Here are the mid-week polls so far:

Kantar – CON 45%(+8), LAB 27%(nc), LDEM 16%(-1), BREX 2%(-7)
YouGov/Times/Sky – CON 42%(-3), LAB 30%(+2), LDEM 15%(nc), BREX 4%(nc)
ICM/Reuters – CON 42%(+3), LAB 32%(+1), LDEM 13%(-2), BREX 5%(-3)
Survation/GMB – CON 42%, LAB 28%, LDEM 13%, BREX 5%

A few things to note. Kantar and ICM have now removed the Brexit party as an option in the seats where they are not standing, which will have contributed to the increase in Conservative support and decrease in Brexit party support (YouGov had already introduced this change last week).

The Survation poll is the first telephone poll that they’ve conducted in this election campaign (all their other recent polls have been conducted online), hence they’ve recommended against drawing direct comparisons with their previous poll. The fourteen point Tory lead in this poll is substantially larger than in Survation’s previous poll, which had a lead of only six points, but it’s impossible to tell whether that’s down to an increase in Conservative support or the different methodology. At the last election their two approaches produced similar results, with their final poll being conducted by phone.

Finally, Kantar’s polling has received some criticism on social media for their approach to turnout weighting, with “re-weighted” versions of their figures doing the rounds. The details of this criticism are wrong on almost every single measure. It’s very easy for people to retweet figures claiming they show the turnout figures from Kantar, but it takes rather longer to explain why the sums are wrong Matt Singh did a thread on it here, and RSS Statistical Ambassador, Anthony Masters, has done a lengthier post on it here.

In short, the claims confuse normal demographic weights (the ones Kantar use to ensure the proportion of young and old people in the samples matches the figures the ONS publish for the British population as a whole) with their turnout model. Secondly, they compare youth turnout to early estimates straight after the 2017 election, when there have been subsequent measures from the British Election Study that were actually checked against the marked electoral register, so are almost certainly more accurate. Compared to those figures, Kantar’s turnout levels look far more sensible. The figures do imply a small increase in turnout among older voters, a small drop amongst younger votes, but nowhere near the level that has been bandied about on social media.

However, if we leave aside the specific criticisms, it is true to say that turnout has different impacts on different pollsters. In the 2017 election many pollsters adopted elaborate turnout models based on demographic factors. These models largely backfired, so pollsters dropped them. Most polling companies are now using much simpler turnout models, that have much less of an impact, and which are based primarily on how likely respondents to the poll say they will vote.

Kantar is the exception – in 2017 they used a model that predicted people’s likelihood to vote based on both how likely they said they were to vote, but also their past voting and how old they are. Unlike many other companies this worked well for them and they were one of the more accurate polling companies, so they kept it. That does mean that Kantar now have a turnout model that makes more difference than most.

Looking at the polls at the top of this post, factoring in turnout made no difference to the lead in YouGov’s poll (it was a 12 point Tory lead before turnout weighting, a 12 point Tory lead afterwards). The same is true of Survation – their poll would have had a 14 point lead before turnout was factored in, and a 14 point lead afterwards. In ICM’s poll, without turnout the lead would have been 7 points, with turnout it grows to 10 points. With Kantar’s latest poll, the tables suggest that the turnout weighting increased the Tory lead from 10 points to 18 points.

Hence, while the specific claims about Kantar are nonsense, it is true to say their turnout model has more impact than that of some other companies. That does not, of course, mean it is wrong (turnout is obviously a significant factor in elections). However, before going off on one about how important turnout weighting is to the current polls, it’s rather important to note that for many companies it is contributing little or nothing to the size of the Tory lead.


1,091 Responses to “Latest voting intention and the impact of turnout”

1 15 16 17 18 19 22
  1. Pete B

    You can nationalise within the EU as long as you don’t create a monopoly. So, for example, you can nationalise the railways if you don’t include freight trains, or the lines.

    The most extreme perhaps: you can nationalise the entire water supply of you keep the gathering of the water in a separate company (both can be state owned).

    I guess the EU would be more upset if the policy was more about controlling the company than ownership (like a joint control by customers, suppliers, local authorities, employees and the government), but Labour is not interested in this.

  2. Most of what Labour plan to nationalize is already so in Ireland. In NI also we have public transport all nationalized as well as water.

  3. Tony BTG

    Makes no difference if Lab win any seats at all outwith England.

    Under EVEL, their votes don’t count to implement England-only legislation from a UK Government that doesn’t have a majority of English MPs – unless MPs from outwith England choose to agree to a suspension of the Hoc standing orders for such legislation.

    That was why Cameron introduced the procedures – to prevent Labour from legislating for England.

    If the Tories get an overall majority, they can do what they like to England and rUK. If they don’t then it becomes interesting, as a Labour minority government will be wholly dependent on the willingness of MPs from outwith England to suspend standing orders.

    Sturgeon wasn’t just uttering a pious hope that Corbyn will recognise the democratic rights of the Scottish people. She knows full well that if the Tories can’t get a UK majority, or if Labour can keep them from power, then non-English MPs have significant leverage over the UK Government.

  4. I think its telling that there have been no instant reaction polls, corbyn must have done better than I thought

  5. I really enjoyed the debate tonight. These are some takeaways for me based on the appearance order):

    1) Jeremy Corbyn remained solid and consistent. Throughout the GE he has looked steady and serious. If his opponents under estimate him, they may regret it. His neutral position on how he would campaign in another referendum looks quite sustainable and sensible to me.

    2) Nicola Sturgeon – IMO the best performing leader in the UK, and tonight was no exception.

    3) Jo Swinson tried to be positive, but perhaps she was shocked how much anti Lib Dem feeling remains from the coalition years. It seemed her key policy position – Revoking article 50 – has limited attraction.

    4) Boris Johnson looked very tired, and was a bit bumbly. I get the feeling that the plan to make this election Brexit first second and third could have problems, People clearly have the appetite for a broader discussion on other areas. Is the Tory campaign one with a single dimension – Brexit?

    I’m not convinced much will change in the polls. At this stage most people have made their minds up and are subject to confirmation bias.

    Corbyn is doing well, but can this overcome the huge negative the public have about him? Will those switched off by him start to listen to him again? Not sure myself. I think the view of much of the public of him quite firmly baked in.

    Can Sturgeon be the biggest fish in her pond? Absolutely. She is surely unstoppable and heading for 45+ seats and big win in the elections in the Scottish Parliament, putting further pressure on a new independence referendum.

    Can Jo Swinson revive Lib Dems fortunes by riding a revoke horse? As the December 12th finishing post gets closer, Revoke is looking like an old nag that is fading fast.

    Can Mr Johnson win his Brexit GE still? Still very probably, but I’m not sure it will be fine win, but he should avoid snatching defeat from victory. His momentum will just about drag him over line in first place.

    I think the polls will tighten, as the Lib Dems will fall further back, and Labour should grab a bit more of the Remain vote. Maybe Lib Dems back to a single figures vote share by election day.

    In the end perhaps it will be a modest Conservative majority (20-30).

  6. Laszlo

    Re public ownership of water.

    Scottish Water remains a publicly owned company that has a monopoly over water gathering and domestic water supply. It is funded via grants from the Scottish Government as well as a supplement to the Council Tax.

    EU rules required that the supply to commercial premises be competitive, so that Scottish Water has a commercial arm that bids for such contracts.

    Competitors are also free to tender for such commercial contracts, and are also free to buy the water from Scottish Water – or to truck in their own H2O from elsewhere, of course.

  7. Re the dearth of Scottish polls.

    I’d be amazed if the parties had been doing no polling, so the lack of any published ones might suggest that there has actually been little change since October.

    If there had been, then the polls would have been extensively trumpeted by whoever was doing well.

    So, my current guess is that both SNP and SCon have improved their VI since 2017, SLab has fallen back and the SLD surge is receding.

    It would be good to have some bloody polling though!

  8. @Oldnat

    I heard that there had been polling, but was kept in-house, and have no idea who commissioned it.

  9. Voodoo poll but the only one I’ve seen about last night’s debate. Given how labour supporters are always keen to respond to such polls I guess that halving the Corbyn numbers would be reasonable, mind given that the tories have a bot army it might be fair to do the same for boris.

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/corbyn-johnson-question-time-leaders-17303868.amp?__twitter_impression=true

  10. The main take away for me and the only really new thing was Corbyn saying he would take a neutral stance in the referendum. It finally allows him to give an answer to the question that has been dogging him for months. Am sure he will develop it further, along the lines of wanting to be an honest broker, to let the people decide. For that alone I think it was Corbyns night

    To be fair Sturgeon did very well, but I expected her to and also expect her to win a landslide in Scotland so in the big scheme of things I do not think it will make much difference. Although perhaps it will make some in the RUK less worried about a possible SNP coalition or confidence and support arrangement

    Johnson performed and said pretty much what I expected him to do.

    Swinson did not have a good night

  11. “Am I right in thinking that the EU has rules against nationalising industries?”

    Yup

    “But after several years of debate and notable push back from European governments and railway operators – in particular the German Deutsche Bahn and French SNCF – a watered-down version of the Fourth Railway Package passed in 2016. It now only requires infrastructure to be independently managed and allows some public service routes to be directly awarded, specifically where a direct award would lead to better quality or cost-efficiency. This is how many regional services are run by national operators. On all other routes the operator is to be determined by competitive bidding.”

    ” state-owned companies remain in sectors like railways in many EU countries; but what they do not point out (or perhaps even realise) is that these companies are forced to compete on a “level playing field” with private companies. ”

    The main point that Labour fans fail to acknowledge is that *Private Entities* can go to court and use EU law to overturn acts of parliament that breach EU rules.

    Attempt to nationalise using any other mechanism than ‘state owned company operating in a competitive market’ will end up in the courts.

  12. Big surge in voter registrations yesterday, over 300,000 signing up over the course of the day, including over 100,000 under 25s and 100,000 25-34 year olds. Possible enthusiasm for Labour’s manifesto from people who otherwise would not vote? (although i suppose some people could be signing up to vote against it! ;) )

    https://www.gov.uk/performance/register-to-vote/registrations-by-age-group

  13. Frosty

    There is a huge campaign across FB for voters to register – this is proving quite effective. Will be interesting to see what happens in the next few days. I had been feeling miserable in this GE – it felt like there was no spark or fight in Corbyn at all, with the polls showing limited gains. However, this campaign has really sprung into life now; people are tuning into it and I sense that momentum is going to really build behind Labour to chip away at that Tory lead. Will it be enough to thwart Johnson? Probably not, but let’s see where it takes us.

  14. Has Corbyn given up the leave vote in a bid to win remainers back from the Lib Dems?

    Being neutral on a second referendum sounds like a sensible position, however, the referendum is the second half of Labour’s Brexit position.

    How do you negotiate a deal as a neutral? I can’t see many labour leavers backing that position.

  15. Mbruno,
    “Why would a remainer vote for Corbyn, whose stated policy is to negotiate a soft Brexit and who will not campaign for Remain in a second referendum, when the LibDems are offering an unambiguous Remain/Revoke manifesto instead ?”

    Er, because it makes no difference how good someone’s policy is if they stand no chance of having the power to carry it out. Libs cannot deliver, so its irrelevant what they would do if they formed a government.

    With the exception that in a few places they do stand a chance of winning, and thats why we get tactical voting.

    Bardin1
    “I’m not seeing why the SNP would let Labour do all this if the end result is a losing referendum?”

    I would think the brexit process has demonstrated to everyone the foolishness of pushing forward a major change without clear public support. They really need clear support for independence, not just a narrow win. If people, as you suggest, are supporting independence for the wrong reason, and arent really committed to it, maybe SNP would in the long run be better to wait.

  16. @DANIEL

    How do you negotiate a deal as a neutral? I can’t see many labour leavers backing that position.

    I am not sure they have that many Leave supporters left, so in my view it does not matter the issue has always been for remainers to have a referendum with a set plan against a set plan. The point that the EU referendum campaign pointed out is that the whilst the idea of leaving the EU can get a majority each and every version of the consequences of leaving the EU cannot gain enough votes so it does not matter. Soft leavers may be happy with labours deals but they also need hard leavers to be in favour. There is a risk though: Soft remainers may just not be that bothered and there may not be enough hard remainers depending on your view of hard and soft of any point of view. The view is when there is only one version on the table which ever it is the pros and cons would be better argued since the choice would be clear now you could argue it should not make a difference but the polls point to a real split in the leavers the second referendum whatever one thinks of it exploits that and some of the fierce resistance to it by leavers is why I reckon that remainers are pursuing it.

    So in my view if you were a hard leaver or a hard remainer if you offered a referendum of whatever deal you want to negotiate versus remain it will be clear.

    @JOHN33
    I had been feeling miserable in this GE – it felt like there was no spark or fight in Corbyn at all, with the polls showing limited gains

    In all fairness this is not about Corbyn and not about Labour’s campaign or indeed manifesto this is a get the voters to realise if you don’t want brexit then you need to do X, if you want Brexit you need to do Y.

    The vast majority of voters that would change their mind is Labour and Lib Dem voters it is that needle that needs to be bounced

    So the problem that I have always thought about the Lib Dems choice is that she has to win the anti austerity Tory voter and the anti austerity Labour voters and she, in my view it is said< cannot remove herself from that era. It is why I keep saying to those that wanted David Miliband despite his scontinued support for the Iraq war even after those that had supported it ahad decided it was a disaster would not have won because he could have been sold as someone who helped make the worst foreign policy decision in several generations, Swinson is labelled with her voting for stuff that even Lib Dems would privately say that was bad (reorganisation of the NHS, VAT increase.)

  17. @Pete B – and others – re nationalisation and EU:

    Art. 345 TFEU states “The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States (MS) governing the system of property ownership.”

    Nationalisation is therefore perfectly possible, although recent ECJ rulings have to an extent ignored this article. @laszlo is also incorrect in stating that monopolies cannot be nationalised. They can be (eg water companies – see Scotland – or power grids) if the proposal was proportionate, backed by a democratic mandate and had a clear stated purpose.

    So, for example, nationalising the power grid for the purpose of combating climate change, or nationalising BT Openreach for the purpose of correcting private sector market failure, would be perfectly allowable.

    The problem arises in Art 106, which stops a nationalised industry with a dominant market position acting unreasonably. It’s the judgement around unreasonable that is the key, not the fact of a nationalised industry.

  18. MISERABLE OLD GIT
    “Why not? It worked well enough for Wilson in 1975.”

    There is a big difference between now and 1975, he was responding to the fact that we have had a referendum to leave and the voters voted leave. I was very happy with him fence sitting. It’s got the head lines this morning and brought the debate back to Brexit which is great for the Tories IMO.

  19. @ DANIEL – “Has Corbyn given up the leave vote in a bid to win remainers back from the Lib Dems?”

    This is why CON-Leave folks were so happy with Corbyn’s “evolution” in position. Finally got him off the fence and abandoning Leave voters.

    Consider WHERE CON need to win seats (30-50+ LAB-CON marginals, almost all of which are in Leave areas)

    It’s worth pointing out where LAB front-bench have their seats (mostly right next to each other in N1 London)

    Name (job) – seat (%Remain, GE’17 maj=)

    Corbyn (LOTO) – Islington North (77%, maj = 33,215)
    McDonnell* (Sh.CoE) – Hayes and Harlington (41%, maj = 18,115)
    Abbott (Sh.H.Sec) – Hackney North and Stoke Newington (79%, maj = 35,139)
    Thornberry (Sh.F.Sec) – Islington South and Finsbury (74%, maj = 20,263)
    Starmer (Sh.DExEU) – Holborn and St Pancras (73%, maj = 30,509)

    * CON did have that seat back in 1992 so although v.v.v.v.unlikely it’s not impossible they win it again one day but note he is the only key member of the Politburo who isn’t in N1 London sitting in a very safe, very Remain seat.

    If you’re a LAB candidate standing in a Leave seat in a LAB-CON marginal in North, Midlands, Wales then Corbyn just threw you under the bus so he + his closest mates could ensure they safely keep seats

    Give up the Leave vote and “vote stack” in safe LAB-Remain seats = Large CON majority

    Contrary to popular belief Leave voters are not !diots so you tell ’em

    1/ Corbyn (with Arch-Remainer Starmer) will waste 3mths putting Corbyn’s name on May’s bad deal (and adding some even worse bits to the PD, 99.9% certain to keep full FoM and making large ongoing contributions to the SM bit with no say in the CU or trade deals)

    2/ You then put “Remain with NO SAY” against “Remain with a SAY” in a referendum with no actual Leave vote available

    3/ The supposed leader of the country is then not even going to fight for his own deal but will be Neutral?!?

    Errr… just a little too obvious, non?

    At least Swinson has the decency to be honest about wanting to ignore the supposed once in a generation ref, Corbyn is going to wast 6mths+ to ignore that democratic vote.

    Well, other than the obvious point he’s just ensured losing loads of LAB-CON marginals and hence handing Boris a comfortable majority.

    Perhaps that was lifelong Euroskeptic Corbyn’s plan all along and he thinks Remain are the !diots and can’t see that he WANTS to be the handmaiden for a Tory Brexit (he just hopes Remain are too th!ck to notice)

  20. PETERW

    We don’t agree politically but i thought your 9.40 was a very fair summary of the programme. I certainly don’t think it did Johnson any damage, and as I posted to MOG, Corbyn’s answer has brought Brexit back center stage which will please the Tories.

  21. Letter to Guardian on the privatisation of NHS says in part.

    “Our NHS is already for sale – 18% of NHS funding now goes to private providers, including Virgin Care, Priory Group (an American healthcare company) and others. The 2012 Health and Social Care Act required NHS trusts to contract out the provision of services through competitive tendering, which has inevitably led to private companies winning contracts.

    A trade deal could lock in current and future privatisation, making it impossible to reverse, as well as opening doors to ever-spiralling drug costs. Future governments trying to reduce or remove privatisation could be faced with expensive legal challenges from US healthcare companies and the risk of massive fines.

    As long as private companies are allowed to provide NHS services through competitive contracting, the NHS is vulnerable to Trump’s trade deal – it’s on the table. But if our NHS was an entirely public service, it wouldn’t even be on the menu.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/10/our-nhs-is-at-risk-from-us-trade-deal

    The list of groups, the representatives of which put their name to the letter, does not include all those campaigning against NHS privatisation.

  22. @ TOH = “great for the Tories”

    Indeed it was. Let’s be clear “Neutral” in a “Remain with NO SAY” v “Remain with SAY” ref = Remain

    He’s not even go to attempt to defend the deal he negotiates? Seriously, why bother then – just be honest, save time and state he’d Revoke 13Dec (ie copy LDEM)

    He’s just told EC-EU27 we’ll Remain but wants to waste 6mths+ to get there (rather than Swinson who would do it day1)

    Anyone who knows where the “battleground” seats are (LAB-CON marginals in Leave areas) was very happy to see Corbyn abandon Leave voters.

    Also the Corbyn-Sturgeon “tag team” gave SCON a huge boost in GOTV and made it clear that Sturgeon would be tail wagging the dog in the event that say LAB won 280 seats and SNP 50 and if Corbyn doesn’t bend to her will then we crash out of EU on 31Jan’20 with “No Deal”

    CON could still mess this up if they get a bit too confident and try to fix long-term issues (like ageing population) in their manifesto. Surely Boris won’t do a Mayb0t??

    Hence tomorrow will IMO be the final “event” that decides the GE outcome. Boris just needs to not f**k that up and we’re home.

  23. Bigfatron,
    “But most of all they lamented that they can’t vote for ‘the only really good one’ as her party isn’t standing in England…”

    I know exactly what they mean. Though there is probably a nick clegg effect…grass always greener…that sort of thing.

    Alec,
    “Finally, confirmation, if it was needed, that Johnson really isn’t very good. ”

    Whoever thought he was? He became leader because he led the leave campaign, and that was what was called for to get BxP voters back on side. May was the coalition candidate who sought common ground to get Brexit done. Though she was doomed from the start because coalition of the disparate goals and visions of Brexit is not possible.

    Once you examine it, you see the compromise position is really to join the EU, so you get your trade deal including the inevitable uncomfortable rules, but at least you get a seat on the other side’s council which allows you to dictate your opponents terms!

    Tonybtg,
    “The revoke policy is an absolute stinker. You cant just revoke without going back to the people”

    Of course you can, thats how british government and advisory referenda work. . Anyway, we are going back to the people, there is an election just coming. If the libs get into power, their policy will have been validated.

  24. For those LOC posters who thought Johnson had a bad time last night I suggest they read the write up in the Guardian, not what I
    i would consider a right of center paper.

    Tory Central Office will be quite happy I think.

  25. I only saw the results of the Yougov poll when people gave their opinion of the first debate. Johnson 51%, Corbyn 49%.

    Here are the results of other polling.

    Britain Elects 33,000 votes
    Corbyn 57% Johnson 28%

    Paul Brand ITV 30,000 votes
    Corbyn 78% Johnson 22%

    Martin Lewis 23,000 votes
    Corbyn 47% Johnson 25%

    The Times 8,000 votes
    Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%

  26. It was the last LAB govt that privatised parts of the NHS not a CON one.

    For folks that have forgotten but are only capable of getting their opinion from the Guardian then maybe take a pause on the Arch-Remain propaganda and check the FACTS of which party “sold off” bits of the NHS:

    “Tony Blair today welcomed 11 private healthcare providers into the “NHS family”, as he promised them the chance to gain a stronger foothold in the NHS.

    Predicting that the private sector would soon provide up to 40% of NHS operations, Mr Blair said the independent providers could help drive up the quality of service to patients which he said was the “most important thing”

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/feb/16/health.politics

  27. TW

    Certainly tomorrow could be crucial to Tory prospects.

  28. That Wales on line self selecting, therefore, voodoo poll is interesting in that it points to Labour’s tactics.

    We all know that leave seats in Wales and parts of the North and Midlands in England is where Labour are particularly vulnerable to the Tories.
    The Neutral announcement was necessary at some point or at least Corbyn’s position being clear was necessary at some point. Labour’s hope is that their spending commitments will be attractive to left leaning leave voters in such seats so that they will live with the neutral position, as while they are leave the rest of the Labour program means more.
    This is only possible with those voters for whom Leave is a preference not a must; and, may only attract a few waverers back anyhow.

    This also explains the timing as the Neutral position before the manifesto launch would have been isolated.

    FWIW, I think it may help a little but not enough without a further LD squeeze in such seats.

    Might just keep losses down to 20-25 but we hear the Tories are bullish in Scotland and possible LD gains from the Tories are looking less than they where so that could be enough for a small Tory OM.

  29. To be clear i was referring to the “who came out top” piece in the Guardian not their headline article.

  30. Is there not always a surge of registration before an election, because those who are lax about these things get a stimulus to do something? Also, people who have moved home.

    I registered since the campaign started – and turns out that I was already down for a postal vote in my constituency. But as registration is at national level, I am still contributing to that statistic.

  31. @DANNY

    Boeing 737 Max crash

    The problem for both the indonesian and the Ethiopian flights was that they had several departures which were corrected by MCAS once you have had several departures I suspect the trim is set to a position that is just plain bonkers. Normally you can only trim an aircraft to a limited degree but the MCAS basically trimmed the aircraft beyond what would have been seen as reasonable and thus was difficult to recover no matter what the mechanism

    The point I was making was that firstly in normal circumstances the plane was flyable, secondly if MCAS kicked in incorrectly AND was caught early enough it was correctable AND if the alarm was installed for both planes I believe that they would not have gone through several departure event where MCAS took over constantly trimming the aircraft nose down you would have gone through possible 2 at most.

    If you look at what the pilots of both aircraft did. it was pretty clear that they were fighting MCAS system trying to keep the plane aloft they were going through the checklist meticulously to assess what was happening to the aircraft the fact they may have not known it was MCAS is scary because intuitively you would not mess with the trim in these situation since this is a gross departure when trim is supposed to simple cetre the flight controls to a neutral setting on very small departures.

    What was surprising was that in the US there were at least 5 failures on record of the MCAS system and all the aircraft had the advantage of the warning system and in at least one failure the problem was resolved because of a pilot in the back seat having had the problem just the day before able to advise the front seat pair of what to do.

    In my view this was preventable at several points:
    1. The regulations regarding grandfathering were broken
    2. Boeing deciding that the warning system was not necessary but an added option
    3. There being no simple checklist which identified the the issue
    4. MCAS not having any limit on the trim

    Any one of these would have meant that the pilots would have had a sphincter puckering moment but no one would be dead and they would have got away with an inherently bad system in place with even more aircraft of the type in the air. In some ways it reminds me of grenfell tower where people protested that the tower was unsafe and the those responsible did nothing to address the concerns until it was too late. The decision making process was the same in my view

    With regards the pilots both pilots were reasonably experienced 737 pilots they were actually flying well within the regime of normal operation basically attempting to increase altitude to cruising height soon after take off that the MCAS did not allow that to happen as the sensor system was broken and therefore was feeding incorrect information to MCAS meant that the system believe they were close to stalling when they were not even close to and angle of attack that could be remotely close to that regime. basically if you were in a car going at 10mph and you decided to accelerate to 30 mph and your car decided to slam on the brakes intermittently if you could stop and park up you would do but as they were in the air they had to fix it which is why not having the aids to do so either in checklist form or warning light form did not help

  32. Joseph,

    My son ended up being registered twice and he applied where he now lives but is still on for the family home.

    Of course, I want to him to use his vote in the most marginal seat of the 2 but have told him not to vote twice.

  33. @Sam

    I only saw the results of the Yougov poll when people gave their opinion of the first debate. Johnson 51%, Corbyn 49%.

    Here are the results of other polling.

    Britain Elects 33,000 votes
    Corbyn 57% Johnson 28%

    Paul Brand ITV 30,000 votes
    Corbyn 78% Johnson 22%

    Martin Lewis 23,000 votes
    Corbyn 47% Johnson 25%

    The Times 8,000 votes
    Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%

    All these polls are Twitter polls, thus utterly without value and meaning (other than propaganda value to those who look good in that particular unreliable and unscientific poll).

  34. Good morning all from a wet PSRL

    Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this son of Islington’s assent? (he hopes ;-))

    @ ON – you raised the issue (re ’15 election) of SNP / Lab coalition scaring English voters. That’s always been Tory gotv line – and the people it chimes with are already very much in their bag already. In any case it would at least be negated by LD voters who are more likely to lend their vote to Lab if it looks like a hung parliament.

    Whilst the last couple of days do seem to have buoyed Labour supporters – not sure if it is spreading any further

  35. Almost consensus on UKPR.

    Conclusions from last night: Sturgeon the clear winner, Swinson the clear loser. Johnson dodged a bullet. The interesting development was the new Labour neutral stance to a second referendum.

    Nothing there to represent a game-changer, but the LDs looking increasingly unlikely to make a breakthrough. I cannot see any LD gains in the ‘proper’ South West.

    Clear signs of Labour making headway, and a lot will depend upon the Tory manifesto.

  36. CMJ

    Totally agree with your conclusions about last night’s leadership debate. Yes I think Johnson will win a small majority ultimately.
    Swinson had a tough old time and the switch to revocation of Article50 will be seen as a very poor policy decision and deservedly so.

  37. MILLIE

    @”Almost consensus on UKPR.”

    :-) :-) :-) !!

    No sh*t sherlock ?

  38. Passtherockplease,
    “The point I was making was that firstly in normal circumstances the plane was flyable, secondly if MCAS kicked in incorrectly AND was caught early enough it was correctable AND if the alarm was installed for both planes I believe that they would not have gone through several departure event where MCAS took over constantly trimming the aircraft nose down you would have gone through possible 2 at most.”

    I dont understand how the pilots were able to correct on the multiple events, whether the computer trim adjustment became cumulatively greater, whether the computer program had latitutude to allow pilots some control, but if the perceived fault was not corrected it would then wholly take control. There seems to have been some ability for pilots to simply pull back on the central control stick to correct trim, but this was repeatedly overriden by the computer and the computer had the final say to lock them out. So it might be they could initially correct that way, but then on successive events the computer becae more insistent.

    The simulator demonstration showed the computer adjusting trim very quickly. The slaved manual control whizzed round pretty fast, far faster than pilots could manually crank it back, if they could at all.

    Bottom line…it isnt clear to me the computer changed trim any greater amount on the last cycle than it did on the first cycle, just that it allowed pilots to take back control and make use of the servo systems to adjust trim. If that is the case, then understanding first go around that the computer was crashing the plane might not have helped. If they had managed to switch it off at a moment when it had allowed them to first stabilise trim, then maybe. But could they land the plane without electrical power assist on the control surfaces?

    There was a comment either in the documentary or wiki, that computer override happened far faster than the plane documentaion said it should, thus not allowing them time to act. This was an issue which came up in certification, that the company stated there would be more time than it transpired there was.

    “the fact they may have not known it was MCAS is scary because intuitively you would not mess with the trim in these situation since this is a gross departure when trim is supposed to simple cetre the flight controls to a neutral setting on very small departures.”

    The trim control in the simulator was whizzing along to an extreme position in a way that looked frankly dangerous had the pilots tried to touch the control as it was moving. It must have been obvious the computer had done this.

    ” Boeing deciding that the warning system was not necessary but an added option”

    I wonder whether this was a precondition to grandfathering? If a new warning was deemed essential, then surely it must imply a change in training?

    “MCAS not having any limit on the trim”

    I suspect that the system was intended to prevent pilots being able to use extreme trim, and MCAS having full control was therefore the fallback safe position. In other words, Boeing may have considered it to be unsafe for this plane to be flown without computer assistance. Without MCAS we would have seen planes crashing for a different reason.

    The bottom line might be that the computer system on board this plane is not up to the job of fail safe computer control. It needs to be redesigned, as I gather airbus has, to have more redundant backups. Which is a very major design fault.

  39. DANIEL

    @”How do you negotiate a deal as a neutral”

    It won’t need any negotiation:-

    Starmer:- Same as now without the membership vote please.

    Barnier:- Sign here.

    Job done.

  40. Ballot slip for the 2nd “Once in a Generation” Ref

    Based on the first one with some edits and [notes]

    —————————
    Another Referendum on the United Kingdom’s[1] membership of the European Union

    Vote only once[2] by putting a cross (X) in the box next to your choice

    Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or become a colony of the European Union

    Remain a member of the European Union [3] ( )
    Become a colony of the European Union [4] ( )

    —————————–

    In tiny small print underneath on the back there will be some disclaimers to ensure folks are fully informed this time

    Disclaimers (that no one will see or read)

    Note, in both cases, Brussels can at any time sell our NHS to Trump in return for Trump allowing free access to EU goods (ie a “cars for NHS” trade deal)

    Also, this really is forever this time. It’s always been a “FINAL SAY” if you answer the correct way and after you got it wrong in 2016 then we’ve made sure both boxes are Remain this time. Hence we’ll accept the answer and actually implement it this time.

    When (not if) UK has to hand over more sovereignty in the future then forget any new refs on that – the electorate showed in 2016 that they might give the wrong answer so we won’t be doing any more refs after this one – EVER

    [1] Scotland will have a separate ballot paper this time or a 2nd once in a generation ref of their own. NI and Wales??

    [2] Unless you’re a student and then we’ll fill it in for you and/or you can vote twice

    [3] At least you’ll in theory have a say this way. It will be full cost (£11bn/year) and we’ll be outvoted on everything but we will at least keep our vetoes

    [4] Not even a threotic say with this option but it might be a bit cheaper (eg only £6bn/year)

  41. @TREVOR WARNE

    Consider WHERE CON need to win seats (30-50+ LAB-CON marginals, almost all of which are in Leave areas)

    It’s worth pointing out where LAB front-bench have their seats (mostly right next to each other in N1 London)

    Sorry for repetition but I think you are missing the point here. Labour if it supported any version of leave would lose the majority of their voters. both in the marginals and where they stack their votes.

    I have said they are in a no win situation. I have in the past characterised this as the Bristol North West versus Walsall North dilemma. Where you have two ‘working class’ areas on different trajectories with different outlooks and different requirements and that is before you look at the metropolitan versus small town versus rural dynamic

    Labour could have done one of three things
    1. Support remain
    2. Support leave
    3. Ignore it or try and offer something for both sides

    They could not support leave since 67% of their vote in 2015 voted to remain, more than 80% of their members voted to remain their offical policy was to remain and only 3 labour MPs backed leave. It would have lost it supporters in those vote stacked seats. So in the same way that I believe no matter what Tories think of brexit they have to deliver it and suffer the consequences because they mirror Labour in terms of VI, membership although not MPs. Corbyn trying to be neutral is the only policy he can have since it may provision more votes than remain. If they went leave I think you would accept that no Tory is voting for them anyway and that the marginals will still be marginal at best and yet he could face a complete collapse in the safe seats and people abandon them in metro areas where their core vote is

    What surprises me is that people are arguing that supporting leave would put Labour in a better position. it just would not. They are truely f#@ked in a sense in that they had a coalition of working class that made it and the working class that didn’t. and the metropolitan that are social liberals. The working class that made it in places like Bristol North West see the effects of the EU since they work for airbus or rolls royce, the working class that didn’t make it are working in Amazon fulfilment centres on sh1tty wages with low skills don’t see the EU as a positive they see them at best as a meh they see labour regulations (no matter wherever they come from) as a meh they believe they cannot shake the tree and so voting leave works. I am not sure that dynamic changes much with policies since the point of voting leave is that they don’t believe that politicians deliver since much of what people are asking for has nothing to do with the EU. So the EU referendum in some parts was the girlfriend and the cat delimma.

    Your girlfriend want a cat, she says if you love me you would have a cat, but you hate cats. In the end politicians will either have to give in and let the electorate have their cat or get them to see that the cat is not what they want because of the vet bill and the fact you need to find someone to look after the cat when you want to go on holiday and the like. If they fail they end up at best having a bad tempered girlfriend and at worst no girlfriend.

    Labour cannot persuade the leavers that they have a plan that results in leaving and their only chance is to position themselves as neutral and thus give both leaver and remainers another chance. it is not a great answer but it is a coherent answer given their position.

    I suspect if they could win by promising leave I think you will find that they would have entertained it but I don’t think Corbyn has enough clout to force leave on labour just like I don’t think he has the clout to force remain on them either.

    lastly there are plenty of marginals in metro area which are close to 50/50 leave/remain and even where there was strong leave votes in Labour held constituencies much of the leave vote was actually conservatives who would not vote Labour anyway so they lose the 50 seats whether they supported leave or remain but supporting leave would make there safe seats unsafe and not make their marginal seats any less marginal.

    Simply put you are arguing that Labour would be better supporting leave and that sound like DANNY saying Tories would be be better supporting remain.

  42. @TonyBTG

    “It might be a problem for Labour – the Libdems picking off a few Tory seats in the south west might have stopped Johnson. The Libdems seem to be doing their best to muck that up though.”

    That is my main concern. To stop Johnson, Sturgeon needs to triumph in Scotland – no problem there – Labour needs to hold steady in the North and Midlands – that becomes more likely and the Libdems need to do outstandingly well in those seats, and only those seats, where they have a chance of winning. Unfortunately the Libdem surge and the tactical voting sites have muddied the waters in London, where tactical voters in place like Kensington or Wimbledon have been urged to vote Libdem. If I was a Kensington labour voter there is now absolutely zero chance that I would vote Libdem and in this way last night was good for Johnson despite his own, to me, completely unconvincing performance.

  43. Rob Ford – politics professor at Manchester – has some sobering analysis for Labour:

    https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1197878031441899520

  44. @ TOH – Boris is 2-1 up going into the final test – manifestos! We just need a “draw” to win the series.

    The 1st Test at Lords was the crucial one.

    Remain thought they had Boris dead in his crease with the umpire on their side. It looked like Farage would them run Boris out and we’d lose.

    So no need for boundaries, a “draw” will do. Play it safe Boris, play ti safe.

    PS IMO McDonnell wants to lose but keep it close. They’ll be back in GE’24 with a new captain and no need to bat against Leave’s spin attack. Once we’re out of EU then nationalisations will be a lot easier and that was always the prize – hand the state over to the trade union.

  45. @ MILLIE – Cheltenham is certainly not “proper” SW and I’m not sure LDEM will even win that “posh” one ;)

    The 4 they might have lost to LAB are going to tougher now but 90%+ certain they’ll at least win Richmond Park

    Scotland?? We need a poll and ideally some Scotland specific MRP to see what is going on up there.

  46. Redrich

    John Rentoul is probably the worst political commentator in a very competitive field!

  47. @Redrich

    In fairness, getting an objective view from John Rentoul about Corbyn is like getting the NFU to say something nice about vegnaism.

  48. Veganism not vegnaism.

    Them vegnas are really wierd !

  49. Wierd write up from Rentoul; of Johnson he said that he had the audience “eating out of his hand” after he said there was no money for women’s pensions.

1 15 16 17 18 19 22