|
Focaldata
Jan 3, 2021 23:26:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2021 23:26:38 GMT
They said that last time in the same breath as calling Labour communists and advocating ridiculous things like permanent 1% budget surpluses. It was blindingly obvious that what the LibDems (or at least the people making decisions for them) would have really wanted if possible last last time was brexit to be stopped and the Tories to remain in power, even if that meant Johnson as PM Last time it is highly unlikely the Lib Dems would have backed anyone (and said as much). Starmer, though, is not Corbyn and Lib Dem strategy is clearly to hope for a hung Parliament where they can back Labour at the moment. Would they be naive enough to do this without a guarantee of electoral reform?
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jan 3, 2021 23:53:14 GMT
I'll remind you of this when you lose the next election and Labour pick a leader committed to electoral reform and any means to achieve it to succeed Starmer. Or maybe you would rather lose - at least you'll be comfortable with no real change in our political structures. Anything else would be much more of a risk. I'm pretty much equally averse to all parties given the past year! Only a guarantee of change in the electoral system would persuade me to vote at all. a change to PR might put me off conversely-government building behind closed doors semi permanently ..you mean like happened in 2010 ..under FPTP.
All that voters can do is vote for whoever they decide to do. After that it's out of their hands anyway, so this is a facile point tbh
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jan 3, 2021 23:55:19 GMT
Last time it is highly unlikely the Lib Dems would have backed anyone (and said as much). Starmer, though, is not Corbyn and Lib Dem strategy is clearly to hope for a hung Parliament where they can back Labour at the moment. Would they be naive enough to do this without a guarantee of electoral reform? I hope they press for a better deal on PR than the lousy AV vote they "got" from Cameron in 2010!!
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jan 4, 2021 0:07:45 GMT
Losing alone, which is perfectly possible anyway, will prove nothing. If you can show me, say, a critical 20 seats determined by a few hundred votes that could clearly have been shifted by one candidate or another standing down I'll be both (very) surprised and acknowledge your view. But your approach simply ignores actual voter behaviour, the dynamics of elections and the principles of democracy in local parties (of any kind). My approach would deliver much the same effect but with a recognition of all these things. Thus, as is typical in our debates, the pragmatic approach! In that case, the Tories will win again. The problem with your approach is that it ends up achieving nothing much of any worth, which I think is a reasonable summary of the last Labour government, a few good things, a few very bad, but largely nothing much which endured or really changed anything. The logic of your argument, had it been applied in earlier elections in the 80s and 90s, is that Labour should have withdrawn candidates from Portsmouth South - Hove - Enfield Southgate. Those three seats now have Labour MPs with good majorities - despite Labour having been a distant third place in all of them well within recent memory.
|
|
clyde1998
SNP
Green (E&W) member; SNP supporter
Posts: 1,765
|
Post by clyde1998 on Jan 4, 2021 1:41:46 GMT
I think I'll echo the advice of others and suggest people ignore this dataset.
The individual constituency estimates look incredibly unrealistic: my constituency, for example, has Labour second on 23%, an area where they've only received more than 10% once since 1983 (14% in 2017).
The poll doesn't seem to weight by Brexit vote, which remains a strong indicator of partisan support. Additionally, their vote by age figures seem out of line compared to YouGov's published polling numbers (Conservatives too low among older voters, Labour too low among younger voters). There's no social grade figures either, which could see Labour overestimated in certain 'traditional Labour' areas compared to how they'd actually do now and the same for the Conservatives.
The overall Scotland figures look badly wrong. I imagine that's partly down to GB-wide MRPs not taking into account independence vote, on top of the other problems with the data. Either way though, there's no chance of the SNP getting 57 seats on 44% - for that many seats, they'd have to be in the mid-50s.
I'd imagine the Lib Dems are leading in more than two seats right now (they'd be leading in at least two in Scotland, IMO). In fact, their vote share in the poll is about 3-4% better than they've been polling with YouGov in recent weeks/months and better than they got in 2015. The Green and Brexit vote shares are similar to YouGov's recent polling.
It appears there's some level of 'rubber banding' going on - each party's highest and lowest constituency shares appearing less extreme as they should be.
Also worth mentioning the MRPs in the 2019 election did overestimate Labour and underestimate the Conservatives.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 4, 2021 2:19:55 GMT
And for all the complaints about Labour "tribalism", they maybe didn't do anything come the last GE as egregious as what the LibDems got up to in Kensington. I don't know why Sam Gyimah didn't stand in a seat like Wimbledon or Streatham from a LD point of view.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 4, 2021 2:36:54 GMT
Some of their forecasts: Sutton Coldfield: Con 42.8%, Lab 37.1%, LD 7.7%, Green 7.3%, Brexit 3.5% Scarborough & Whitby: Con 43.2%, Lab 37.8%, LD 5.2% NW Hampshire: Con 47.0%, Lab 31.9%, LD 9.1% Richmond Park: Con 35.2%, LD 33.2%, Lab 21.7% Twickenham: Con 32.3%, LD 32.2%, Lab 24.0%. Comparison of Hull East and Hull North: Hull East: Lab 43.3%, Lab 28.6% Hull North: Lab 43.5%, Con 29.3% Why would Hull North suddenly become more marginal than Hull East? At the last election the Lab maj in Hull East was 3.8% compared to 22.2% in Hull North.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,778
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on Jan 4, 2021 2:46:41 GMT
Lol I hadn’t spotted that Sutton Coldfield estimate.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jan 4, 2021 7:15:54 GMT
Some of their forecasts: Sutton Coldfield: Con 42.8%, Lab 37.1%, LD 7.7%, Green 7.3%, Brexit 3.5% Scarborough & Whitby: Con 43.2%, Lab 37.8%, LD 5.2% NW Hampshire: Con 47.0%, Lab 31.9%, LD 9.1% Richmond Park: Con 35.2%, LD 33.2%, Lab 21.7% Twickenham: Con 32.3%, LD 32.2%, Lab 24.0%. Comparison of Hull East and Hull North: Hull East: Lab 43.3%, Lab 28.6%Hull North: Lab 43.5%, Con 29.3% Why would Hull North suddenly become more marginal than Hull East? At the last election the Lab maj in Hull East was 3.8% compared to 22.2% in Hull North. That is indeed a remarkable result.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 4, 2021 7:59:02 GMT
And for all the complaints about Labour "tribalism", they maybe didn't do anything come the last GE as egregious as what the LibDems got up to in Kensington. I don't know why Sam Gyimah didn't stand in a seat like Wimbledon or Streatham from a LD point of view. Wimbledon might have been won if the non Tory vote had been more focused. Streatham, maybe not. His own seat saw an increase in the LibDem vote of 9% and as he was not likely to win anywhere, he should have stood there
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Jan 4, 2021 8:35:30 GMT
And for all the complaints about Labour "tribalism", they maybe didn't do anything come the last GE as egregious as what the LibDems got up to in Kensington. I missed this, what were they up to?
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 4, 2021 9:10:46 GMT
And for all the complaints about Labour "tribalism", they maybe didn't do anything come the last GE as egregious as what the LibDems got up to in Kensington. I missed this, what were they up to? Aside from the sort of ramping and lying about their prospects of winning (which is par for the course), they were out and out trying to blame the sitting Labour MP for Grenfell.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,059
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jan 4, 2021 9:25:11 GMT
a change to PR might put me off conversely-government building behind closed doors semi permanently ..you mean like happened in 2010 ..under FPTP.
All that voters can do is vote for whoever they decide to do. After that it's out of their hands anyway, so this is a facile point tbh
of course deadlocked results can happen under fptp too but PR would help guarantee it.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,624
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 4, 2021 9:54:52 GMT
And for all the complaints about Labour "tribalism", they maybe didn't do anything come the last GE as egregious as what the LibDems got up to in Kensington. I don't know why Sam Gyimah didn't stand in a seat like Wimbledon or Streatham from a LD point of view. Its not like Wimbledon is even that far from his old seat, either.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 4, 2021 10:22:41 GMT
I don't know why Sam Gyimah didn't stand in a seat like Wimbledon or Streatham from a LD point of view. Its not like Wimbledon is even that far from his old seat, either. Indeed - close enough that part of his old seat (the Caterham and Warlingham area) was in the same constituency as Wimbledon before 1918, for whatever that is worth. Still I fail to understand your continued insistence that a right-leaning Lib Dem was under some kind of duty to help secure the re-election of a far-left Labour MP in Kensington..
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,624
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 4, 2021 11:25:04 GMT
It was a wrecking operation, pure and simple - and the only ever feasible result was returning a Tory MP in the constituency where Grenfell happened. And frankly I don't think Dent Coad's position on the Labour spectrum had much to do with it - much more another example of the Swinson era LibDems getting high on the smell of their own farts.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jan 4, 2021 11:28:22 GMT
I don't know why Sam Gyimah didn't stand in a seat like Wimbledon or Streatham from a LD point of view. Its not like Wimbledon is even that far from his old seat, either. We had an excellent candidate in Wimbledon who tbh I'd have much rather see in the HoC that Sam Gyimah. He should have stood in his old seat.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jan 4, 2021 12:27:03 GMT
Honestly, no. And your reference to "most" betrays your own doubt. The difference between heavily facilitated tactical voting and actually removing choice from voters is probably rather small. You also, in your aversion to your most recent former party (but not the one before that!) attribute any "non-compliance" to "Labour tribalism". Perhaps you need a history lesson from your own neck of the woods? Surely you recognise that there are many Lib Dems who wouldn't vote Labour in any circumstance? I've certainly met them quite frequently. Indeed quite a number would probably rather vote Tory.
You also assume that a "grand plan" of the two parties is bought by most of the electorate as the main purpose of that General Election. No. Voters choose the issues that concern them and they won't regard this as an election merely to decide one thing. And they'd rather resent an attempt to hijack their choices.
I'll remind you of this when you lose the next election and Labour pick a leader committed to electoral reform and any means to achieve it to succeed Starmer. Or maybe you would rather lose - at least you'll be comfortable with no real change in our political structures. Anything else would be much more of a risk. I'm pretty much equally averse to all parties given the past year! Only a guarantee of change in the electoral system would persuade me to vote at all. I agree Mike. Talk of a Labour majority - in the system/society/mechanisms we operate under in today's world is fanciful. Most realistic option for 2024 is a "grand anti-Tory alliance" IMO. For a one-off election parties must stand down in 100 or so target seats to ensure that Labour emerges as largest party but also that LD + other parties see their ranks swollen too. It must be linked directly to election reform and a fairer voting system. Once some form of PR is in place, the parties can go back to their old tribal loyalties and voters can then vote positively for the party they support rather than having to tactically vote against the party they least support which is very much a negative vote. No more of this "vote Lib Dem, get Labour" nonsense; instead it would be "vote Lib Dem, get Lib Dem" [insert party of choice into that hackneyed phrase, as all sides played it at some time]. Failure to do so, with the way the balance of power currently exists, means a likely continuation of the theme of 40 years of Tory-rule in the next 50 years, with the only exceptions being periods where the non-Tory party/coalition is actively supported by the owners of The Sun. The sooner Labour realise this the better... and interesting article about this is here...
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jan 4, 2021 12:37:36 GMT
I don't know why Sam Gyimah didn't stand in a seat like Wimbledon or Streatham from a LD point of view. Wimbledon might have been won if the non Tory vote had been more focused. Streatham, maybe not. His own seat saw an increase in the LibDem vote of 9% and as he was not likely to win anywhere, he should have stood there Better for Labour that the LDs failed to win Wimbledon in that it keeps Labour inserious contention there for 2024. Labour held the seat 1997 - 2005 and this poll shows them well placed to do so again.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,571
Member is Online
|
Post by European Lefty on Jan 4, 2021 12:38:59 GMT
I'll remind you of this when you lose the next election and Labour pick a leader committed to electoral reform and any means to achieve it to succeed Starmer. Or maybe you would rather lose - at least you'll be comfortable with no real change in our political structures. Anything else would be much more of a risk. I'm pretty much equally averse to all parties given the past year! Only a guarantee of change in the electoral system would persuade me to vote at all. I agree Mike. Talk of a Labour majority - in the system/society/mechanisms we operate under in today's world is fanciful. Most realistic option for 2024 is a "grand anti-Tory alliance" IMO. For a one-off election parties must stand down in 100 or so target seats to ensure that Labour emerges as largest party but also that LD + other parties see their ranks swollen too. It must be linked directly to election reform and a fairer voting system. Once some form of PR is in place, the parties can go back to their old tribal loyalties and voters can then vote positively for the party they support rather than having to tactically vote against the party they least support which is very much a negative vote. No more of this "vote Lib Dem, get Labour" nonsense; instead it would be "vote Lib Dem, get Lib Dem" [insert party of choice into that hackneyed phrase, as all sides played it at some time]. Failure to do so, with the way the balance of power currently exists, means a likely continuation of the theme of 40 years of Tory-rule in the next 50 years, with the only exceptions being periods where the non-Tory party/coalition is actively supported by the owners of The Sun. The sooner Labour realise this the better... and interesting article about this is here...
Or, alternatively, we could crush the LibDems under our heels like the cockroaches they are and not have centre-left votes flowing to a party that instinctively wants to prop up a right-wing government?
|
|