|
|
Copeland
Jan 2, 2017 21:51:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by andrew111 on Jan 2, 2017 21:51:06 GMT
Latest YouGov poll confirms the last one with a 15% Tory lead and a 3% swing from Lab to LD since a month ago. Opinium poll was clearly a plain wrong outlier... Tories seem keen and hitting the ground running in Copeland while Labour are arguing about whether they should have a Corbynite candidate or not... Lib Dems will get a significant vote in the Allerdale part of Copeland, and more than 3.5% everywhere else where getting a Lib Dem leaflet will be a lifetime novelty... I have just doubled the number of votes for a Tory majority of more than 2.5% to 2 My guess: Tory 38% (+2.2% Lab 35% (-7.3%) UKIP 14% (-1.5%) Lib Dem 10% (+6.5%) Green 2% (-1%) Random candidates 1% I see no evidence that Opinium was an outlier in that its figures are perfectly consistent with its tendency to show a smaller Tory lead than other pollsters.In December YouGov seemed the more dubious pollster having Labour on 25/24% when no other pollster had them lower than 27%. In the past ICM has tended to understate Labour - the only pollster to do so even in 1997. The most recent poll is already two weeks old - and may have been affected by Xmas. That opinium poll showed the opposite shifts in Labour and Lib Dem votes from the other four polls post Richmond Park and also the highest Labour vote for ages..The Yougov 24℅ and 25℅ scores may well be low, but you can find a nice statistical analysis of the YouGov polls in 2016 on ukpolling report which shows a clear trend of Labour decline since the referendum, and a matched significant increase in Lib Dem vote. Meanwhile the Tory vote has increased somewhat over the year but has been steady recently.. The current Labour vote is probably somewhere in the 25-29℅ range but has been falling, probably because of Labour vacillation over Brexit.... |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 2, 2017 22:42:24 GMT
Well, I've done some number crunching and come up with: Con 11,961 Lab 10,890 UKIP 3,704 LD 2,917 Gn 1,179 (unchanged) A party having no change in vote share I could believe. But party with a four-figure number of votes seeing no change in that number is completely implausible. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 2, 2017 22:50:32 GMT
Well, I've done some number crunching and come up with: Con 11,961 Lab 10,890 UKIP 3,704 LD 2,917 Gn 1,179 (unchanged) A party having no change in vote share I could believe. But party with a four-figure number of votes seeing no change in that number is completely implausible. You misunderstand what I have done (to be fair I didn't make it clear). I made a series of assumptions about each party (differential turnout; drift of Remainers to LD; drift of "job's done now" from UKIP to Con). None of these were applied to the Green vote, though I suppose there may be some Corbyn effect Green to Lab movement. It might have been better expressed as: Con 11,900 Lab 10,900 UKIP 3,700 LD 2,900 Gn 1,100 I must confess it doesn't "look right" to me, but that's what the changes produced! |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Jan 2, 2017 23:34:56 GMT
I'm wondering if our very own Chris Whiteside could be the Conservative candidate. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Copeland
Jan 2, 2017 23:39:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2017 23:39:16 GMT
A party having no change in vote share I could believe. But party with a four-figure number of votes seeing no change in that number is completely implausible. You misunderstand what I have done (to be fair I didn't make it clear). I made a series of assumptions about each party (differential turnout; drift of Remainers to LD; drift of "job's done now" from UKIP to Con). None of these were applied to the Green vote, though I suppose there may be some Corbyn effect Green to Lab movement. It might have been better expressed as: Con 11,900 Lab 10,900 UKIP 3,700 LD 2,900 Gn 1,100 I must confess it doesn't "look right" to me, but that's what the changes produced! Surely the turnout of Green supporters would be lower. |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jan 3, 2017 0:26:40 GMT
I see no evidence that Opinium was an outlier in that its figures are perfectly consistent with its tendency to show a smaller Tory lead than other pollsters.In December YouGov seemed the more dubious pollster having Labour on 25/24% when no other pollster had them lower than 27%. In the past ICM has tended to understate Labour - the only pollster to do so even in 1997. The most recent poll is already two weeks old - and may have been affected by Xmas. That opinium poll showed the opposite shifts in Labour and Lib Dem votes from the other four polls post Richmond Park and also the highest Labour vote for ages..The Yougov 24℅ and 25℅ scores may well be low, but you can find a nice statistical analysis of the YouGov polls in 2016 on ukpolling report which shows a clear trend of Labour decline since the referendum, and a matched significant increase in Lib Dem vote. Meanwhile the Tory vote has increased somewhat over the year but has been steady recently.. The current Labour vote is probably somewhere in the 25-29℅ range but has been falling, probably because of Labour vacillation over Brexit.... That is not quite the case. As recently as early November Opinium had Labour on 32%! A rating of 31% five weeks later ,therefore, is perfectly compatible with its earlier findings. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,913 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 3, 2017 0:27:14 GMT
When I was canvassing in Barons Court for Carr in 64GE (Ivor Richard won)the door to a flat was opened by a young man wearing only a pair of tights rather well hand-painted with peacocks with two friends behind him wearing rather less. There was a bit of quite clever and very camp badinage between them resulting in an invitation in for a cocktails and discussion, during which they promised to vote Conservative if I consented to have my nails painted bright green by them. I still cannot believe that I consented to this much to the outrage and amusement of the rest of the mutual-aiders on the bus back to Maidstone. My parents were a bit alarmed and had certain fears for a while. I had no girl friend. A female colleague at work took pity on me and used her remover on them at lunch-break in the girls loo, after a rather cutting remark by the Office Accountant that had made me blush. The things one does for the party! But... but... Oh, the green fingernails and the Withnail-like 60s doped-up shabbiness of it all can be forgiven. But - mutual aid? I thought that was all meant to be a damnation on David Cameron and his (and it was all his fault, that was established) hollowing-out of the party, rendering it reliant on safe seats helping the weaker. Before December 2005 every Association managed for itself and it was only wicked Cameron who made activists move outside their own constituency. Say it was Cameron's fault, Carlton! There must be a scapegoat, particularly if he's the one who brought the Tory Party kicking & screaming into reality. That was pre-Withnail and not doped up and I can assure you that in the days of a mass membership Conservative party there was plenty of Mutual Aid organized at various levels from the personal (MP helping MP, Agent helping previous constituency, Constituency-Constituency) to Regional Agent induced and Central Office induced. In those days there was a mass of spare capacity in Kent and Sussex and probably in lots of areas? Generally the strong constituencies helped the adjacent weaker (Thanet, Folkestone, Ashford, Maidstone and Tonbridge) helping Dover, Faversham and Rochester & Chatham. But Rochester & Chatham were quite strong and could be over-faced, especially when we had so many marginals in central London with quite weak membership. The London junkets were an important part of the mass canvass in those constituencies and there were a few coach loads a few times in the campaign period to get a real shift into the canvass. Cameron did not drag the party kicking and screaming into reality, but into a particular formulation that lacked appeal to most party workers. It may have gained voters in significant numbers at the fringes but in turned off and turned out hundreds of thousands like me to UKIP and limbo. He was neutral at best, and IMO was the direct cause of a failure to have an outright win in 2010 before the open goal of a Labour party in near melt down. We shall never know because it cannot be re-run in different circumstances. The membership decline had set in well before Cameron but he did not help the situation and his social policy and Green, hoodie-hugging, ring-fencing of Foreign Aid was the complete death knell to many constituencies I had been associated with. Those remnants of the great days were late 50s to mid 70s and resigned or gave up ground work in droves. He neglected the party and the membership and it shows, but it cannot be said to be all his fault. |
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Jan 3, 2017 8:26:24 GMT
But... but... Oh, the green fingernails and the Withnail-like 60s doped-up shabbiness of it all can be forgiven. But - mutual aid? I thought that was all meant to be a damnation on David Cameron and his (and it was all his fault, that was established) hollowing-out of the party, rendering it reliant on safe seats helping the weaker. Before December 2005 every Association managed for itself and it was only wicked Cameron who made activists move outside their own constituency. Say it was Cameron's fault, Carlton! There must be a scapegoat, particularly if he's the one who brought the Tory Party kicking & screaming into reality. That was pre-Withnail and not doped up and I can assure you that in the days of a mass membership Conservative party there was plenty of Mutual Aid organized at various levels from the personal (MP helping MP, Agent helping previous constituency, Constituency-Constituency) to Regional Agent induced and Central Office induced. In those days there was a mass of spare capacity in Kent and Sussex and probably in lots of areas? Generally the strong constituencies helped the adjacent weaker (Thanet, Folkestone, Ashford, Maidstone and Tonbridge) helping Dover, Faversham and Rochester & Chatham. But Rochester & Chatham were quite strong and could be over-faced, especially when we had so many marginals in central London with quite weak membership. The London junkets were an important part of the mass canvass in those constituencies and there were a few coach loads a few times in the campaign period to get a real shift into the canvass. Cameron did not drag the party kicking and screaming into reality, but into a particular formulation that lacked appeal to most party workers. It may have gained voters in significant numbers at the fringes but in turned off and turned out hundreds of thousands like me to UKIP and limbo. He was neutral at best, and IMO was the direct cause of a failure to have an outright win in 2010 before the open goal of a Labour party in near melt down. We shall never know because it cannot be re-run in different circumstances. The membership decline had set in well before Cameron but he did not help the situation and his social policy and Green, hoodie-hugging, ring-fencing of Foreign Aid was the complete death knell to many constituencies I had been associated with. Those remnants of the great days were late 50s to mid 70s and resigned or gave up ground work in droves. He neglected the party and the membership and it shows, but it cannot be said to be all his fault. I would have disagreed with your comments concerning perceptions about Cameron, Carlton, before seeing what happened after Cameron resigned. Within hours hundreds of people joined (or rejoined) the Party, many citing Cameron as the reason they'd previously left or not (re-)joined. Within a month, the number of "extra" new members who took the initiative to join centrally was substantially into five figures. How many of these new members we manage to engage in the Constituencies and to retain when their membership renewal comes up is a moot point - but the "glad that he's gone" mood that the Party saw after Cameron's resignation took many of us, myself included, by surprise. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,913
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 3, 2017 8:31:44 GMT
Might I enquire how old you are CO and how long you have been an active member? I am pleased to read of your reactions and to learn of the flow back. I would contend that the numbers who have drifted back without saying so to anyone and without formally re-joining the party may be much larger than 5-figures?
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,913
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 3, 2017 8:41:20 GMT
Many have voted even at this very early pre-resignation state. I have relented to join the spirit of the chase and voted as one of now three for the Conservative Win in rank 2.5-5.0%.
The lack of morale in Labour, the bullish attitude of the Conservatives on the ground, and the rather weak potential for the LDs to effect the outcome, all suggest to me that this is looking like a solid gain. If that is what happens the outlook for Labour is quite as bad as the Fabian Society suggests. But they are right about the Labour Firewall of 140-seats.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,931
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 3, 2017 11:12:11 GMT
Well it seems to me that this seemingly widespread giddiness about Tory prospects is based on very little so far.
Labour could - *could* - lose this seat, but that is far more applicable than the Tories winning it.
Nobody should kid themselves, whatever polls claim, that there is massive enthusiasm for the present government out there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 11:23:45 GMT
Well it seems to me that this seemingly widespread giddiness about Tory prospects is based on very little so far. Labour could - *could* - lose this seat, but that is far more applicable than the Tories winning it. Nobody should kid themselves, whatever polls claim, that there is massive enthusiasm for the present government out there.
Local election results do seem to suggest some degree of "softness" in the Conservative vote, but the Government doesn't actually need much in the way of positive enthusiasm - just a perception that they are better than the alternatives. Your antipathy to pollsters, and their annoying persistence in coming up with results that you don't like, is well-known. However, the towering lead that the Conservatives enjoy in perceptions of relative competence and leadership simply can't be wished away. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jan 3, 2017 11:26:57 GMT
Well it seems to me that this seemingly widespread giddiness about Tory prospects is based on very little so far. Labour could - *could* - lose this seat, but that is far more applicable than the Tories winning it. Nobody should kid themselves, whatever polls claim, that there is massive enthusiasm for the present government out there. In fairness the "widespread giddiness about Tory prospects" is mostly based on the belief that "Labour could - *could* - lose this seat" rather than a belief in "massive enthusiasm for the present government". I am not even going to think about making a prediction until we see who the Labour and Tory candidates are. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,931
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 3, 2017 11:34:02 GMT
The real point is that national polling doesn't directly translate to by-elections - if it did, Labour would have enjoyed a few Westminster gains in the 1997-99 period (for most of that time, they were leading by *much* more than the Tories are now) Stuff like the local candidates (hence my comment about this being a seat we *could* lose - a bad choice *will* put things at risk) and strength on the ground count for rather more than they might in a GE context.
And why shouldn't this "softness" in Tory support be any less applicable to parliamentary than local by-elections? That's what happened in the early Blair as PM years, after all - "middle England" supported them, but in a rather detatched and relaxed sort of way, whilst their critics were often much more vocal and passionate. Hence both local elections and byelections at that time not fully reflecting the polls.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Jan 3, 2017 11:34:05 GMT
Well it seems to me that this seemingly widespread giddiness about Tory prospects is based on very little so far. Labour could - *could* - lose this seat, but that is far more applicable than the Tories winning it. Nobody should kid themselves, whatever polls claim, that there is massive enthusiasm for the present government out there. There is rarely ever any enthusiasm for the government of the time- merely recognition that the alternatives are worse. The current state of the Labour Party gives May's government a hell of a lot of leg-room on that front. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,931
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 3, 2017 11:43:03 GMT
Nobody seriously doubts that Labour's current position is somewhat sub-optimal. The point is, that isn't all there is to a contest like this.
And no I don't "dismiss" current polling, I do take issue with those who think it somehow sets the political scene in concrete for the next 20 years or whatever.
(and there is no denying I have history on my side there, at least)
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,029
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jan 3, 2017 11:52:55 GMT
Kind of odd to see people go from observing that Reed's majority was not large towards acting as if the seat were neck-and-neck in 2015; it wasn't. But I don't think its safe to make too many assumptions until we know who the candidates are and (also) what the political climate is like at the time of the vote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 11:58:47 GMT
Nobody seriously doubts that Labour's current position is somewhat sub-optimal. The point is, that isn't all there is to a contest like this. And no I don't "dismiss" current polling, I do take issue with those who think it somehow sets the political scene in concrete for the next 20 years or whatever. (and there is no denying I have history on my side there, at least) 
I certainly wouldn't claim that the present conjunction of circumstances is going to last for ever, but Labour's situation will not be easy to resolve. Removal of Jeremy Corbyn would resolve neither the constitutional issues which brought him to power, nor restore the party's shattered reputation for competence or even sanity. With the fairest of winds, that would take time - more time than the current election cycle, I suspect. |
|
|
|
Post by bigfatron on Jan 3, 2017 12:11:16 GMT
There were quite loud voices claiming that coalition had destroyed the Lib Dems forever; then it was no meaningful recovery for at least ten years; now it appears that there is a recovery of sorts already and even an outside chance of a real recovery by 2020 if Brexit goes badly for the Tories.
I guess the message from this is that there are no certainties in politics, especially now... not even a Tory win in 2020!
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,931
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 3, 2017 12:23:49 GMT
The understatement was intentional, promise |
|
