro (probably out of money) and Bennet. Kamala Harris is likely to give it a while longer to try to win, being one of the credible candidates left, but some advisers are urging her to drop out by late December if things don't pick up, so she can avoid any embarrassment to do with electoral performance in California (late December is the deadline to withdraw one's name from that primary ballot). Agreed on Bloomberg, though I think he'll step aside if he thinks a candidate has emerged from the four early states who can stop Sanders, Warren and Yang. I don’t think Booker’s going anywhere soon; he’s met the donor qualification for this month’s debate and is halfway to meeting the polling qualification, if he makes that he’ll at least try his luck in the early states. My guess is most if not all lurch through to Iowa and New Hampshire, as they’re both relatively cheap, just in the hope Biden tanks in both and they can pick up the pieces. Is he? It's 4, and while he can consistently hit 3%, he's not hit 4% in a single national poll, or 6% in a statewide poll, in the qualifying period so far. I could see Bennet and Delaney making it there, but Castro's financials might not be good enough to reach that point.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 2, 2019 12:54:51 GMT
any bets as to who decides to bow out next? My money's on Castro. Mine would be on Bennet. Of the serious candidates Bennet, Castro and Booker are out of money. Bennet has little hope of achieving anything (not even boosting his name recognition) and needs to start thinking of his reelection campaign. Of the non-serious candidates Marianne Williamson is likely to quit soon. Delaney, Steyer and Bloomberg are rich enough to keep going as long as they feel like it. Gabbard is promoting her brand and future media career, Yang has a cult following and likely thinks he can win. Harris will keep going to SC and Klobuchar will at least try her luck in Iowa. Patrick has just entered and will stay in to Super Tuesday. Castro had a higher burn rate in the last quarter (Bennet ran a lean campaign by contrast), but has since cut staff. Bennet has the benefit of a coming boost to his profile as a senator during impeachment hearings, though he still has no hope of actually winning. Agreed on Williamson in theory as her campaign doesn't have much cash, but she can just keep scaling it down as long as the book sales come in. Delaney is poorer than the other two and seems to have wavered from his original stance of staying through 'til new hampshire, saying a couple of months ago that he'd stay until at least Iowa. That may yet change, but I agree he's less likely to drop out than Booker (who will, for the first time, not make a debate stage), Castro (probably out of money) and Bennet. Kamala Harris is likely to give it a while longer to try to win, being one of the credible candidates left, but some advisers are urging her to drop out by late December if things don't pick up, so she can avoid any embarrassment to do with electoral performance in California (late December is the deadline to withdraw one's name from that primary ballot). Agreed on Bloomberg, though I think he'll step aside if he thinks a candidate has emerged from the four early states who can stop Sanders, Warren and Yang.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 2, 2019 11:36:06 GMT
Gov Steve Bullock of Montana also ends his campaign for the Democratic nomination. Still 16 nominally running. A spokesperson said he'd be helping Democrats by getting others in Montana elected and as governor, 'not as a candidate for the Senate'. It's not quite categorically ruling a run out, but it's much less ambiguous than Hickenlooper's denials were, and I'm sad to say I don't expect him to file for the primary. A lot of candidates who might have considered entering as 'long shots' will be patting themselves on their backs, knowing that their chances are now much better for not attempting to take this risky route to the nomination. In the event of a contested convention, a Democrat who hasn't been tested and rejected by the electorate may have the appeal to emerge to the fore and win the nomination. People like Bullock have wasted that potential by spending months at ~1% and thereby destroying their claim to a credible mandate from the party in 2020. Edit: any bets as to who decides to bow out next? My money's on Castro.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 2, 2019 10:47:25 GMT
The next step will surely be a demographic-swing-adjustable MRP.
This will, of course, only be used for balanced and proper reporting, with headlines like "Our new intern fiddling with adjustable MRP poll shows the Conservatives won't win in Newcastle-upon-Tyne North West, Bede and Bensham if over 70% of one-armed men vote Labour. Could their NHS appeal save them?"
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 2, 2019 1:32:59 GMT
Unlike other pollsters Survation gives us UK - rather than GB - data. Thus, on a GB basis we are really looking at Con 43% Lab 34% Marginally less (probably not measurably so, tbh) for the Conservatives considering the NI Conservatives presumably have their score aggregated into the UK Party's figure. The rolling average above should remain correct as there was also a Survation poll of this variety in the 2017 lot up until this point, IIRC.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 2, 2019 0:34:03 GMT
CON: 42.5% (-1.9% from where they were at this point in the last cycle, averaging the latest 10 polls released with sampling dates up to the 12th day before polls open) LAB: 33% (-2.3%) LD: 13% (+5.1%) BxP: 3.5% (-0.9% from where UKIP were) Grn (n.b. replaced a couple of 2017 polls where they weren't listed separately): 2.9% (+0.9%)
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 2, 2019 0:18:44 GMT
I'm glad they don't appear to be herding re: the LDs.
|
|
|
YouGov
Dec 1, 2019 23:47:33 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 1, 2019 23:47:33 GMT
Since 2015 Johnson has (a) stitched up his best mate Dave over the Referendum campaign (b) stitched up Theresa May by undermining her in cabinet, then backing her deal at Chequers and resigning the next day when Davies went (c) stitched up the DUP (On top of which his record on marital fidelity is, er, questionable, and building his journalistic career on attacking the EU when Brussels paid for his expensive education via his dad's salary could be seen as a betrayal too.) I really see no reason why he can't stitch up the ERG and they are mugs if they don't either. But the record suggest they are mugs. Because they can remove him as Conservative Party leader by July at the latest, and earlier if the 1922 Committee decide to retrospectively change the rules (as they considered doing in May's case). On the other hand, it's difficult to see a scenario in which he stays on if the Conservatives aren't in Government and some other faction is after the election, so I think he'll either risk it or attempt to trick second referendum advocates and then play parliamentary games in an attempt to either somehow neutralise the issue or trigger another election. 'Surely they can't be stupid enough' doesn't apply to the ERG.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 1, 2019 23:37:15 GMT
But whatever gives you any hint at all that the Tories will allow a second referendum? I think that is entirely out of the question. Particularly given that the make-up of the Tories will be far more Leave-orientated, and Johnson owes his position to the backing of the ERG Constitutional unit at UCL say as much in today's Observer FWIW. But mainly I don't see what else they do if they end up as minority govt. And I reckon Johnson (a) can twist absolutely any way, in fact has done on the Irish Sea border and (b) can sell it as the only way of getting Brexit through. He gambles on repeating 2016 and tbh he'd have a shot at it - Leavers still want it, some Remainers might well stick to the idea that the 1st Ref needs respecting, anti-Tory leavers can vote for Brexit without endorsing Johnson....the lead for Remain now is no bigger than it was at the start of 2016. Dishonestly hint at a second ref, then try parliamentary shenanigans like they did in the final weeks of Johnson's last minority government.
|
|
|
YouGov
Dec 1, 2019 23:17:04 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 1, 2019 23:17:04 GMT
Isn't that what everyone means when they say "it's in the national interest"?
Oh, and you've liked your own post. I have. I agree with the point so much I'm even willing to emulate Strontium Dog... Of course it's what everybody means by it. But some realise how bogus it all is... and others don't, either through ignorance or self-deception. It's often deployed to indicate that it's *not* primarily in e.g. party or constituency interest. In that sense, it's not bogus, but a call to electoral self-sacrifice.
|
|
|
YouGov
Dec 1, 2019 22:21:51 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 1, 2019 22:21:51 GMT
"All this "dodgy bar chart" crap from Labour. A bar chart showing actual information in support of a claim to be able to win is perfectly fair and in FPTP necessary, and I am being deluged with them by Labour and Greens." It's well documented that in some constituencies the LDs are quite irresponsibly & falsely making out that they can beat the Tories & Labour can't. OBVIOUSLY it's true in my constituency, and in some others. But it simply isn't in some seats. Naturally not all bar-charts are dodgy, but there are multiple incidences of them being used highly misleadingly by the LDs in this election (more so than ever before - there's been a problem in this regard for some years) and that's what I'm referring to. Re the shifting position on Brexit, I'd have thought it would be something the LDs would applaud. I don't see why it should be otherwise. Well, actually it isn't so far as I'm aware. Perhaps you could supply a list, since it is "well-documented"I pointed out on here that The Guardian ran a story citing Best For Britain as a reliable source suggesting that tactical votes could stop a Tory majority, then pulled it in favour of "leading Labour sources" denouncing Best For Britain as bogus when they spotted it recommended an LD vote in Wimbledon, by reference to the 2017 election result. A couple of weeks later there was a constituency poll supporting the Best for Britain analysis. No apology from The Guardian. As far as I'm concerned it was Labour falsely claiming that they could beat the Tories and we couldn't, using the "notional bar chart" of the 2017 GE result, in a false and (if you like) irresponsible attempt to claim that nothing has changed since 2017 (and indeed that the 2017 election result was normal and not an outlier in many areas.) I'm not accusing you of lying here btw, I just think you have swallowed whole the line that we are engaged in sharp practice that has been put out by Labour. I'm not saying that there won't have been some poor leaflets put out somewhere - it happens - but you are making a statement of fact here ("well-documented...false") with a supposedly objectively measurable element ("more than ever before") without any supporting data. And it's exactly this approach which has me inclined to tell Labour locally to eff off when they come and ask me "to keep the Tories out" and "stop Brexit" by shoring up a 2-party FPTP system that I despise. On Brexit, what I criticise is Labour explicitly attending Stroud4Europe (and similar) meetings presenting themselves as the only option to stop Brexit, accusing the Greens of splitting the Remain vote, and then their leader announcing that he will be neutral. We are accused of undermining Labour's fight against Brexit, right up to the point Labour wants leave votes at which point McCluskey and Corbyn pop up to deny Labour is a Remain party. It is happening in some constituencies - I'm just not sure it's happening more than it did last time, or even that we're doing it proportionally more than other parties where they are behind (that is to say, most of the difference between the level of this perpetuated by the LD and the levels of this perpetuated by Lab/Con can be explained primarily by them doing better overall and does not indicate their local branches are any more likely to have sufficient integrity to avoid it). I can see the case for using non-GE results, but examples like some of the Mike Smithson leaflets (not those which argue 'we can win here', but those which say 'it's a 2 horse race between LD and [x]' when we were third even in the locals/Euros etc) and the Labour case in Eastleigh that only they could beat the Conservatives because of a 2017 trend (they still finished third and subsequently went backwards) are wrong.
|
|