Sunday polls

There are four voting intention polls this Sunday. Opinium, ORB in the Sunday Telegraph, YouGov in the Sunday Times, ICM in the Sun on Sunday. Topline voting intentions are:

YouGov: CON 47%(-1), LAB 28%(-1), LDEM 11%(+1), UKIP 6%(+1) (tabs)
ORB: CON 46%(+4), LAB 31%(nc), LDEM 9%(-1), UKIP 8%(nc) (tabs)
Opinium: CON 46%(-1), LAB 30%(nc), LDEM 9%(+1), UKIP 7%(nc) (tabs)
ICM: CON 46%(-1), LAB 28%(nc), LDEM 10%(+2), UKIP 8%(nc)

Changes are from last week for ORB and Opinium, from the midweek Times & Guardian polls for YouGov and ICM. All continue to show a robust lead for the Conservative party. Note that fieldwork for all of these was before the local election results (YouGov is conducted Thursday evening and Friday morning, but the vast bulk would have been before many results were known) so don’t expect to see any local election impact yet: it’s the sort of thing that could have an impact, in terms of parties looking doomed or successful, like a wasted vote or a foregone conclusion.

The YouGov poll is the first one since Theresa May’s midweek speech about the EU supposedly attempting to influence the election result. 51% of people said that the claim that EU officials and politicians were deliberately trying to influence the general elections were “probably true”, 24% that they were probably false. There was clear divide down party lines and by attitudes to the EU – 72% of people who voted to Leave thought it was probably true, only 35% of those who voted to Remain.

On a related topic YouGov also asked about the “exit bill” for leaving the EU. In principle, 32% of people thought it was reasonable for other EU countries to ask Britain to pay for outstanding financial liabilities like pension costs and spending agreed before we leave, 50% of people think it unreasonable. Presented with some specific costs, people were evenly split over whether a settlement of £10bn was reasonable, but 53% thought £20bn was unreasonable, 64% thought £50bn was unreasonable, 72% thought that £100bn was unreasonable. In practice I suspect it isn’t the specific figure that’s at issue (I bet if we’d offered £5bn than some people would have said that was reasonable and then rejected £10bn) – these are all figures that sound unfathomably huge – it’s the idea of having to pay to leave the EU. The key thing for the government won’t be the size of the payment, but how they manage to present it. If it’s a leaving fee, people will hate it. If they can twist it into being seen as a fee for some continuing benefit it may be more saleable – 42% of people said that Britain should be prepared to pay a financial settlement it is the only way of getting a trade deal.

UPDATE: Added the ICM poll!


409 Responses to “Sunday polls”

1 6 7 8 9
  1. @Rudyard

    Much in the same way that George Foreman had Mohammad Ali on the defensive in the Rumble in the Jungle me thinks.

    I am assuming the Tories have a lot of powder they intend to keep dry until later – possibly until the CPS announce the names of those Tory (ex) MPs who breached expenses rules. (Sorry about mixed metaphors)

  2. This is the BBC link to the Scottish Election results.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39846268

    Broadly similar but more detail and less spin!
    Most interesting part is that as with every election since the referendum turnout is up by more than 10% (from 405 to 475 where 4% of 40 is a 10% increase).

    It will be interesting to see if post Brexit there is a similar result in England with higher engagement.

    For anyone that’s is interested in STV this is the link to the Highland results page.

    http://www.highland.gov.uk/info/799/elections_and_voting/371/elections/4

    It’s worth having a look at a few of the detailed ward results to see where peoples preferences went as candidates were eliminated.

    Clear SNP green link and also a less Unionist cross over.
    Another feature and why i like STV is you see that where a Party stood two candidates (usually the SNP in Highland) when one drops out the transfer pushes the remaining one over the line.

    This creates competition between candidates of the same party to get more votes than their colleague and for me anyway makes them work harder for the public because they have to out perform their own party not just their opponents.

    It’s part of the reason i push for two candidates where I think we have a chance as it keeps the incumbent on their toes. the other reason is that if the first candidate is good enough their transfer votes, though usually far smaller can be enough to get the second in.

    Peter.

  3. TOH: ” the irony fails because I dropped the comparison a long time ago.”

    Well, actually you made the comparison at 12.14pm today:

    “34.5% of the electorate this Sunday voted for a Eurosceptic candidate. This is a greater figure than UKIP have ever reached, hence my comment.”

    And you specifically say in that quote that it was the comparison with UKIP that motivated your comment, whereas now you say:

    “the comparison I made was not the best and it was not the point I was trying to make.”

    Debating with you is a bit like wrestling with jelly, so forgive me if I try to pin down some of the twists and turns. I’m afraid I suffer from an addiction to what Robin called “logical reasoned argument, and … critical interpretation of information.”

  4. DAVID COLBY

    They represent polling in Wales only of course.I think the Tories would be happy with nine gains in Wales

  5. Somerjohn

    Robin actually almost got the point I was making at 2.00 pm when he posted;-

    “No one is suggesting is anything but worrying that Le Pen got 30% of those turning up to vote.”

    I actually referred to 34 % eurosceptic candidate in one of my posts. The conversation is boring me now so I am afraid you will be left wondering. If you really cannot see the point I was making about possible threats to the French membership of the EU in the longer term I will be amazed.

  6. TOH
    Are the changes to VI compared to 2015 GE?

  7. Pete B

    I think they are the changes to the last Welsh poll which had a shock 10% Tory Lead.

  8. The Other Howard

    I know Wales well, and it is a strange beast. Very tribal and I think you will see over the coming days and weeks a surge in support for the Labour Party.

  9. RUDYARD

    You may be correct but I expect Conservative gains in Wales on 8th June. I’m a quarter Welsh but have not been in touch with much Welsh opinion for a long time now.

  10. Somerjohn

    I’m afraid I suffer from an addiction to what Robin called “logical reasoned argument, and … critical interpretation of information.”

    I like logical reasoned argument myself and use critical interpretation of information all the time.

    Fortunately i’m not addicted to antthing.

  11. Yes Rudyard, I think you are spot on about Wales. Despite that 10% Conservative lead in the opinion poll in Wales in real Local Election results Labour showed far more resilience where it mattered in Wales, and where they fared badly there was a strong Independent vote. Note that this was Independent and not Plaid or Conservative. I reckon there will be a Tory landslide in England, much to my chagrin, but Wales will not follow and Scotland only to a very restricted degree IMO.

  12. Flow of people analysis to show the current polling:

    To get from 2015 to the current poll numbers the “flow” (very simplified, ignoring Scotland and rounded) breaks down as:

    UKIP->CON 2mm (fairly obvious)
    CON->LAB 0.5mm (fairly obvious, feels too low)
    Green->LIB 0.5mm (masking Brexit flows)

    This gives you current polling:
    CON 47
    LAB 29
    LIB 10
    UKIP 6
    Green 2

    Then go with polls/gut feel on Electoral Calculus but consider the following:

    1/ UKIP ->CON likely to continue (+4% CON, -4% UKIP)
    2/ Brexit affect: the shambles of the Progressive Alliance and limited gains from LIB mean the affect is diminishing (my current guess is +5 LIB seats , -3 LAB seats, -2 SNP seats)
    3/ Scotland – put in your own assumption or If like me you just want a quick+dirty Scotland tweak then (+10 CON seats, -10 SNP seats)

    NB – my personal add-ons:
    1/ The LIB flow masks the Brexit affect. If LIB steal more from LAB it lowers the swing threshold for CON gains (from LAB) but does little to help LIB gains (if you’re a strong believer in a Remain vote supporting LIB you need for every +4 LIB assume -3 LAB, -1 CON)
    2/ Motivated turnout – requires a very lengthy explanation but basically I think we’ll get a lower overall turnout and this results in another +10 CON, -10 LAB

    End result with predictions for final seats and %
    CON 434 (51%)
    LAB 141 (29%)
    LIB 10 (10%)
    UKIP 0 (2%)
    Green 1 (2%)
    SNP 43
    PlaidC 3
    NI 18

    My bias is to think CON have more to gain from LAB via manifestos and “owning” the press but we’ll have to wait and see. The polls should pick that up if it happens.

  13. @ ANDREW111

    ‘To be honest I have no recollection at all of what the Lib Dem policy on austerity was before the 2010 election other than “something must be done, and we warned you about that”.
    —————————————————————————–
    Vince Cable’s economic approach pre 2010 was pretty much identical to Labour’s. The rapid U-turn to align with Osborne was IMO more shocking that the tuition fees. I remember, almost immediately after the coalition was agreed, the shock of hearing Chris Huhne and Lady Warsi pontificating about how the UK economy was in danger of following Greece.

  14. @Pyrmonter

    “In some areas – for example, being able to exit the CAP and import cheap agricultural products, the UK would be better off. ”

    Unless they are farmers. This is a group that traditionally is staunchly Conservative. I would consider quite how keen the Tories are to wreck the farming industry.

  15. @TREVOR WARNE
    I pretty much agree with all your predictions.

    The big issue will be turnout. Conservative/Brexit supporters are far more likely to turn out in big numbers in this GE compared to previous GE.

    Labour will do worse than the polls suggest (similar to what we saw in 2015). There is also big credibility issue with Corbyn and his team amongst the Labour-leaning electorate which will dampen their motivation to vote even further.

    Population as a whole likes to back the winner.

  16. @Trevor Warne

    I can’t see TM getting anywhere near a 218 majority.

    Many disgruntled left of centre voters could give you a list a long your arm of their issues with Labour at the moment. The high level of 2015 Labour will not vote/don’t knows are testament to this.

    However, I strongly suspect that these grievances don’t add up to enough to prefer a TM Government with a super-majority and a free mandate to do whatever she likes over a supporting (with nose peg) Labour.

    I am still sticking with a Tory majority of about 120-130.

  17. Tories – 400 seats +/- 10 seats. Fairly confident on this one.

  18. The Aberdeenshire election results are easier to see than Peter`s Highland ones:

    https://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/elections/local-government-elections-2017/

  19. very good seat analysis by alistair weeks on the PB site. I think Smithy himself has got lost trying to locate the liberal surge.

  20. Rudyard
    Leamington turn out.

    There was a massive turn out for the hanging of Dick Turpin as well… but he still died.

    Maybe he is achieving novelty value with the British Public or possibly the love of the nation for a threatened and endangered species is coming out.?

  21. Wikipedia now is reporting the increased turnout in the 2017 Scottish locals – 47%, up 7% on 2012.

    Though earlier posters have tried to minimise the SNP decline, detailed analysis for Aberdeenshire shows it well.

    In 2012 SNP won 16 of their 28 seats on the 1st count,
    In 2017 SNP won 8 of their 21 seats on the 1st count

    In 2012 SNP had 5 winners on 6th-9th counts
    In 2017 SNP had 8 winners on 6th-9th counts

    Whereas the Cons rise is very obvious:

    In 2012 Cons won 6 of their 14 seats on 1st count
    In 2017 Cons won 20 of their 23 seats on 1st count

    LibDems have also had many more winners on early counts in 2017 than in 2012, but their rise in less dramatic than the Tory one.

    I reckon if the Cons had put up more candidates they would have increased by several seats more their lead as largest party in Aberdeenshire.

  22. Trevor Warne
    You projected seat results are interesting. Good odds available on Tories getting more than 400 and labour less than 150. Combine that with a turnout bet (I think it will be quite high) and that’s serious money on a treble (if that’s allowed nowadays)

    Need to have a chat with my son in law who knows more about placing bets than I do. The last time I placed a bet was when Foinavon came in at 100 to 1!

  23. I thought we had decided we were not believing polls these days?

  24. @S Thomas “Rudyard Leamington turn out.
    There was a massive turn out for the hanging of Dick Turpin as well… but he still died. Maybe he is achieving novelty value with the British Public or possibly the love of the nation for a threatened and endangered species is coming out.?”

    This so called huge crowd was “over 200 people”. The same phenomena happened with Foot who thought the enthusiastic support he received at his rallies heralded a great upcoming victory.

    That ICM poll would give the Tories around a 180 seat majority

  25. @ MACTAVISH – agree on your comments

    My turnout model (used for actual numbers of votes per party at by-elections which I know are different) assumes interaction of following:
    1/ complacency – abstain if happy with expected outcome
    2/ protest vote – self explanatory
    3/ cognitive dissonance – party loyalty currently clashing with either leadership/policies or Brexit stance (e.g. a die-hard Northern LAB supporter who doesn’t like Corbyn wil abstain, a die-hard Southern CON supporter who voted Remain will abstain). Party loyalty can be seen in the tabs of most polls (v.high for CON, OK for LAB, low for LIB and UKIP)

    I have to make some aggregate shifts as a GE has so many more seats and I’m not doing all of them!!

    Summary of the affects I’m expecting are:
    1/ Lower LAB turnout in LAB “heartlands” (which reduce the hurdle for CONkip to turn the seat Blue)
    2/ Lower CON turnout in CON remain seats (which reduces the hurdle for LIB but if you remove UKIP the hurdle is still too high – CON wins with lower majorities)
    3/ London (73 MP seats) is a tricky one. The high Remain vote in many LAB seats could switch a few to LIB but in many cases might create an “SNP affect” and turn the seat Blue.
    4/ Protest Remain vote or Protest Leave vote is also a tricky one. If the press make out the GE is close then I think both will have an influence. If press make it sound like a huge landslide I think that demotivates turnout from both camps. So I see it as affecting the overall turnout but not actually having much affect on seat gain/loss.

    Every voter votes blind to the outcome in his/her seat and in the country at large. That is why I adopt this “bottom-up” approach and see it as very worrying when I hear:
    1/ LAB just want to protect market share!?
    2/ LIB are going to put up “paper candidates”!?!?

    How exactly is a “paper candidate” supposed to help?

    One thing I didn’t mention was tactical alliances. I’m keeping an eye on who is standing down where. Only one I’ve seen so far from the “progressive side” that might make a small difference is the Oxford West seat. UKIP not actually putting up a candidate is a much, much bigger impact but if they end up at 2% by 8June then most people’s models will pick that up anyway.

  26. SNP getting 32% – exactly the same as the equivalent election in 2012 (before the referendum). Perhaps a little disappointing for their supporters but perhaps local elections are not a good barometer.

  27. Not sure if jokes are allowed on here, and I am posting this with a non partisan hat on as I like Jeremy Corbyn but I did think this was funny:

    Jeremy Corbyn in bank: “Good morning”, says Jer, “could you please cash this cheque for me?
    Cashier: “It would be my pleasure Sir, but could you please show me some identification?”
    Corbyn: “I did not bring my ID with me as I didn’t think there was any need to. I’m Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour Party and the Opposition!!”
    Cashier: “Yes, I know who you are Sir, but with all the bank regulations, monitoring, impostors and forgers etc., I must insist on seeing some identification”.
    Corbyn “Just ask any of the customers here at the bank who I am and they will tell you. Everybody knows who I am!”
    Cashier: “I’m sorry Sir, but these are the bank rules and I must follow them”.
    Corbyn: “I’m urging you, please cash this cheque for me”.
    Cashier: “Look Sir, this is what we can do. One day Colin Montgomery came into the bank without any ID. To prove he was Colin Montgomery he pulled out his putter and putted a ball along the floor and into a small cup.
    With that sort of skill we knew it was Colin Montgomery and we cashed his cheque.
    On another occasion, Andy Murray came in without any ID. He pulled out his tennis racquet and lobbed a tennis ball straight into my teacup with such a spectacular shot that we all knew it was Andy Murray.
    Corbyn starts to think and think and finally says, “To be honest, there is nothing that comes into my mind. In fact I can’t think of a single thing that I’m any good at.”

    Cashier: “Will it be large or small notes you require Mr Corbyn!!.

  28. Error in my last post. If the result looks close motivating both Remain and Leave factions then the net affect is:

    1/ CON win more seats in Leave areas +1CON -1LAB
    2/ LDEM win more seats in Remain areas roughly expected to be +4LDEM = -3LAB, -1CON

    It might not have much affect on the CON #seats as I’m currently assuming UKIP put up candidates in many LAB leave seats (and post none/few in CON remain seats). If UKIP do not post a candidate and/or voters tactically chose CON anyway it will obviously make a difference. It’s non-linear but roughly a +4 CON, -4LAB for each 0.1 notch up in the “Brexit” coefficient at “low” levels where 0=ignore Remain/Leave and 1=100% Remain/Leave CON/LIB affect switch.

    However, it is bad news for LAB. Being the middle ground (=no mans land) on Brexit means they lose seats to both CON and LIB in a high “protest vote” scenario.

    As is obvious from their campaign they want to put Brexit to one side and make it a domestic policy issue. CON and LIB both gain from keeping Brexit on the front pages.

    From a CON perspective they might want to see LAB net lose seats to LIB and instead of say 170 opposition seats split 160/10 LAB/LIB they’d prefer 140/30. Once Brexit is over they are more ideologically aligned with LIB and that might play a role in 2022 and beyond. Some forces in CON though probably want Corbyn to hold on and just inflict major flesh wounds rather than go for the kill shot!!

    OK, that is over thinking it!!!

  29. Peter C
    I agree with you about STV and I would make it a rule that any Party that wants to put up a candidate has to put up at least 2! ( I would also push wards together to make 6 members. With multiple councillors who can divide up the area I do not see big wards as a problem even in the Highlands, especially in these days when few people come to surgeries)
    The biggest advantage of STV is that it gives voters the decision of who represents them, not the Parties.. But I see that second guessing the system by the Parties has removed that by and large. Electronic voting with randomised candidate lists is also needed to remove the alphabet effect…

  30. @S Thomas

    “very good seat analysis by alistair weeks on the PB site. I think Smithy himself has got lost trying to locate the liberal surge.”

    In fairness to him, he has today posted that the LDs are currently 10 seats lower in the spread than they were pre-local elections.

    A lot on ink has been wasted on how Labour’s lack of a charismatic leader may hamper them on June 8th. Very little has been written about how Farron’s lack of charisma is damaging the LDs. For the third (national) UK party, such a factor is arguably more important than it is for the leader of the Opposition. It can’t just be coincidence that the LDs best recent results in GEs have come under Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy.

  31. @ CMJ – I see what you mean, however, each voter votes blind to the outcome. I corrected my comment 2above with the comment above but the “nose peg” vote requires post-fact info of the result (which has a 5y delay!)

    We’ve recently seen this kind of thing play out:
    “Oh darn, I wish I’d got out of bed and voted Remain”
    “Oh darn, too many people voted NO so let’s go again”
    GE’s are every 5years, referendum decisions are in the power of those with the authority to grant them (not sure NS thought that one through!)

    My enemies enemy is my friend works in a repeat play model but not in a single, imperfect knowledge, no discussion “game” (I think that’s the correct lingo!)

    This however creates an interesting long-term issue for “progressive alliance” tactical vote.

    If you “peg your nose” and vote LAB instead of LDEM (which would be the correct tactical move in 90% of cases) then you risk a cognitive consistency (loyalty) issue for all future elections (once a switchers always a switcher).

    CON are excellent at building brand loyalty (as you can see in the repeat vote section of polls). If you view CON+UKIP as basically one party that was split and has now reunited then that keeps consistency. Your brain can accept a 2015 “loan” to the splinter party now it has reunited – in some ways you’ll even be happier for it as I suspect many 2015 UKIP voters did that more as a “protest” and had some dissonance issues about disloyalty. Simplistically “great, I can stop being thought of as a racist and go back to voting CON”
    (NB I only ever voted UKIP for MEP not MP – a protest party is useful in the arena in which the protest needs to be made!)

    For LAB and LDEM the issues are far more complicated. The two parties are ideologically very different – even on Brexit!
    Ignoring Brexit LDEM and CON are ideologically very close (LDEM often thought of as “soft” CON). I think that might play a role in Scotland for tactical voting IF IndyRef1.5 is the Scottish #1 issue. If Brexit is a higher factor then obviously tough to see that tactical vote happen.

    Next Scottish polls I’ll go into more detail, I’m currently assuming SNP lose 12 seats, +10 CON, -2LIB (the 1LAB seat is going to be very close) but if SLIM and SCON had formed an official pact then they could have taken a further 10 seats from SNP (+6CON, -4LIB). I think that kind of alliance might well be important as we near 2021 Scottish parliament elections although the MMP system dilutes the value of alliances.

  32. The problem with STV is its opaqueness. I doubt whether 1 in 10 voters understand how votes translate into candidates getting elected and 1 in 100 the intricacies of how multiple candidates from a party can effect the number seats actually won. The additional members party list system used in Scottish elections is at least transparent as far as a the members ele. cted by FPTP is concerned

  33. At the risk of sounding like a grammar nazi can posters please learn the difference between AFFECT and EFFECT? If really grates seeing the same spelling mistake over and over.

    BTW for the record I think TonyDean is being too optimistic if he thinks somehow Wales is going to turn round and support Labour while the rest of the UK doesn’t.

    If I had any money and I gambled, I would be betting on a Tory majority of over 100.

  34. The problem with STV is its opaqueness. I doubt whether 1 in 10 voters understand how votes translate into candidates getting elected and 1 in 100 the intricacies of how multiple candidates from a party can effect the number seats actually won. The additional members party list system used in Scottish elections is at least transparent as far as a the members elected by FPTP is concerned. By adjusting the numbers elected from party lists you also can make it more or less likely that stable governments can be formed.

  35. @The Monk

    “The problem with STV is its opaqueness. I doubt whether 1 in 10 voters understand how votes translate into candidates getting elected and 1 in 100 the intricacies of how multiple candidates from a party can effect the number seats actually won. The additional members party list system used in Scottish elections is at least transparent as far as a the members ele. cted by FPTP is concerned”

    I live STV, but there is a bit of a lottery about it – particularly in trying to get the voters to understand how to ensure all their chosen party’s candidates can reach the number of votes required to be elected.

    If the UK ever moves to PR for Westminster elections, it is far more likely to be a party list system.

  36. I think the Scottish result will be disappointing for the Tories. On seats & votes they have gained directly from Labour but not from SNP or Greens.

    They were going for a win in seats or votes. They had a pool 2 million No voters and this is a low turnout election so they must have fancied their chances with their ‘No 2nd Referendum’ campaign and believe me that is ALL they campaigned on. It was a well financed high profile campaign motivatimg voters on the referendum issue. And the got 24% or 478k votes. This was their best chance to win against the SNP and they failed.

    Next month completely different election FPTP and high turnout. I am sticking with my

    SNP 52
    Con 6
    LibDem 1

    Prediction

  37. Trevor Warne:

    “For LAB and LDEM the issues are far more complicated. The two parties are ideologically very different – even on Brexit!”

    I am not sure that is true when you get to the business end of things. Suppose the EU said, “Pay us £100bn and we’ll think about a transitional deal, with a shorter duration than we say is required to reach a trade deal…” Would either Labour or the LibDems walk away? Would either of them capitulate and explore ways to get back into the EU?

  38. Trevor Warne – “If you view CON+UKIP as basically one party that was split and has now reunited then that keeps consistency.”

    The only problem with that analysis is that the Conservatives have never been on 49% before they supposedly loaned voted to UKIP!

    In the 2010 general election Cons got 36.1% and UKIP got 3.1% to make a total of 39.2%

    In the 2015 general election Cons got 36.9% and UKIP got 12.6% to make a total of 49.5%.

    In the last ICM poll it had Cons on 49% and UKIP on 6% to make a total of 55%.

    The increase in UKIP vote from 2010 to 2015 didn’t come from the Conservatives, it came from elsewhere. And given UKIP still have 6% in the current polls, the increase in Conservative vote can’t just be from Kippers, about 6% comes from elsewhere.

  39. @ ROBERT NEWARK – yes, you can get very good odds on the kind of predictions I’m making!! Betfair is the best place (IMHO) as you can “work” one side of the market rather than pay the high bid/offer on specific seats that you do on IG Index, etc.

    I read the above about Scottish LE’s having higher turnout and think that is due to the referendum “war” still raging up there. I have two scenarios for overall UK turnout.

    1/ The “war” is over and people accept May will win a massive majority and are either happy with that (complacent) or not (shut it out) – lowers the turnout
    2/ The “war” is still going – both “camps” get out for the kind of protest vote that is keeping Scottish turnouts so high

    The betting market has dropped in turnout expectations from low-mid 60% to around 60% turnout (2015 was 66.1%, Brexit 72.2%). That seems inline with the “war is over” scenario and matches with seeing UKIP->CON and no pick-up in LDEM.

    I’d really appreciate any other thoughts on turnout. I expect we’ll see some high turnout in close seats but a general sense of apathy elsewhere unless something drastic changes in the next 4 weeks.

    I’m tempted to start putting a little money on the higher turnout numbers simply because the odds are getting attractive (eg 65-70% is about 5-1, 70-75% is 15-1)
    Turnout betting can be done here:
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.131104264

    From 1997 to 2001 turnout dropped from 71.4% to 59.4%with 59.4% marking the non-actual war low in voting (I think). The turnout info I get comes from:
    http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

    has great historic info on by-elections as well, that’s been a nice little earner recently as people underestimated the “protest” element of many of the recent ones.

    I don’t see how you can get reliable info on turnout expectations from polls. Asking “likelihood to vote” after asking how you will vote has a huge “priming” issue. I get the “demographic” tweaks polling companies make but not keen on taking anything useful from “likelihood to vote”

  40. Couper

    You appear to have changed your mind over the last couple of days, having suggested over the weekend that Labour could poll 24% and beat the Tories for second place.If Labour stays at 24% how is it going to lose Edinburgh South. Much more likely that will be held and that East Lothian plus a few others will be gained. I believe 5/6 seats to be more likely than 0/1.

  41. @trevor

    The electorate around here is pretty jaded after a hard and long local election campaign. The activists are shattered, even when the candidates won they are so ready for a break, never mind when they lost.

    (I’m betting on Tory’s where they haven’t even named the candidate!.. I must be mad)

  42. You know how @Valerie said that the neatest way to solve Labour’s problems is if Jeremy Corbyn lost his seat?

    Well, he’s being challeged by a war hero, army Captain James Clark, who was awarded a Joint Commanders Commendation following his 2012 bravery in Helmand Province, who is standing as a Conservative:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3504829/decorated-war-hero-to-stand-against-jeremy-corbyn-at-general-election-in-bid-to-snatch-peaceniks-islington-north-seat/

  43. It’s irrelevant who the Tories put up; it’s Islington North.

  44. @CANDY: 2010-15-17 CON+UKIP = CONkip looks like a “trend” to me.

    LDEM as part “soft” CON helps with the 2015 “jump”

    YouGov did a good write up on why UKIP was not a “gateway drug to CON”:
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/05/ukip-gateway-drug-more-are-going-straight-hard-stu/

    @JOSEPH1832 – that sounds like a bait question! I agree with your thoughts but it is not “when” but “if” they got to the business end! If you drop the political theatre then I don’t think LAB and CON are that far apart on Brexit. LIB’s issue is the 2nd ref. I think a lot of people have thought that through and just don’t want to go down that path.
    Good write up on how complicates a 2nd ref would be here:
    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/02/09/second-referendum/

    If you “game” the concept of telling your negotiating opposition you will have a 2nd ref you soon come to see that it is really a stop/reverse Brexit tactic by our side. By telling the EU we will have a 2nd ref you incentivise them to make the terms so bad you get a “Remain” in the 2nd ref…

    But what would “Remain” really mean in late 2018? It wouldn’t be the “in hindsight” vote we has in June’16.

  45. @Anthony Wells

    I thought Valerie might want to go help his challenger out! :-)

  46. Couper2802 is falling into the ways of the London papers and the Southern English in treating Scotland as a single homogenous entity.

    But meantime there are two opposite trends occurring, and they have balanced out for the whole country, in the overall trend from 2012 to 2017 in the locals.

    In Central Scotland the SNP vote has gained from Labour defections.

    Further north the Conservative vote has gained from SNP defections. There is not a switch from Labour to SNP here.

    Just look at the Fraserburgh ward, where the Labour candidates managed less than 300 votes in both years.

    2012 1st pref votes SNP 1760; Cons 259
    2017 1st pref votes SNP 1266; Cons 1229

    2012 turnout 37%
    2017 turnout 43%

    I wish it was different, but the SNP policy of favouring the Central Belt e.g. in moving the control staff for fire and police down south from Aberdeen, and ignoring pleas for public-sector pay supplements to ease the recruitment crisis here, has had its predictable result.

  47. Candy

    Even if Winston Churchill stood against Corbyn he would still lose.

    In some parts of the UK it is still possible to be certain which colour rosette will win. But in Scotland Labour used to say that and look where they are today. In a Glasgow ward at council elections not only did Tory candidate get out alive, he actually won- respect for perseverence.

  48. I have already done a percentage prediction, which I stand by. Here is my seats prediction:

    Conservatives 398
    Labour 167
    SNP 47
    Lib Dems 15
    Plaid 4
    Greens 1
    UKIP 0
    NI 18

    Conservative Majority 146

  49. @Graham

    Labour polled 20% in the council elections. Murray may keep his seat but to be honest the Tories might get it who knows. Anyway I stick to my initial prediction. I though Lab may have beaten Tories but now the final results have been announced they were 5% behind (Tories at 25% not 24% my mistake)

  50. @ANDY T

    Yeap.. So much respect for those from all parties that put in the work and win votes.

1 6 7 8 9