More In Common

[hullenedge]

[manchesterman]

One of the better vote shares I'd say

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

Is the Liberal Democrat 13% smaller than the Reform 13% on that chart, or is it just the colouring or my eyes making me see that?

[Crimson King]

Jun 29, 2024 6:43:18 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

Is the Liberal Democrat 13% smaller than the Reform 13% on that chart, or is it just the colouring or my eyes making me see that?

Lib Dems in dodgy bar chart shock!

[aargauer]

Jun 29, 2024 6:43:18 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

Is the Liberal Democrat 13% smaller than the Reform 13% on that chart, or is it just the colouring or my eyes making me see that?

Scaled to the exact rather than rounded figure?

[yellowperil]

Jun 29, 2024 6:46:19 GMT Crimson King said:

Jun 29, 2024 6:43:18 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

Is the Liberal Democrat 13% smaller than the Reform 13% on that chart, or is it just the colouring or my eyes making me see that?

Lib Dems in dodgy bar chart shock!

It is certainly the case, though, and it isn't just BD/T's eyes. Maybe, just maybe, MiC have based the bars on the exact numbers rather than the nearest whole numbers and say Reform are 13.4 and LDs 12.8. Alternatively it is just a pro-Reform bias. Surely not?

(my comment crossed with that of Aargauer)

[bigfatron]

From the tables:
Lib Dem: 12.5%
Reform: 13.2%

[hullenedge]

[hullenedge]

Pinch of salt...

[hullenedge]

[aidypiez]

Jul 3, 2024 14:15:08 GMT hullenedge said:

This has the Lib dems getting 0% in north Cornwall, Carshalton and Wallington, south Cotswolds and Farnham and bordon. Think someone's messed up there.

Hilariously also has labour running 4th in the western Isles

[iain]

Western Isles is very amusing: SNP 29%, Con 23%, LD 21%, Lab 16%

Also has the Greens at 18% in Orkney & Shetland

[kevinf]

Jul 3, 2024 14:42:05 GMT iain said:

Western Isles is very amusing: SNP 29%, Con 23%, LD 21%, Lab 16%

Also has the Greens at 18% in Orkney & Shetland

So they think the outgoing MP, standing as an Indy in the Western Isles is going to come 5th? Or can’t their system cope with a little complication?

[Tony Otim]

Jul 3, 2024 14:42:05 GMT iain said:

Western Isles is very amusing: SNP 29%, Con 23%, LD 21%, Lab 16%

Also has the Greens at 18% in Orkney & Shetland

Orkney & Shetland could well be one of our better Scottish results, but 18% is too high and I think the Lib Dem figure there too low.

Still it's more believable than one of the Paisley and Renfrewshire seats being our second best result with c. 11%...

[hullenedge]

Thread about the overestimation of Labour's support in their final GE poll. A trending movement away from Labour and misjudging Muslim voters' intentions accounts for about 50% of the error:-

[Sibboleth]

That's certainly plausible in their case. Minority groups that are too small to make a large difference but large enough to move a point or two here and there must logically always be a complicating factor in polling if the minority in question is moving in a radically different way to everyone else.

[The Bishop]

At least this is an actual attempt at serious analysis, rather than garment rending over "MaSsIvE HiStOrIc InTeRnAtIoNaL bIaS".

[stodge]

Yes, I found much of Ed Hodgson's analysis compelling.

Clearly, the "Independent" vote in a number of constituencies wasn't picked up and the comment about the lack of polling among non-UK born Muslims would chime with what happened in parts of East London where anti-Labour Independent candidates polled very strongly.

Unfortunately, Independent candidates of all stripes (and none) won only 2% nationally which doesn't wholly explain the big miss in Labour vote share.

My personal view is there were a number of factors at work of which I'll put up two - first, Labour voter apathy in the face of seemingly overwhelming evidence of a big win. Perhaps a reverse 2017 but more like what happened in 2001 when Blair's second victory looked so inevitable a number of Labour voters decided not to bother (non voters polled after that election were strongly Labour - I'd love to see detailed polling of 2024 non voters).

Second, the "stop the super majority" campaign might have had an impact - the Conservative vote share had flirted with 20% ten days before the campaign but recovered to 24% because of Labour abstentions but because undoubtedly (and I suspect mainly in their very safest seats) the Conservative vote came out.

[nyx]

Sept 1, 2024 10:59:35 GMT stodge said:

Yes, I found much of Ed Hodgson's analysis compelling.

Clearly, the "Independent" vote in a number of constituencies wasn't picked up and the comment about the lack of polling among non-UK born Muslims would chime with what happened in parts of East London where anti-Labour Independent candidates polled very strongly.

Unfortunately, Independent candidates of all stripes (and none) won only 2% nationally which doesn't wholly explain the big miss in Labour vote share.

My personal view is there were a number of factors at work of which I'll put up two - first, Labour voter apathy in the face of seemingly overwhelming evidence of a big win. Perhaps a reverse 2017 but more like what happened in 2001 when Blair's second victory looked so inevitable a number of Labour voters decided not to bother (non voters polled after that election were strongly Labour - I'd love to see detailed polling of 2024 non voters).

Second, the "stop the super majority" campaign might have had an impact - the Conservative vote share had flirted with 20% ten days before the campaign but recovered to 24% because of Labour abstentions but because undoubtedly (and I suspect mainly in their very safest seats) the Conservative vote came out.

Judging by the More In Common analysis, the main polling error seems to be people answering Labour but voting Lib Dem, Green, or independent. This polling error was also seen in 1997- perhaps it shows a lack of consideration of local factors? It seems like the category of voters which was missed is those along the lines of "I would vote Labour but in my seat it's a Lib Dem vs Conservative race" or "I would vote Labour but my seat is a safe Labour seat so I'll vote for the Greens/an independent". Overestimating the Labour vote share in seats like that doesn't actually affect the result of the election of course,

Regarding the "stop the super majority" thing, the polls did bounce back a bit for the Tories in the week up to the election, albeit More In Common predicted the Tories around 25% consistently all along. I do think one factor in why the Tories did as well as they did was probably the media- when it came to debates the media (ludicrously) often tried to paint it as a competitive Labour vs Conservative election, saying things like "one of these two men will be Prime Minister after the election" about Starmer and Sunak. There was relatively little discussion of the fact that both the Lib Dems and Reform both had a good shot at becoming Official Opposition- there should probably have been a Sunak vs Davey vs Farage debate around what each of the three would actually do if they were Leader of the Opposition.

[mattbewilson]

Sept 1, 2024 14:31:00 GMT nyx said:

Sept 1, 2024 10:59:35 GMT stodge said:

Yes, I found much of Ed Hodgson's analysis compelling.

Clearly, the "Independent" vote in a number of constituencies wasn't picked up and the comment about the lack of polling among non-UK born Muslims would chime with what happened in parts of East London where anti-Labour Independent candidates polled very strongly.

Unfortunately, Independent candidates of all stripes (and none) won only 2% nationally which doesn't wholly explain the big miss in Labour vote share.

My personal view is there were a number of factors at work of which I'll put up two - first, Labour voter apathy in the face of seemingly overwhelming evidence of a big win. Perhaps a reverse 2017 but more like what happened in 2001 when Blair's second victory looked so inevitable a number of Labour voters decided not to bother (non voters polled after that election were strongly Labour - I'd love to see detailed polling of 2024 non voters).

Second, the "stop the super majority" campaign might have had an impact - the Conservative vote share had flirted with 20% ten days before the campaign but recovered to 24% because of Labour abstentions but because undoubtedly (and I suspect mainly in their very safest seats) the Conservative vote came out.

Judging by the More In Common analysis, the main polling error seems to be people answering Labour but voting Lib Dem, Green, or independent. This polling error was also seen in 1997- perhaps it shows a lack of consideration of local factors? It seems like the category of voters which was missed is those along the lines of "I would vote Labour but in my seat it's a Lib Dem vs Conservative race" or "I would vote Labour but my seat is a safe Labour seat so I'll vote for the Greens/an independent". Overestimating the Labour vote share in seats like that doesn't actually affect the result of the election of course,

Regarding the "stop the super majority" thing, the polls did bounce back a bit for the Tories in the week up to the election, albeit More In Common predicted the Tories around 25% consistently all along. I do think one factor in why the Tories did as well as they did was probably the media- when it came to debates the media (ludicrously) often tried to paint it as a competitive Labour vs Conservative election, saying things like "one of these two men will be Prime Minister after the election" about Starmer and Sunak. There was relatively little discussion of the fact that both the Lib Dems and Reform both had a good shot at becoming Official Opposition- there should probably have been a Sunak vs Davey vs Farage debate around what each of the three would actually do if they were Leader of the Opposition.

if that were true the under estimation of the lib dem and green vote would have been more