|
|
Post by batman on May 23, 2022 20:45:58 GMT
I can't help but think of that Fast Show character who just shakes his head & says "It's all bollocks".
|
|
clyde1998
SNP
Green (E&W) member; SNP supporter
Posts: 1,765 
|
Post by clyde1998 on May 23, 2022 23:04:22 GMT
New Find Out Now / Best For Britain poll and MRP. The link only shows the raw percentages. I have the turnout adjusted figures as these: Lab 43% Con 34% LD 9% Green 5% It looks very high for Lab and a bit low for LD. Even with a high end result for Labour, it has them not getting a majority. The MRP results look odd for the LDs. 8 seats if there are no pacts, 7 if Reform does a deal with the Tories. 12 if the LDs do a deal with Labour. Even taking account of MRP models' odd handling of Scotland, that seems on the low side of everybody's expectations. I'm starting to the MRP has less value than often touted. I'd still trust it to show which seats are doing better or worse than UNS, but I think its' prediction of the winner leaves something to be desired. www.bestforbritain.org/may_2022_mrp_analysisThe interesting thing to look at is the VIs, rather than the seat projection: Con vs Lab (ie. no LDm or Grn candidate)Lab 34% (~46%) Con 28% (~38%) RUK 5% (~7%) SNP 3% (~4%) PC 1% (~1%) Oth 3% (~4%) WNV 10% DK 14% PNTS 2% Con vs LDm (ie. no Lab or Grn candidate)Con 30% (~43%) LDm 24% (~35%) RUK 6% (~9%) SNP 4% (~6%) PC 1% (~1%) Oth 4% (~6%) WNV 14% DK 17% PNTS 2% Labour voters split 4:1 to the Lib Dems, while Lib Dem voters split 'only' 3:1 to Labour. Green voters split about 4:1 towards both. The Conservative lead over the Lib Dems may suggest the Tories are in less trouble against the Lib Dems than against Labour come a general election. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2022 23:07:36 GMT
Seeing a map of these "predictions" really drives home how mad they are: Almost the first thing I was taught in GCSE science is "if the result of your experiment doesn't look credible, it probably isn't". It seems that this advice has passed some people by completely |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on May 24, 2022 5:58:01 GMT
Seeing a map of these "predictions" really drives home how mad they are: Almost the first thing I was taught in GCSE science is "if the result of your experiment doesn't look credible, it probably isn't". It seems that this advice has passed some people by completely Well, the desire to see a “pact” represents a political position, albeit one that has few adherents who actually belong to political parties. They are entitled to argue their case, and aren’t any more dishonest than anyone else in doing so. Of course the disastrous results for the Conservatives in 1997 and 2001 were caused by an intersection of first past the post and the widespread anti-Conservative (rather than pro anything) feeling in the country. Such results don’t require pacts, just the modern tendency to restrict campaigning to promising territory (which really only started in the 1990s - previously parties had made some effort everywhere in order to maximise their vote in the country). This process, whether you like it or not, is in practice at least as effective, while depriving fewer people of the ability to vote for what they believe in. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on May 24, 2022 6:55:44 GMT
Labour in 1997 thought they were targetting ruthlessly, but in fact did so too cautiously. They won many seats where only a rudimentary campaign had taken place and worked too hard in some seats they were clearly going to win easily. Probably they missed only a few seats, however, by not working them harder - one example perhaps is Uxbridge where they should have thrown some activists in instead of Hayes & Harlington which was quite obviously going to be won by Labour. Had Labour won Uxbridge in 1997, of course there would have been no by-election, and it probably would have been held in 2001 too, though mostly likely not 2005.
|
|
clyde1998
SNP
Green (E&W) member; SNP supporter
Posts: 1,765
|
Post by clyde1998 on May 24, 2022 9:04:41 GMT
Almost the first thing I was taught in GCSE science is "if the result of your experiment doesn't look credible, it probably isn't". It seems that this advice has passed some people by completely Well, the desire to see a “pact” represents a political position, albeit one that has few adherents who actually belong to political parties. They are entitled to argue their case, and aren’t any more dishonest than anyone else in doing so. Of course the disastrous results for the Conservatives in 1997 and 2001 were caused by an intersection of first past the post and the widespread anti-Conservative (rather than pro anything) feeling in the country. Such results don’t require pacts, just the modern tendency to restrict campaigning to promising territory (which really only started in the 1990s - previously parties had made some effort everywhere in order to maximise their vote in the country). This process, whether you like it or not, is in practice at least as effective, while depriving fewer people of the ability to vote for what they believe in. Also worth noting, in a lot of cases, these pacts don't work anyway, because the average voter is much more complex than most people give them credit for. As a simple example, if the average Lib Dem voter is a classical liberal and the Lib Dems have stood down for the Labour candidate in order to make it more likely the Conservative candidate would be beaten, that voter may be inclined to vote Conservative for economic reasons, Labour for social reasons or vote for another party entirely; the Lib Dems standing down for Labour could end up having a net benefit for the Conservatives. As we saw with the Unite to Remain pact in the last election, parties are typically only willing to not stand a candidate if they've got no chance of winning anyway - which is why Ceredigion, for example, had both a Plaid and Lib Dem candidate despite both parties being in the pact. It's not going to happen in all but the most extreme cases, but is an interesting thought exercise. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on May 24, 2022 9:59:12 GMT
Labour in 1997 thought they were targetting ruthlessly, but in fact did so too cautiously. They won many seats where only a rudimentary campaign had taken place and worked too hard in some seats they were clearly going to win easily. Probably they missed only a few seats, however, by not working them harder - one example perhaps is Uxbridge where they should have thrown some activists in instead of Hayes & Harlington which was quite obviously going to be won by Labour. Had Labour won Uxbridge in 1997, of course there would have been no by-election, and it probably would have been held in 2001 too, though mostly likely not 2005. A maybe even more glaring example was Bedfordshire SW, where some activists relocated from Luton (where both seats went Labour by miles) would likely have done it. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 24, 2022 10:26:55 GMT
This one is ... different party / westminster seats Lab 393 Con 101 LD 77 SNP 48 Grn 17 PC 2 If this was the actual result, I wonder how long it would take Labour to throw the "Progressive Alliance" under the bus and decide to start governing by themselves? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 24, 2022 10:34:23 GMT
This one is ... different party / westminster seats Lab 393 Con 101 LD 77 SNP 48 Grn 17 PC 2 If this was the actual result, I wonder how long it would take Labour to throw the "Progressive Alliance" under the bus and decide to start governing by themselves? About 10 seconds after the exit poll was published With no electoral reform of course |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 24, 2022 10:38:12 GMT
Labour in 1997 thought they were targetting ruthlessly, but in fact did so too cautiously. They won many seats where only a rudimentary campaign had taken place and worked too hard in some seats they were clearly going to win easily. Probably they missed only a few seats, however, by not working them harder - one example perhaps is Uxbridge where they should have thrown some activists in instead of Hayes & Harlington which was quite obviously going to be won by Labour. Had Labour won Uxbridge in 1997, of course there would have been no by-election, and it probably would have been held in 2001 too, though mostly likely not 2005. Perhaps more importantly in terms of the future of the UK, did that happen in 2017? |
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on May 24, 2022 11:16:13 GMT
If that's the answer what the hell was the question? The question was what happens if the Tories go up against just one candidate from Lab, LD and Green in each constituency. Then the non Tory winner would surely depend on who stands - a question the map creator wouldn't know. Labour would never do this. They've learnt their lesson with birthing the SNP as a serious political force. |
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on May 24, 2022 11:20:22 GMT
Labour in 1997 thought they were targetting ruthlessly, but in fact did so too cautiously. They won many seats where only a rudimentary campaign had taken place and worked too hard in some seats they were clearly going to win easily. Probably they missed only a few seats, however, by not working them harder - one example perhaps is Uxbridge where they should have thrown some activists in instead of Hayes & Harlington which was quite obviously going to be won by Labour. Had Labour won Uxbridge in 1997, of course there would have been no by-election, and it probably would have been held in 2001 too, though mostly likely not 2005. Perhaps more importantly in terms of the future of the UK, did that happen in 2017? For a start, they did nothing at all in Putney. Which they may have won if they worked it. I didn't see the gravity of the swing either, and spent the day In Carshalton. My personal opinion is that knocking up doesn't make a whole lot of difference for general elections (as opposed to local elections). Although a serious delivery campaign is a must. |
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,683
|
Post by pl on May 24, 2022 11:23:39 GMT
The question was what happens if the Tories go up against just one candidate from Lab, LD and Green in each constituency. Then the non Tory winner would surely depend on who stands - a question the map creator wouldn't know. Labour would never do this. They've learnt their lesson with birthing the SNP as a serious political force. The bigger lesson is the Lib-Lab Pact of 1906.... with the Greens playing the role of Labour. There just isn't the space on the left for three parties under FPTP. Currently, Lab have incumbancy and the LDs are the non- threatening alternative for Conservative voters. However, the Greens have the Zeitgeist and clarity of purpose/ message. The LDs have more to lose under a Progressive Alliance than Labour! |
|
|
|
Post by batman on May 24, 2022 13:24:20 GMT
Labour in 1997 thought they were targetting ruthlessly, but in fact did so too cautiously. They won many seats where only a rudimentary campaign had taken place and worked too hard in some seats they were clearly going to win easily. Probably they missed only a few seats, however, by not working them harder - one example perhaps is Uxbridge where they should have thrown some activists in instead of Hayes & Harlington which was quite obviously going to be won by Labour. Had Labour won Uxbridge in 1997, of course there would have been no by-election, and it probably would have been held in 2001 too, though mostly likely not 2005. Perhaps more importantly in terms of the future of the UK, did that happen in 2017? Certainly. I know through my sister that Labour thought Southampton Test, for example, was under threat, which on the basis of early polling perhaps it was. So very little work went into Itchen which remained Tory by 31 votes. I'm quite sure that if the party had been quicker to respond to the changing polling situation resources could have been switched to Itchen & that seat almost certainly gained. Although it would have been lost again in 2019. |
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,350
|
Post by graham on May 24, 2022 18:56:08 GMT
Labour in 1997 thought they were targetting ruthlessly, but in fact did so too cautiously. They won many seats where only a rudimentary campaign had taken place and worked too hard in some seats they were clearly going to win easily. Probably they missed only a few seats, however, by not working them harder - one example perhaps is Uxbridge where they should have thrown some activists in instead of Hayes & Harlington which was quite obviously going to be won by Labour. Had Labour won Uxbridge in 1997, of course there would have been no by-election, and it probably would have been held in 2001 too, though mostly likely not 2005. It is surprising that Uxbridge was neglected in 1997 given that the seat had been a Labour marginal 1945 - 1959. The Tories did well to hold it in 1964 with only a narrow Labour win in 1966. Labour never won the seat again - rather suggesting a demographic shift against them there. The demographics may have shifted again in recent years - though the boundaries are now very different
More effort could have been made also in Sutton Carshalton which had been a Tory -Labour marginal at both 1974 elections.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 24, 2022 19:15:27 GMT
Perhaps more importantly in terms of the future of the UK, did that happen in 2017? Certainly. I know through my sister that Labour thought Southampton Test, for example, was under threat, which on the basis of early polling perhaps it was. So very little work went into Itchen which remained Tory by 31 votes. I'm quite sure that if the party had been quicker to respond to the changing polling situation resources could have been switched to Itchen & that seat almost certainly gained. Although it would have been lost again in 2019. 2019 would almost certainly not have happened under the same circumstances. Depending on the maths of that hung parliament so many different things could have happened. My daughter lives in Southampton Itchen, and I think she voted Labour in 2017.. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on May 24, 2022 22:12:58 GMT
Labour in 1997 thought they were targetting ruthlessly, but in fact did so too cautiously. They won many seats where only a rudimentary campaign had taken place and worked too hard in some seats they were clearly going to win easily. Probably they missed only a few seats, however, by not working them harder - one example perhaps is Uxbridge where they should have thrown some activists in instead of Hayes & Harlington which was quite obviously going to be won by Labour. Had Labour won Uxbridge in 1997, of course there would have been no by-election, and it probably would have been held in 2001 too, though mostly likely not 2005. It is surprising that Uxbridge was neglected in 1997 given that the seat had been a Labour marginal 1945 - 1959. The Tories did well to hold it in 1964 with only a narrow Labour win in 1966. Labour never won the seat again - rather suggesting a demographic shift against them there. The demographics may have shifted again in recent years - though the boundaries are now very different
More effort could have been made also in Sutton Carshalton which had been a Tory -Labour marginal at both 1974 elections.
Labour deliberately targetted only the outright marginals they needed to take office and decided not to target more semi-marginal seats. As it happens, loads of the latter fell, but not quite all. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on May 24, 2022 22:14:30 GMT
Certainly. I know through my sister that Labour thought Southampton Test, for example, was under threat, which on the basis of early polling perhaps it was. So very little work went into Itchen which remained Tory by 31 votes. I'm quite sure that if the party had been quicker to respond to the changing polling situation resources could have been switched to Itchen & that seat almost certainly gained. Although it would have been lost again in 2019. 2019 would almost certainly not have happened under the same circumstances. Depending on the maths of that hung parliament so many different things could have happened. My daughter lives in Southampton Itchen, and I think she voted Labour in 2017.. well yes, but it was one of the very closest Labour not-quite-wins, and of itself it wouldn't have made much difference to the arithmetic. Another 2% swing or so, however, that would have been a different matter. |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on May 24, 2022 22:50:31 GMT
If you believe the accounts of 2017 there was battle between LOTO and Southside over which seats to resource. Money reportedly was poured into seats labour thought they would lose, or which MPs they'd rather not lose, with a few targets getting pushed up the list later on. Many would say 2019 was evidence why the 2017 approach was right while others lament on what would have happened if labour had been more ambitious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on May 25, 2022 0:45:27 GMT
If you believe the accounts of 2017 there was battle between LOTO and Southside over which seats to resource. Money reportedly was poured into seats labour thought they would lose, or which MPs they'd rather not lose, with a few targets getting pushed up the list later on. Many would say 2019 was evidence why the 2017 approach was right while others lament on what would have happened if labour had been more ambitious. The answer to that one is simple - we should have used the 2019 approach in 2017, and the 2017 approach in 2019. Forecasting infallibly which approach (whether one of these or any other) to apply to which elections is left as an exercise for the reader. Getting it wrong and losing the election will be taken as positive proof that you were deliberately sabotaging the election campaign. Of course, in 1997, when I doubt that we targetted a single seat in which we did not get a five-figure majority, the campaign was perfect. After all, we won with a landslide. |
|
