|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Dec 7, 2019 18:23:38 GMT
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,195
|
Post by Jack on Dec 7, 2019 18:23:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Dec 7, 2019 18:23:56 GMT
So, two ComRes polls taken about the same time, with very different results? Can't we headline this as Labour minus 3?
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Dec 7, 2019 18:24:37 GMT
So, two ComRes polls taken about the same time, with very different results? Follow the money ... (Presumably ComRes would say they are within MOE of each other)
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Dec 7, 2019 21:44:41 GMT
Best Labour poll of the campaign /photo/1 So according to Remain United this would result in a hung parliament. Not sure what tactical voting they've assumed in Scotland though - 51 would be an extremely good result for the SNP.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Dec 7, 2019 21:47:14 GMT
So polls are variable but not massively so, it seems to me the Tory lead is somewhere between 6-12% which suggests 9% with a 3% MoE each way.
If we assume a 9% lead - cf a 3% lead in 2017 - This means a 3% swing from L > C. This gives, on UNS, about 28 gains.
Then factor in LD & SNP being slightly up on 2017 percentages, could give lets say 5 SNP gains & 3 LD gains from Tories (and say 5 SNP gains and 3 LD gains from Labour). Add in say 2 extra seats for LD where campaigns have strongly-promoted tactical voting and let's throw in an "independent" gain?
This would give something like: CON 335 LAB 225 LD 20 SNP 45 Oth 25
I dont think the final outcome will be a million miles from this now.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Dec 7, 2019 21:52:55 GMT
Best Labour poll of the campaign Not reliable IMO. Doesn't prompt for candidates which is the standard procedure at this stage in the campaign.
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Dec 7, 2019 22:09:42 GMT
The Tories are better placed in the polls than at the same stage of the 1987 election when they went on to win by 102 with a vote share lead of 11.8%.
|
|
Vibe
Non-Aligned
Posts: 931
|
Post by Vibe on Dec 7, 2019 22:13:08 GMT
This has shades of 2017 all over again!!!
|
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on Dec 7, 2019 22:15:30 GMT
This has shades of 2017 all over again!!! Do you really think people will fall for the same con twice?
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Dec 7, 2019 22:20:05 GMT
This has shades of 2017 all over again!!! Not really. By this time in 2017 , there were several polls pointing to the distinct possibility of a Hung Parliament with Tory leads in the 3% - 6% range. That is not what we are looking at now.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,917
|
Post by jamie on Dec 7, 2019 22:21:01 GMT
This has shades of 2017 all over again!!! Do you really think people will fall for the same con twice? The Tories have a 10% lead so it appears so.
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Dec 7, 2019 22:21:12 GMT
Labour cannot get a majority on any of these figures or any others ComRes might produce in the nest ten minutes if they cannot win more than one or two seats in Scotland.
|
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on Dec 7, 2019 22:30:07 GMT
Do you really think people will fall for the same con twice? The Tories have a 10% lead so it appears so. To which earlier election do you refer?
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Dec 7, 2019 22:43:46 GMT
Based on the wiki page, the polls identified as being in the Sunday papers before the 2017 election have Tory leads of 1,4,11 and 12, for an average of 7. (Versus 6/8,10,11 and 15 this time) So things don't look as bad for the Tories.
But in 2015 the equivalent numbers were Con +1, Tie, Lab +1 and Lab +3. So it is very possible that all the polls are wrong. And if they are all wrong the Tories are not going to win.
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Dec 7, 2019 22:45:39 GMT
Based on the wiki page, the polls identified as being in the Sunday papers before the 2017 election have Tory leads of 1,4,11 and 12, for an average of 7. (Versus 6/8,10,11 and 15 this time) So things don't look as bad for the Tories. But in 2015 the equivalent numbers were Con +1, Tie, Lab +1 and Lab +3. So it is very possible that all the polls are wrong. And if they are all wrong the Tories are not going to win. Or possibly they are going to win very big indeed...
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Dec 7, 2019 23:44:04 GMT
This has shades of 2017 all over again!!! Do you really think people will fall for the same con twice? I will go out on a limb and say that neither May's poor campaign nor Corbyn's good one in 2017 were as significant as an overall tendency of a socially conservative vote (with Brexit as the brand name) coalescing around the Conservatives (UKIP dying the death) and a socially progressive vote (branded Remain) coalescing around Labour, largely in defence. I think hardly anyone was conned, though for a brief period some people thought maybe Corbyn was the messiah after all. This time round there is less enthusiasm for Labour (or more specifically Corbyn/Milne) in the progressive vote, and some unhappiness about Johnson/Cummings among liberal Conservatives, but I don't think the dynamics have changed much. Perhaps Labour are more vulnerable in midlands and north, I can't tell from here. But Johnson is even more toxic than May. So I think we could be looking at something pretty similar, though the tactical voting aspects may have changed a tad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 23:49:43 GMT
In my opinion there are a lot of seats where the tactical remain vote will keep the tories out. The problem is the seats where the tactical remain vote won't be enough
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Dec 8, 2019 0:13:32 GMT
Do you really think people will fall for the same con twice? I will go out on a limb and say that neither May's poor campaign nor Corbyn's good one in 2017 were as significant as an overall tendency of a socially conservative vote (with Brexit as the brand name) coalescing around the Conservatives (UKIP dying the death) and a socially progressive vote (branded Remain) coalescing around Labour, largely in defence. I think hardly anyone was conned, though for a brief period some people thought maybe Corbyn was the messiah after all. This time round there is less enthusiasm for Labour (or more specifically Corbyn/Milne) in the progressive vote, and some unhappiness about Johnson/Cummings among liberal Conservatives, but I don't think the dynamics have changed much. Perhaps Labour are more vulnerable in midlands and north, I can't tell from here. But Johnson is even more toxic than May. So I think we could be looking at something pretty similar, though the tactical voting aspects may have changed a tad. This is a good analysis though Labour's ability to hold onto a significant chunk of its Leave vote last time was one of the big things that stopped May getting a majority. It does *appear* from available evidence that this group is swinging behind the Tories this time and not warming to Corbyn like they did last time. The Tories are probably more vulnerable with their Remain vote, primarily in the London Metro, this time around but the party best placed to win these places (the Lib Dems) have had a poor campaign and considering the size of the Tory majorities they would've needed a truly fantastic campaign to properly break through. Also the fact that the Lib Dems look unlikely to win much back in their old strongholds down in the West Country is one of the biggest barriers to stopping Johnson IMO.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,418
|
Post by Sibboleth on Dec 8, 2019 0:34:55 GMT
This is a good analysis though Labour's ability to hold onto a significant chunk of its Leave vote last time was one of the big things that stopped May getting a majority. It does *appear* from available evidence that this group is swinging behind the Tories this time and not warming to Corbyn like they did last time. Careful with that: one constant of polling this election (across all the disagreements as to the exact picture that the different firms have had) is a distinct lack of direct movement between the two main parties any larger than the usual churn.
|
|