More In Common

[Tony Otim]

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.

There is absolutely no way Sunak agrees to a debate with Davey and Farage about who makes the best opposition. It would have been a disastrous thing for him to do...

[john07]

Sept 1, 2024 17:40:32 GMT Tony Otim said:

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

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.

There is absolutely no way Sunak agrees to a debate with Davey and Farage about who makes the best opposition. It would have been a disastrous thing for him to do...

Especially as Ed Davey would probably be unicycling around the studio during the debate?

[nyx]

Sept 1, 2024 17:40:32 GMT Tony Otim said:

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

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.

There is absolutely no way Sunak agrees to a debate with Davey and Farage about who makes the best opposition. It would have been a disastrous thing for him to do...

Sure, a different compromise would have had to be agreed for that reason. Probably just a series of Starmer vs Sunak vs Farage vs Davey debates- all the parties polling over 10%. Perhaps with the Greens if a lower threshold were wanted.

I suppose my point is that the focus from the media on claiming the election was a Labour vs Conservative race for who forms the next government, when in reality it had been obvious for a long time that the chances of the Conservatives losing the Official Opposition spot were far higher than the chances of them forming the government, was a form of undue bias in favour of the Conservatives and may have been a factor in why they did as well as they did.

There were four one-on-one Sunak vs Starmer debates, and of the debates which included Reform or the Lib Dems, all of them were large-scale events with the SNP or Plaid Cymru also participating! This is despite the fact that during that entire period, Reform was regularly polling only marginally behind the Conservatives, and plenty of models showed the Lib Dems having a strong chance at achieving the Official Opposition spot.

[redtony]

many voters say they will vote labour but dont get to the polling station unless they are dragged there by labour party workers
Due to the Labour parties ulyta targeting strategy there was no GOTV operation in their safe and normally not so safe seats

[The Bishop]

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.

If you add up Lab/Con/Reform/LibDem/both Green parties/SNP/Plaid, you are still left with about 4.6% of the GB vote going to "Others". Apart from the Workers Party, was their any significant "minor party" input at all to this? Just saying that 2% looks a bit low given the above.

[Sibboleth]

And once one is talking of margins of error and so on...

[Sibboleth]

What I will note, though, is that the bizarre thing about the polling during the campaign was that it didn't narrow as expected and for a long time only got worse, and that much of this related to the utter fiasco that was the Conservative campaign: thinking especially of the D-Day business here. I do wonder if there was a phenomenon of actually shy Conservative voters for a change: people who really were embarrassed to admit, even in an anonymous online panel, that they intended to vote for that utter shower (even if they absolutely intended to in their heart of hearts). This is not an issue for Mic (which managed to get the Con vote spot on), but I think did, perhaps, show up elsewhere.

[Deleted]

Also telling someone you're going to walk out on Your Party and actually doing so in the moment and the privacy of the polling booth are very different things, which would have been near impossible for polling to pick up

[uthacalthing]

There must be a great many voters who decided to cast a protest vote only once they were certain that they had no need to cast a tactical vote

[batman]

including perhaps one or two in this forum. Not me though. I voted Labour.

[The Bishop]

Though we shouldn't forget that polls only understated the actual Tory GE vote by a couple of points if at all, their error regarding Labour was bigger.

[hullenedge]

[london(ex)tory]

Reform up in every poll since the election.

[The Bishop]

For whatever that may be worth.

[swanarcadian]

It’s not often the leading party is on less than 30 percent in the UK. We’re becoming increasingly less like the USA and more like continental Europe in our voting patterns.

[hullenedge]

Sept 13, 2024 14:40:13 GMT swanarcadian said:

It’s not often the leading party is on less than 30 percent in the UK. We’re becoming increasingly less like the USA and more like continental Europe in our voting patterns.

Uncharted territory?

[Sibboleth]

It's not particularly difficult to cherry-pick statistics (why start a selected post-election poll shift series in 1983? There's no honest reason to do so: you either have a much earlier cut off or you extend it to 1979) and compare things that can't really be compared in a like-for-like way (such polling as we've had will already have been modified in a way that will push the government's figures down to account for polling error in the election - this is certainly the case with MiC who are more open than most and have shown the modifications - which wasn't the case previously) if that's what you want to do. Also, is that a Jean Marie Le Pen avatar?

[swanarcadian]

The post-election poll shift series referred to by hullenedge could have gone all the way back to 1945, and none of them will have shown any party leading with less than 30 percent support, nor anywhere near it.

There are clear signs that the UK is almost voting as though we already have a PR electoral system in place with these kinds of numbers, although the current composition of the House of Commons gives the exact opposite impression.
The layout of the Commons chamber itself lends itself to an adversarial style of politics, which is in the British tradition. But the impression is that people would increasingly prefer a more deliberative, collaborative way for our MPs to work.

[Forfarshire Conservative]

If this becomes the norm, some form of pr is inevitable. You can’t have majority governments on 20something% of the vote and expect them to have legitimacy.

[mattbewilson]

Sept 13, 2024 15:42:51 GMT Sibboleth said:

It's not particularly difficult to cherry-pick statistics (why start a selected post-election poll shift series in 1983? There's no honest reason to do so: you either have a much earlier cut off or you extend it to 1979) and compare things that can't really be compared in a like-for-like way (such polling as we've had will already have been modified in a way that will push the government's figures down to account for polling error in the election - this is certainly the case with MiC who are more open than most and have shown the modifications - which wasn't the case previously) if that's what you want to do. Also, is that a Jean Marie Le Pen avatar?

please do provide some stats pre 83