ICM

[curiousliberal]

Ouch. They weren't outliers.

[Deleted]

[Vibe]

Nov 18, 2019 18:03:41 GMT @priceofdawn said:

I don't get the obsession with comparing this only to 2017. Why not to 2010 and 2015 as well?

[Deleted]

Nov 18, 2019 18:32:56 GMT Vibe said:

Nov 18, 2019 18:03:41 GMT @priceofdawn said:

I don't get the obsession with comparing this only to 2017. Why not to 2010 and 2015 as well?

its interesting is all

[lancastrian]

Nov 18, 2019 18:32:56 GMT Vibe said:

Nov 18, 2019 18:03:41 GMT @priceofdawn said:

I don't get the obsession with comparing this only to 2017. Why not to 2010 and 2015 as well?

It shows what can still happen - the Tories have not won the election yet. The manifestos haven't been launched, the first debate is tomorrow. Labour are still in a decent position. 2017 is also the best comparison point for two party politics, much as Swinson might hope for a repeat of Cleggmania.

[justin124]

Some scant comfort for Labour in the ICM poll in that at 32% it is now polling in excess of Ed Milliband's 2015 vote share - as well as the results achieved by Gordon Brown in 2010, Neil Kinnock in 1987 and Michael Foot in 1983.
If Labour can creep up to 35% by Polling Day , it has some hope of denying Johnson a majority. The Libdems have faded badly , and already begin to appear almost as much a wasted vote as the Brexit Party. Very few gains are now likely to come their way, and they will be fortunate to reach 20 seats in total.

[Vibe]

Nov 18, 2019 19:05:05 GMT lancastrian said:

Nov 18, 2019 18:32:56 GMT Vibe said:

I don't get the obsession with comparing this only to 2017. Why not to 2010 and 2015 as well?

It shows what can still happen - the Tories have not won the election yet. The manifestos haven't been launched, the first debate is tomorrow. Labour are still in a decent position. 2017 is also the best comparison point for two party politics, much as Swinson might hope for a repeat of Cleggmania.

It would be nice to see more than one senario. Like I said, why not show 2010 and 2015 as well?
I totally agree that there is a long way to go and a lot can change, but don't assume it's defiantly 2017 all over again.

[lancastrian]

Since we are comparing this election to 2017, it should be noted that it was around this point of that campaign, at three weeks to go, with manifesto launches and the first debates, that polls started to shift in Labour's favour. They aren't coming from as far behind this time, but if they're going to repeat 2017, or even win, they'll probably want the polls to start moving before postal votes start being cast.

[justin124]

It needs to be pointed out that in 2017 some pollsters - such as ICM - had overcompensated for the 2015 polling debacle. Many have reviewed their methodologies since 2017 , which implies that it is likely to be misleading to compare 2017 polls on a like for like basis.

[Tony Otim]

Nov 18, 2019 23:57:30 GMT justin124 said:

It needs to be pointed out that in 2017 some pollsters - such as ICM - had overcompensated for the 2015 polling debacle. Many have reviewed their methodologies since 2017 , which implies that it is likely to be misleading to compare 2017 polls on a like for like basis.

Agreed - the polls this year will be wrong for completely different reasons 😉

[wallington]

Just saw an ICM poll on social media putting the Conservative lead over over Labour down to 7 points.

Con - 41
Lab - 34
LbD - 13
Bxt - 4

22-25 Nov

Its starting to all seems a bit more like 2017...

[cogload]

Or 19, take your pick. I imagine the 5m quid funding lead the Tories have is going to be unleashed this week during postal vote returns.

In the meantime we seem to have stabilised.

[finsobruce]

Nov 25, 2019 17:12:20 GMT curiousliberal said:

Nov 25, 2019 17:04:22 GMT Jack said:

🎶 It's beginning to look a lot like last time,

Eeeevery poll you see. 🎶

I'm dreaming of a soooooooft Brexit
Just like the CM 2.0

Oooh, i feel a carol competition coming on.

[Vibe]

Nov 25, 2019 17:12:20 GMT curiousliberal said:

Nov 25, 2019 17:04:22 GMT Jack said:

🎶 It's beginning to look a lot like last time,

Eeeevery poll you see. 🎶

I'm dreaming of a soooooooft Brexit
Just like the CM 2.0

You mean delayed Brexit. AKA more can kicking by MPs.

[afleitch]

Well we've had a 19 pt lead and a 7 pt lead. Both at the moment are outliers. ICM's last poll was a 10 pt lead in a sea of 12 to 18 point leads and it's poll before was an 8 pt lead in a sea of bigger leads and so on.

It's not the gap but the direction of travel that matters.

[Old Fashioned Leftie]

Reuters reporting the 7 point Tory lead

uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-election-poll-icm/johnsons-conservatives-see-lead-over-labour-narrow-to-7-points-icm-poll-idUKKBN1XZ22D

[justin124]

The 7% Tory lead given by ICM implies a swing from Lab to Con of 2.3% since 2017 , and on a UNS basis would result in 23 gains from Labour. That would leave the Tories with 341 seats before taking account of any losses to the LDs and SNP. This poll suggests 5 losses to the LDs – which brings the Tories back to 336. It is now unclear how many Tory seats are vulnerable to the SNP, but on the assumption of circa 3 losses, the Tories could end up on 333 seats – a majority of 16. However, 5 of Labour’s 23 seats at risk could well be saved by first term incumbency – ie Battersea – High Peak- Warrington South – Portsmouth South and Lincoln. The Tory candidate in the latter seat has today apologised for comments supportive of Tommy Robinson.There is,therefore, the distinct possibility that the Tories emerge with circa 328 seats – a majority of 6 and smaller than enjoyed by Theresa May prior to the 2017 election.

[andrewp]

Nov 25, 2019 19:29:58 GMT justin124 said:

The 7% Tory lead given by ICM implies a swing from Lab to Con of 2.3% since 2017 , and on a UNS basis would result in 23 gains from Labour. That would leave the Tories with 341 seats before taking account of any losses to the LDs and SNP. This poll suggests 5 losses to the LDs – which brings the Tories back to 336. It is now unclear how many Tory seats are vulnerable to the SNP, but on the assumption of circa 3 losses, the Tories could end up on 333 seats – a majority of 16. However, 5 of Labour’s 23 seats at risk could well be saved by first term incumbency – ie Battersea – High Peak- Warrington South – Portsmouth South and Lincoln. The Tory candidate in the latter seat has today apologised for comments supportive of Tommy Robinson.There is,therefore, the distinct possibility that the Tories emerge with circa 328 seats – a majority of 6 and smaller than enjoyed by Theresa May prior to the 2017 election.

Whilst not what they would like, 328 would be plenty for Brexit. It would be a working majority of 15. The Tories only need about 10 net gains. 

[curiousliberal]

Nov 25, 2019 19:35:43 GMT andrewp said:

Nov 25, 2019 19:29:58 GMT justin124 said:

The 7% Tory lead given by ICM implies a swing from Lab to Con of 2.3% since 2017 , and on a UNS basis would result in 23 gains from Labour. That would leave the Tories with 341 seats before taking account of any losses to the LDs and SNP. This poll suggests 5 losses to the LDs – which brings the Tories back to 336. It is now unclear how many Tory seats are vulnerable to the SNP, but on the assumption of circa 3 losses, the Tories could end up on 333 seats – a majority of 16. However, 5 of Labour’s 23 seats at risk could well be saved by first term incumbency – ie Battersea – High Peak- Warrington South – Portsmouth South and Lincoln. The Tory candidate in the latter seat has today apologised for comments supportive of Tommy Robinson.There is,therefore, the distinct possibility that the Tories emerge with circa 328 seats – a majority of 6 and smaller than enjoyed by Theresa May prior to the 2017 election.

Whilst not what they would like, 328 would be plenty for Brexit. It would be a working majority of 15. The Tories only need about 10 net gains. 

They arguably could have done it in the last parliament given the results of the second reading, though I'll admit the chances were still low.

[andrewp]

Nov 25, 2019 19:37:11 GMT curiousliberal said:

Nov 25, 2019 19:35:43 GMT andrewp said:

Whilst not what they would like, 328 would be plenty for Brexit. It would be a working majority of 15. The Tories only need about 10 net gains. 

They arguably could have done it in the last parliament given the results of the second reading, though I'll admit the chances were still low.

It’s not just the gains from other parties, simply by ( they would hope) replacing Grieve, Soubry, Lee, Letwin, Milton etc etc probably boosts the majority for Brexit by 20 votes.