|
Post by justin124 on Jun 11, 2020 19:04:00 GMT
Survation conducts its surveys on a UK basis - rather than the GB basis provided by other pollsters. In GB terms the Tory and Labour vote shares would be 43% and 37% respectively.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Survation
Jun 11, 2020 21:57:43 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2020 21:57:43 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Survation
Jun 11, 2020 21:58:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2020 21:58:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by archaeologist on Jun 27, 2020 6:56:08 GMT
The latest from Survation, broadly in line with the Redfield poll on the same day.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,119
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 27, 2020 7:37:29 GMT
The latest from Survation, broadly in line with the Redfield poll on the same day. For all the fanwanking by the Starmer groupies, it's interesting that matureleft may be correct in terms of the effect of the leader on voting intention. It's something I've always thought anyway - it's an easy justification for saying why you're not going to vote for a party while other reasons may be more important. There's remarkably little shift from the GE, really.
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 27, 2020 8:11:14 GMT
The latest from Survation, broadly in line with the Redfield poll on the same day. For all the fanwanking by the Starmer groupies, it's interesting that matureleft may be correct in terms of the effect of the leader on voting intention. It's something I've always thought anyway - it's an easy justification for saying why you're not going to vote for a party while other reasons may be more important. There's remarkably little shift from the GE, really. I continued my proud record of not voting for a winning candidate, so I can't really be squeezed into that category!
To repeat what I've said before: 1. Starmer's arrival removes one negative. 2. It helps with the low-hanging fruit - broadly middle-class progressives who were (understandably) offended/disgusted by things like the handling of anti-semitism but who can often be persuaded to vote Labour. A result like this would have saved a few seats depending on the distribution - perhaps a majority of 50 instead of 80?
3. However all the really hard work for Labour lies ahead, organisationally, in policy terms and in developing a consistent, coherently delivered narrative. And, of course, a lot depends on how badly the government does. They've certainly dropped the ball several times but, in times like this, and particularly with effectively uncontested broadcasting, you'd expect a fairly strong government polling performance (though Trump has certainly road tested some ways to disprove that!). The next stage, as the outbreak's handling is assessed and the economic damage addressed, will be more testing. And of course how the Brexit conclusion works out. Are hopes and expectations met?
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 22,338
|
Post by mboy on Jun 27, 2020 8:15:45 GMT
This small shift is just the natural unwind of Cummings gate, where the Tories were artificially depressed by 2 weeks of hysterical media nonsense.
|
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,159
|
Post by polupolu on Jun 27, 2020 8:31:19 GMT
This small shift is just the natural unwind of Cummings gate, where the Tories were artificially depressed by 2 weeks of hysterical media nonsense. I agree the media coverage had an effect, but when the Tories are being criticised by the Daily Mail, it is at least, interesting. The prevalent meme that I suspect did most damage ("one-rule-for-us-one-rule-for-them") will no doubt be raised again, even if it has faded now.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,119
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 27, 2020 9:07:08 GMT
For all the fanwanking by the Starmer groupies, it's interesting that matureleft may be correct in terms of the effect of the leader on voting intention. It's something I've always thought anyway - it's an easy justification for saying why you're not going to vote for a party while other reasons may be more important. There's remarkably little shift from the GE, really. I continued my proud record of not voting for a winning candidate, so I can't really be squeezed into that category! To repeat what I've said before: 1. Starmer's arrival removes one negative. 2. It helps with the low-hanging fruit - broadly middle-class progressives who were (understandably) offended/disgusted by things like the handling of anti-semitism but who can often be persuaded to vote Labour. A result like this would have saved a few seats depending on the distribution - perhaps a majority of 50 instead of 80?
3. However all the really hard work for Labour lies ahead, organisationally, in policy terms and in developing a consistent, coherently delivered narrative. And, of course, a lot depends on how badly the government does. They've certainly dropped the ball several times but, in times like this, and particularly with effectively uncontested broadcasting, you'd expect a fairly strong government polling performance (though Trump has certainly road tested some ways to disprove that!). The next stage, as the outbreak's handling is assessed and the economic damage addressed, will be more testing. And of course how the Brexit conclusion works out. Are hopes and expectations met?
Very little evidence that middle class progressives deserted Labour. Or care about anti-semitism, frankly. Very few people make voting decisions based on such issues unless they are directly involved. Labour's middle class vote held up very well. There are still some people who seriously think Labour can win the most unlikely Tory seats if they appear unthreatening enough. That really wasn't Labour's problem last time and the decline of its core outside cities is the main challenge and its been an issue for the past decade. Brexit gave the final "nudge" Of course the hard work lies ahead, but I have no positive expectations at all, and actively don't want Starmer as PM other than to implement electoral reform.
|
|
hengo
Conservative
Posts: 1,689
|
Post by hengo on Jun 27, 2020 9:13:48 GMT
As yet all Starmer has had to do is ask questions, “ hold the government to account” as he repeats at every set of PQ,s, and as a skilful lawyer he does it very impressively. He has carefully avoided making any policy suggestions himself: he knows that the Government is acting on advice and he doesn’t want to appear to undermine efforts to counter the virus- he just has to wait for the inevitable mistakes and bits of bad news, highlight those, and try to stick the blame on to Ministers. He is helped by the nature of our media . For once even the Mail has been helpful to Labour in its generally negative reporting. Apart from his competent performance in the House and his careful positioning on the Covid issues, the sacking of Long Bailey is his first act which has attracted any attention. Clearly it has gone down well with most of the public, and he must be delighted with the particular individuals who have publicly attacked him over it- a perfect selection of those he needs to be distanced from. If that was his intention then I begin to think he is an excellent tactician. So far so good. I have little impression so far of his team. One of the many problems of Labour under Corbyn was his hopeless shadow cabinet- with so many MPs not being willing to serve under him. It can hardly not improve - and there are obvious targets in Johnson’s current cabinet. But the big question for me concerns policy. Mike keeps telling us that Labour under Starmer will be indistinguishable from the conservatives. Leaving aside the possibility ( and from my point of view the hope) that Johnson may yet, despite the time and treasure lost to Coronavirus, make significant changes which would be opposed by Labour in a number of areas, what exactly are the changes to current Labour policy that Starmer is likely to introduce, and how likely is it that they will be accepted by the party?
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 27, 2020 9:18:47 GMT
I continued my proud record of not voting for a winning candidate, so I can't really be squeezed into that category! To repeat what I've said before: 1. Starmer's arrival removes one negative. 2. It helps with the low-hanging fruit - broadly middle-class progressives who were (understandably) offended/disgusted by things like the handling of anti-semitism but who can often be persuaded to vote Labour. A result like this would have saved a few seats depending on the distribution - perhaps a majority of 50 instead of 80?
3. However all the really hard work for Labour lies ahead, organisationally, in policy terms and in developing a consistent, coherently delivered narrative. And, of course, a lot depends on how badly the government does. They've certainly dropped the ball several times but, in times like this, and particularly with effectively uncontested broadcasting, you'd expect a fairly strong government polling performance (though Trump has certainly road tested some ways to disprove that!). The next stage, as the outbreak's handling is assessed and the economic damage addressed, will be more testing. And of course how the Brexit conclusion works out. Are hopes and expectations met?
Very little evidence that middle class progressives deserted Labour. Or care about anti-semitism, frankly. Very few people make voting decisions based on such issues unless they are directly involved. Labour's middle class vote held up very well. There are still some people who seriously think Labour can win the most unlikely Tory seats if they appear unthreatening enough. That really wasn't Labour's problem last time and the decline of its core outside cities is the main challenge and its been an issue for the past decade. Brexit gave the final "nudge" Of course the hard work lies ahead, but I have no positive expectations at all, and actively don't want Starmer as PM other than to implement electoral reform. I certainly encountered people who had no direct interest but were disgusted by the lack of grip on anti-semitism and voted LibDem as a result. And the rather unpleasant smell would have put off others who gave the issue itself little thought. But those people aren't evenly distributed. I'd hazard a guess that we'd have hung on in Kensington, for example. But we aren't disagreeing about the larger challenge, just the outcome we seek!
|
|
|
Post by froome on Jun 27, 2020 9:28:59 GMT
This small shift is just the natural unwind of Cummings gate, where the Tories were artificially depressed by 2 weeks of hysterical media nonsense. I agree the media coverage had an effect, but when the Tories are being criticised by the Daily Mail, it is at least, interesting. The prevalent meme that I suspect did most damage ("one-rule-for-us-one-rule-for-them") will no doubt be raised again, even if it has faded now.
I thought the Daily Mail was a left-wing rag these days.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,483
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 27, 2020 9:29:01 GMT
I think lockdown being majorly eased has probably modestly boosted both the Tory and Johnson ratings. In which case, we might expect those numbers to drop again as it becomes obvious that they have handled this as incompetently as most other things?
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,119
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 27, 2020 9:30:13 GMT
matureleft I'm sure you did, only I think that is a typical surface level excuse and the real reason they voted LibDem was about their taxes or other matters directly affecting them. They may well be attracted by a more insipid, centrist Labour party, but that in itself is a problem if you desire real change rather than a "Labour givernment". Having been involved in minority rights campaigns I think they make no real impact on elections although culture war advocates on both sides would like this to be otherwise! I have no time for the Board of Deputies and their politics, and according to their definition I'd be anti-semitic anyway simply because I question the wisdom of the establishment of the state of Israel in Palestine. Labour would have won Kensington if the LibDems hadn't wheeled in a sitting MP. It's a credit to Emma Dent Coad that it remained so close.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,119
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 27, 2020 9:41:01 GMT
As yet all Starmer has had to do is ask questions, “ hold the government to account” as he repeats at every set of PQ,s, and as a skilful lawyer he does it very impressively. He has carefully avoided making any policy suggestions himself: he knows that the Government is acting on advice and he doesn’t want to appear to undermine efforts to counter the virus- he just has to wait for the inevitable mistakes and bits of bad news, highlight those, and try to stick the blame on to Ministers. He is helped by the nature of our media . For once even the Mail has been helpful to Labour in its generally negative reporting. Apart from his competent performance in the House and his careful positioning on the Covid issues, the sacking of Long Bailey is his first act which has attracted any attention. Clearly it has gone down well with most of the public, and he must be delighted with the particular individuals who have publicly attacked him over it- a perfect selection of those he needs to be distanced from. If that was his intention then I begin to think he is an excellent tactician. So far so good. I have little impression so far of his team. One of the many problems of Labour under Corbyn was his hopeless shadow cabinet- with so many MPs not being willing to serve under him. It can hardly not improve - and there are obvious targets in Johnson’s current cabinet. But the big question for me concerns policy. Mike keeps telling us that Labour under Starmer will be indistinguishable from the conservatives. Leaving aside the possibility ( and from my point of view the hope) that Johnson may yet, despite the time and treasure lost to Coronavirus, make significant changes which would be opposed by Labour in a number of areas, what exactly are the changes to current Labour policy that Starmer is likely to introduce, and how likely is it that they will be accepted by the party? For all the guff about rolling manifestos, the conference, and the rest, ignore the lot. The party has never managed to suitably control and discipline the PLP and Corbyn certainly failed to do so. Far too nice! Effectively Labour have no policies. Parties which lose elections and change leaders start from scratch. I don't expect Starmer to commit to very much at all, though he may choose particular issues to gain points over the Tories. He has no interest in social transformation, just operating the system in a slightly different way. Because Labour remains electoralist and the sprint of a Labour government was preferred to the marathon of providing a socialist alternative I wouldn't expect anything which doesn't register with focus group attendees as "popular" As for the shadow cabinet the MP's who were not willing to serve are sadly still there, some now returned, whereas measures should have been taken to prevent any of them from standing again. But they didn't have the courage to force them out. You really have nothing to worry about. It won't matter who you vote for - the Government will get in again!
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jun 27, 2020 11:04:49 GMT
For all the fanwanking by the Starmer groupies, it's interesting that matureleft may be correct in terms of the effect of the leader on voting intention. It's something I've always thought anyway - it's an easy justification for saying why you're not going to vote for a party while other reasons may be more important. There's remarkably little shift from the GE, really. I continued my proud record of not voting for a winning candidate, so I can't really be squeezed into that category! To repeat what I've said before: 1. Starmer's arrival removes one negative. 2. It helps with the low-hanging fruit - broadly middle-class progressives who were (understandably) offended/disgusted by things like the handling of anti-semitism but who can often be persuaded to vote Labour. A result like this would have saved a few seats depending on the distribution - perhaps a majority of 50 instead of 80?
3. However all the really hard work for Labour lies ahead, organisationally, in policy terms and in developing a consistent, coherently delivered narrative. And, of course, a lot depends on how badly the government does. They've certainly dropped the ball several times but, in times like this, and particularly with effectively uncontested broadcasting, you'd expect a fairly strong government polling performance (though Trump has certainly road tested some ways to disprove that!). The next stage, as the outbreak's handling is assessed and the economic damage addressed, will be more testing. And of course how the Brexit conclusion works out. Are hopes and expectations met?
I would suggest that the second major negative - Brexit - has also declined in voter saliency compared with December 2019.Given the evidence that Brexit and Corbyn were the two factors mainly held responsible for the Labour collapse in the Red Wall seats, it might be reasonable to expect that their removal will bring about greater 'swing back' in the seats that had most been affected by them. On that basis, I suspect that seats such as Workington - Grimsby - Don Valley might be be more easily won next time than seats in the south such as Wycombe etc which on paper are now more marginal. The average of the two polls just published suggests a swing to Labour just short of 3% from the Tories - enough to gain 25 - 30 seats and reduce the Tory majority to between 20 and 30.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,119
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 27, 2020 11:25:16 GMT
Assuming the shift in votes is the same across different seats. We don't know that, but evidence of the last election doesn't suggest this is the case. I think Labour need to look at their decline in Warwickshire North, Leicestershire NW, Stoke-on-Trent South, Mansfield, and seats Labour lost in previous years. There can be no assumption that the removal of Brexit means an automatic reversal of their Tory vote
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jun 27, 2020 11:34:17 GMT
Assuming the shift in votes is the same across different seats. We don't know that, but evidence of the last election doesn't suggest this is the case. I think Labour need to look at their decline in Warwickshire North, Leicestershire NW, Stoke-on-Trent South, Mansfield, and seats Labour lost in previous years. There can be no assumption that the removal of Brexit means an automatic reversal of their Tory vote Beyond Brexit and Corbyn , what were the other reasons for such voters switching to the Tories? Doubtless there are some underlying demographic shifts at work too - but by their nature they are likely to be longterm and to be revealed over twenty years rather than just over two.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,119
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 27, 2020 11:41:54 GMT
Assuming the shift in votes is the same across different seats. We don't know that, but evidence of the last election doesn't suggest this is the case. I think Labour need to look at their decline in Warwickshire North, Leicestershire NW, Stoke-on-Trent South, Mansfield, and seats Labour lost in previous years. There can be no assumption that the removal of Brexit means an automatic reversal of their Tory vote Beyond Brexit and Corbyn , what were the other reasons for such voters switching to the Tories? Doubtless there are some underlying demographic shifts at work too - but by their nature they are likely to be longterm and to be revealed over twenty years rather than just over two. The swings against Labour in all of the seats I mentioned have been consistent. There is no saying that this cannot happen in other areas too. It depends whether you think there are more profound shifts away from Labour in the areas where they lost ground. There is certainly evidence that partisan dealignment is increasing and the number of people who feel strongly affiliated to a party has declined. This may mean both that some seats will be relatively easy to win back, but equally easy to lose again. I think Labour , given vote distribution, and the assumption that Scotland won't shift back pre Indyref2, will need a 10-12% lead and be able to recover enough to make the seats I mentioned competitive again.
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jun 27, 2020 12:02:13 GMT
Beyond Brexit and Corbyn , what were the other reasons for such voters switching to the Tories? Doubtless there are some underlying demographic shifts at work too - but by their nature they are likely to be longterm and to be revealed over twenty years rather than just over two. The swings against Labour in all of the seats I mentioned have been consistent. There is no saying that this cannot happen in other areas too. It depends whether you think there are more profound shifts away from Labour in the areas where they lost ground. There is certainly evidence that partisan dealignment is increasing and the number of people who feel strongly affiliated to a party has declined. This may mean both that some seats will be relatively easy to win back, but equally easy to lose again. I think Labour , given vote distribution, and the assumption that Scotland won't shift back pre Indyref2, will need a 10-12% lead and be able to recover enough to make the seats I mentioned competitive again. It depends on what you mean by 'consistent'.Warwickshire North and Leicestershire NW were Tory - held in the 80s with the former falling to Labour in 1992 and the latter in 1997. Until 2010 both appeared to have become fairly safe for Labour. Mansfield had been a rocksolid Labour citadel until the 1980s but very nearly fell to the Tories in 1987 in the aftermath of bitterness from the Miners Strike of 1984/85. There was a big swing back to Labour there in 1992, and the seat appeared pretty safe again until 2015.The big sudden shift which suddenly makes these seats appear safely Tory has really occurred over a period of five years or so. How deep does the commitment to voting Tory go? Much the same could be asked of Derbyshire NE, Bassetlaw & Bolsover.
|
|