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 18 19 20 21 22
  1. @Bantams

    It looks like the BMG poll is still lagging the others as they have only just shown a big reduction in the BXP share. We’ll need to wait for the others to see the latest position.

  2. @ PTRP – Either SNP or LDEM could have “bounced’ other Remain MPs back in Sep (ie ask SMogg to table a VoNC (FTPA-2) and then have 14days to either get Corbyn to accept a PM Neutral or force LDEM/Soubs, etc to accept PM TINA Corbyn)

    Corbyn didn’t have the bottle (perhaps coz he wants to Leave anyway) but SNP and LDEM are both supposed to be “Remain” and were both set to win big increases in MPs at the time. So WTF?!? Why didn’t they act when they should have?

    So to pretend Remain MPs couldn’t have “taken back control” in Sep or Oct is BULL

    What is crazy is the !diot that wrote the wording of the “Surrender Bill” such that the 3rd extension was only long enough to have a GE.

    At that point (and the “legislation” route was obvious once “Remain” showed they didn’t want a GE and Boris “goaded them” into legislation route, with enough time before the non-prorogation to ensure the legislation would pass) then Remain put all their chips on Farage splitting the Leave vote and Remain dividing out enough CON seat gains between them to WIN the GE we’re now going to have.

    I’m a gambler but that was a crazy bet to make, especially given a much safer option was available right up until the GE vote on 29Oct.

    Now the lack of coordination and the preference for ‘can kicking’ from Remain MPs has been obvious for ages – you might even think someone had done a “decision tree” to anticipate what MIGHT happen and then help “steer” MPs down one of the paths that was best for their side.

    I made these comments time and time again. It was VERY OBVIOUS, so the only possible explanation is Corbyn wants to Leave, SNP hope to benefit from Brexit to increase support for Indtref2 and LDEM hope to “morph” into the Rejoin party (and/or collectively they are !diots and handed Boris exactly what he wanted in his 2nd pref for WHEN he wanted it)


  3. Workers banned from withdrawing their labour. Benefit claimants banned from usin taxis when they shop at supermarkets.
    Our prospective hard-right government chills me to the bone.


    We get the Government we deserve. It staggers me that people think it acceptable that someone sacked twice for lying is fit for public office. We are talking about the most important job in the land and yet lying is clearly seen as acceptable.

    We will see where we are in five years. I’m not optimistic.

  5. I don’t think it is wrong to say that the LibDems would end up supporting Corbyn and voting for a new IndyRef.

    If you think (which I think is true) that the LibDem’s overriding priority is to stop Brexit, then the question is what do they do if Lab+SNP+LibDem = Majority. Corbyn will concede the SNP’s demand, so what do the LibDems do?

    They can hope the Tories agree to be supported in power if they deliver a referendum. But they would decline that poison chalice. Even if they won the referendum, they would be in a Parliament cheering on the EU in the resulting negotiations. Labour would hold its position that the Johnson deal is a disaster, and the LibDems would hardly support Johnson in any disputes with the EU.

    So, do the LibDems accept an SNP demand to frontload IndyRef legislation for a 2022 vote – so Corbyn can claim he was true to his promise?

    Or do the precipitate a new election, risking a Tory victory when a second referendum on the basis of a pointless Brexit?

    The most logical play for the LibDems, given their absolute priority is Brexit, is to risk an IndyRef.

  6. I have now found the link for which I asked Chris lane

    i have also had a look at the wikipedia entries for both Ruth Smeeth and Marc Wadsworth (the alleged heckler). Both these participants – no doubt sincerely – seem to feel that they were being racially attacked. The motivations of both are not clear to me, and were probably not to Corbyn at the time. His actions on video seem to me more like those of someone trying to get out of a room as soon as possible than of a man condoning racist behaviour.

    Others may know more or see the evidence differently. I don’t personally feel that the incident means that Jewish fathers need to be more afraid for their children or that a vote for Corbyn is a vote for a nascent fascist state.

  7. @TW 7.03pm

    The Remainers got within touching distance of another referendum with May’s desperate attempts to get her deal through with Opposition support. She was promptly dispatched when Mundell revolted.

    I have written before that Labour made a massive mistake in not enabling the May deal with backstop insurance.

  8. DANNY
    ““….So I can only imagine Labour must have about twice as many seats in parliament as the Conservatives ”

    Or perhaps it simply reiterates a polling finding from the last election, that conservative voters nonetheless liked labour policies.”

    I’ll grant that there might well be something to that. The policies themselves probably do create more applause and they are more popular.

    Also though, there were several softball ‘questions’, which raised cheers for Corbyn, not least the one about Harold Wilson being ‘neutral’, which was synchronized to lay the ground for the new position on the second referendum and delivered (asked) by Liam Shrivastava, a Labour Party communications officer posing as an audience member.

    The Labour Party are well organized, but they’re losing.

  9. @Trevor Warne:

    I think if the LibDems and non-SNP Remainers were in a fix about Corbyn PM. ‘He could deliver the overthrow of Brexit, but what then?

    Let us suppose a March 2020 referendum overthrows Brexit. The ex-Tory Remainers necessary for this obviously can’t afford an election. The LibDems risk having outlived their usefulness to many Remainers.

    It is quite possible that they would face being wiped out. They could hope for Remainers to thank them profusely, but there were great risks. They might find themselves limping on in coalition with Corbyn PM to the next election.

    So, their play was that they could hold a general election, and Remainers would flock to their banner. Maybe afterwards LibDem+SNP+ (anti-Corbyn) Labour = majority.

    Instead, the best they can hope for Labour (including Corbyn loyalists) +LibDem+SNP+PC = majority.

    This would put the LibDems in all kinds of trouble.

    In 2015, the LibDems assumed that Remainers would flock to them – and it has not worked entirely to plan.

    But the plan was not unreasonable – and I think their best play.

    NB: A 3 month extension was necessary as the Bill required support from people who didn’t want to admit that they were trying to overthrow Brexit. It makes no difference, as any alternative (referendum, revoke) required a General Election.

  10. Jim Jam

    @”I think most UK Debt is very long term”

    No-not at all.

    A recent Debt Management Office Report shows ( DMO designations):-

    Total Debt mix:-

    T Bills 3%
    Gilts Ultra Short term 15%
    Gilts Short term 14%
    Gilts Medium Term 9%
    Gilts Long Term 24%
    Gilts Index Linked 25%
    NS& I 10%

    Typical Annual issuance mix:-

    Gilts Short Term 26%
    Gilts Medium term 22%
    Gilts Long Term 27%
    Gilts Index Linked 25%

    Indexed bonds clearly impacted by inflation. Others impacted by interest rate changes as they are replaced on maturity.

  11. Hendon mini-poll by Deltapoll of 501 questioned between Nov 14th and 20th:

    Con 37
    Lab 25
    LD 9
    Greens 1
    Others 3
    DK 20

  12. Chelsea & Fulham mini-poll by Deltapoll of 501 questioned between Nov 14th and 21st:

    Con 36
    LD 19
    Labour 19
    Others 3
    DK 20

  13. When was the Opinium poll data collected? Anybody know?

  14. City of London & Westminster mini-poll by Deltapoll of 501 questioned between Nov 14th and 21st:

    Con 31
    LD 26
    Labour 20
    Green 1
    Others 1
    DK 15

  15. @ Charles

    Between Nov 20th and 22nd, 2003 people questioned.

  16. From a pure remainer perspective these London polls show the problem with not having a pact: the polls make it unclear who is best placed to win.

    I think the best thing would normally be to base strategic voting on the most recent Westminster election which was only 2.5 years ago.

    Some of these polls have a very small sample size and could suffer all manner of sample selection bias.

  17. Some stunning looking polls for the Tories today, they look to be closing in on a massive landslide victory. Johnson can seemingly do no wrong, and he’s clearly managing to attract a pretty decent % of Remain voters alongside Leave.

  18. [email protected]: I wrote the other day that Scotland now has Nationalists and Unionists.

    There are probably Remainers and Leavers on both sides, so it’s not so straightforward, but I’d expect the Nationalist vs Unionist consideration to be key.

    There is a similar, but far less pronounced, situation in West Wales where Nationalism is stronger. In East Wales it will be simple Remain or Leave divide.

    Re Scotland, I would agree, although I take on board what Oldnat says. West Wales illuminates this a bit. I think UK consensus has broken down. Mainly over brexit, but it could have been anything and it was just waiting to happen.

    The short of it is that there is very little in the way of process to bring about, ensure and maintain UK consensus. And now brexit has taken everything beyond its elastic limit, it is not going to come back together the way it was. Regions are now beginning to think that they would do better making their own decisions.

    This crystallises a new thought for me, which is that while the brexit referendum sort of contains a notional ‘legitimacy’ for the outcome, the vote was absolute folly for a UK which was coming apart at the seams before the vote anyway.

  19. @ Valerie

    I Googled the taxi and claimants story and the first item came up was this:

    “A Cambridge taxi driver has been barred from the trade after claiming more than £16,000 in benefits he was not entitled to.

    He first appeared before the council’s licensing sub-committee after the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) informed the authority that he had been convicted of benefit fraud.

    The DWP investigation found that the taxi driver had claimed a total of £16,294 in housing and council tax benefit that he wasn’t entitled to during the course of several years.”

    I assume this isn’t it :)

  20. @technicolouroctober

    ” Regions are now beginning to think that they would do better making their own decisions.”

    Which is why they want instead to surrender ever increasing powers to a federal European Union, where decisions are taken by majority on a council of 28 highly divergent and culturally heterogeneous countries ?

    It doesn’t seem logical to me.

  21. [email protected]: ” Regions are now beginning to think that they would do better making their own decisions.”

    Which is why they want instead to surrender ever increasing powers to a federal European Union, where decisions are taken by majority on a council of 28 highly divergent and culturally heterogeneous countries ?

    It doesn’t seem logical to me.

    What you are not getting is the fundamental difference between EU and UK decision making processes. EU processes are designed to work on consensus of many smaller parts. This is badly misunderstood in large parts of the UK which only see centrally imposed solutions and indeed voted out of the EU because that is all that they could see. And in part they were right because the UK acts as a kind of umbrella which excludes UK regions from any meaningful participation in EU decision making.

  22. As a long reader of the replies on UKPR, I regularly wonder the makeup of the political affiliations of posters on this site.
    As English is not my first language, to be clear, I mean the ones who frequently post on UKPR what would the % of Labour, Con, LibDem, SNP, Green supporters and any other party that I missed?
    I would be interested about estimates of how many unique visits/day that UKPR gets? Do the posts on here have any influence on election UK outcome?
    Thank you very much.

  23. From a remain POV why are the Lib Dems going after seats where Labour is the obvious challenger?

  24. No one voted yet.
    If Tories could have the vote on Monday, then great for them.
    But before December 12th there is the potential for VI change.
    1. Complacency. Hare and tortoise.
    2. Tactical vote if ABB. Tactical vote if decide outside London a Lib Dem vote is a wasted vote.
    3. Howler in manifesto.
    4. Gaffe what real plans are but not in manifesto.
    5. Senior Royal event knocks GE to December 27th.
    6. International game changing event in which the Government get electorally wrong.
    7. Event of Grenfell Tower magnitude which government misjudge.
    8. Corbyn resigns this week and new photogenic face is put into place.
    9. Earthquake, floods, minus ten, freak weather.
    10. Polls are just wrong on VI.
    Other than that, it looks like Boris on December 13th.

  25. @Toby

    The counter on the site normally shows about 400 looged in, though that seems on the high side to me. Given this, its influence on the election is +/-0 !

    Most people’s affiliations are fairly clear. However, to give you a direct answer, in the 13 elections I’ll have voted in on 12th December – starting in February 1974 – I’ve voted LibDem 5 times, Labour 4 times, Green twice, and Liberal twice. The Labour ones have been on the few occasions they’ve truly been radical (79, 83, 17, and 19), the rest of the time they’ve been pink Tories.

  26. J S-B: I wouldn’t wish for some of those things.

  27. @Shevii

    You were absolutely right about Matlock Town’s ground in Causeway Lane. Despite the low cloud and steady drizzle that masked the top of the adjacent High Tor that towers over both the town and ground, it is indeed in a delightful setting. A stone’s throw from the town centre, I crossed the bridge over the roaring River Derwent on my way from where I parked to the ground, the town still showing some signs of the recent flooding that hit the Derbyshire Dales. I had a bit of a narrow squeak too because when I met up with the four other fans in the Redditch travelling army, all of whom I knew and had travelled with the players on the team coach, I was told by one of them that the game had only narrowly gone ahead following a pitch inspection at 9.30am. This was totally unbeknown to me and I had travelled by car, not thinking of checking if the game was still on before I left circa 12.30pm. A wasted 180 mile round trip was narrowly avoided! I thank the Matlock FC groundsman and match officials!

    Predictably the far superior Gladiators triumphed over a very poor Reds side and our FA Trophy adventure is over for this year. 2-0 to Matlock, but a very enjoyable afternoon out in one of my favourite parts of the world. Wonderfully old fashioned ground and great company amongst the Redditch hordes (well, five of us actually!). Much black humour amongst us and quite a bit of banter with the locals.

    After half time was over, and early in the second half, a message crackled over the PA system announcing pies would be selling at half price from the rickety old refreshment kiosk. There was no rush detected, so I wondered over. I’d had a cup of weak lukewarm tea and a Mars bar a bit earlier so I was expecting no gastronomic tours de force in the obsolete pie stock department. As usual with these non-league refreshment kiosks, they are staffed by redoubtable local ladies of a certain age and usually with a wicked sense of humour too. I got to the counter, rain dripping down the back of my neck from the corrugated iron roof, and asked what was on offer. One of the women gestured over to a warming cabinet piled tightly with pies and pasties. I asked if they were half price. “Yes” replied one of the ladies, “you can have as many as you want.” I said I’d only have one pasty because I was on my own. She obliged and then, obviously detecting my non-Derbyshire accent said, “You haven’t brought many fans with you, have you? We usually sell loads to away fans. There’s only about half a dozen of you lot from what I can see” I told her that we hadn’t brought many but it was little wonder considering how bad the team was. Quick as a flash she replied that “We’re blo*dy rubbish too, although if we’re winning you must be absolute sh*te”. I couldn’t argue with her verdict and after we bid our farewells I returned to my vantage point under a bit of shelter behind the goal Redditch were allegedly meant to be attacking. With my four oppos from North Worcestershire The pasty was decent, the free cold chips less so, although I did manage to palm a few of those off to my fellow travellers, telling them before they ate them that they were very tasty! Very happy away day, nonetheless.

    As for this weekend clutch of polls, I think I’m starting to hear the bells of doom tolling.

  28. Any evidence from people canvassing/leafletting that VI is wrong?

  29. @tobytronicsteroephonic

    “I would be interested about estimates of how many unique visits/day that UKPR gets? Do the posts on here have any influence on election UK outcome?”

    I suggest you put that to the site owner directly. He doesn’t tend to respond to many posts in here, so one assumes he doesn’t read too many either, once a thread has a certain number of replies.

  30. J S-B

    All the reports I see on Twitter (from all parties in Scotland) is that the positive response they are getting on the doors is phenomenal, and each of these parties is going to take every seat!

  31. “Senior Royal event knocks GE to December 27th.”

    That would never happen. People are often away from home visiting relatives in that period between Christmas and New Year.

  32. Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 43% (-2)
    LAB: 30% (-)
    LDEM: 16% (+5)
    BREX: 3% (-3)


    Chgs. w/ 16 Nov

  33. @Profhoward, the changes make it look like the poll issued 16 Nov was an outlier. Changes to the poll done 6-9 November are

    CON (+2)
    LAB (+1)
    LIB (-)
    BXP (-3)

  34. Frosty – good point.

  35. Prof Howard

    “People are often away from home visiting relatives in that period between Christmas and New Year.”

    I’m not sure that some of the Windsors will be welcome, even in their own homes, this Yuletide,

  36. @Bantams Thanks!

  37. @ MOG

    Nice voting spread. I’ve also bagged most of those, but I never got to vote Liberal, instead I did once vote SDP (Shirley WIlliams).

    Agreed that this site has absolutely no influence on anything, except maybe the moods of a very small number of people who could probably very reasonably be described by your name.

    I guess we still might get one more poll tonight (ComRes maybe) but I’ve already done my rough average. Compared to the last weekend polls, there’s been almost no movement. Which is bad news for Labour of course, this time in 2017 things had already started to swing back to them. The one obvious change is a drop in BXP support, but the equivalent gain from that seem to be rather dissipated amongst all the parties. Apart from that startling Opinium poll, it’s all a bit polldrums.

    So here’s my average vs equivalent 2017 averages.

    Party 2017/2019

    CON 45/43
    LAB 34/30
    LIBD 8/15
    UKIP/BXP 5/3

    Assume, as always, that SNP/GRN/PC are bobbling at around 4/3/1 respectively.

    My current prediction. The final result will look very much like 2017 apart from about 5-6% switch from LAB to LIBD. This of course gives CON an open goal for an OM with about the same percentage VI as last time.

  38. OLDNAT

    “I’m not sure that some of the Windsors will be welcome, even in their own homes, this Yuletide,”

    No. Some of them will not be. Tho they have so many homes I am sure they will manage.

  39. @ JIB – COLIN and yourself both pointed out many, many times that

    “Labour made a massive mistake in not enabling the May deal with backstop insurance”

    In bold as that is such an important point, very worthy of repeating.

    So, you have to wonder why LAB (and SNP, LDEM and likes of Soubs, Grieve, etc) thought it was a good idea to walk through the same division door as the likes of Cash, Baker, Francois?!?

    Not once, not twice but THREE times. MV1, 2 and 3.

    What did they think would happen?!?

    So the question is were they incredibly n4ive/st00pid (same thing IMO) or did they actually want a Hard Brexit (and still quite possibly a “No Deal” Brexit if we, the electorate, return a “mess” whereby no one can from a govt so we “default” out on 31Jan’20)

    Now I’m totally A-OK with “No Deal”, WTO+ or an acceptable deal but seriously WTF were those MPs thinking when they trooped through the “noe” door not once, not twice but THREE times!!!

    Thank you for the reminder that “Remain” MP mistakes were made WAY back.

    It reminds me an old phrase:

    “If you’ve been playing poker for half an hour and you still don’t know who the patsy is, you’re the patsy.”

    (patsy = aka useful eejiots, etc)

    It took UK 40+yrs to work out we were the patsy in the EEC/EU but I don’t think LAB, SNP, LDEM, Soubs lot, Gaukward lot, etc have figured it out they, or at least a subset of “they”, are the Brexit patsies.

    So beyond pointing out who “WINS” from a No Deal/Hard Brexit (clue: SNP and lifelong Eurosceptics that want to “democratise” everything, easier outside of EU than within) then when will folks start to work it out?!?

    I doubt you’ll ever get JJ or any other LAB VI to say you (and COLIN) were right all along but I will.

    If you wanted (past tense) a Soft[1] Brexit then you should have backed May’s deal when you had the chance (3x)

    The only issue now is whether Remain voters “double down” on a loosing hand. In terms of CON seats:

    1/ 280-323 = Farage Brexit (crash out with “No Deal” on 31Jan’20)
    2/ 323-340ish = ERG Brexit (MRA+, WTO+, call it what I want on 1Jan’21)
    3/ 340+ = A SoftER Brexit than the above (not as Soft as May’s deal but that ship sunk, 3x!!)

    It’s still theoretically possible CON win less than 280 seats but that’s like hoping the last card is an ace, with 3 aces already played (or Nicola and/or Swinson are bluffing, in which case maybe raise the 280 a bit)

    [1] BrINO IMO but I accept that Soft/Hard become the accepted terms rather than Messy/Clean.

  40. New GE division:

    Do you want to return to secondary pickets, mass strikes and “Winter’s of discontent”[1] = Vote LAB

    No, I want to get to work, want my bins emptied, want to avoid a recession = Vote CON

    [1] Anyone too young to remember (I was only 8) can can use Google or Vote LAB and “learn the hard way”

  41. Front page of the Independent has the lib dems thinking that Raab’s seat is in their sight. Can easily believe their vote will go up by a large amount there (constituency poll done 3 weeks ago had them 9 points behind) but it looks a bit too far to me. Then again, have seen footage of Raab seeming unhappy yesterday and getting into an argument with Andy McDonald. There has also been some footage from hustings where he looked a bit narked too. Maybe Raab is feeling under pressure?

  42. @BANTAMS

    My comment about benefit claimants using taxis was a feeble joke on my part.

    Up-thread, In response to an even feebler joke on my part about benefit claimants using taxis to travel to food banks, Pete B commented that there were often benefit claimants in the taxi queue when he went to his local supermarket.

    Myself and others asked how he knew they were claimants but he never responded. I suppose I find that kind of comment provocative; I use a wheelchair and claim a disability benefit. The notion of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor has been around, since at least, the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, when workhouses were introduced. It was nearly 200 years ago, but things haven’t changed much in the minds of right-wingers.

    My comment about workers being banned from withdrawing their labour was serious. Clearly this I lead a sheltered life amongst the ‘liberal elite’ as I only ever come across that sort of idea on this site.

  43. Is this the last one this evening? SavantaComres carried out on Thursday and Friday

    CON: 42% (-)
    LAB: 32% (+1)
    LDEM: 15% (-)
    BREX: 5% (-)
    GRN: 2% (-)

  44. That poll Frosty posted says Weds/Thurs 20 – 21 Nov
    Chgs. w/ 19 Nov

  45. CB
    Things looking bleak poll wise for the party we both love. Are the polls right though? Dunno.
    Lots of enthusiastic Labour foot soldiers, are they all living in a bubble? Some decent pro Labour feed back in my constituency, which is a safe Tory seat.
    Lots of angry Tories out there, but unlike the locals and Euro election, this time, if they are leavers they have only one clear option. If they are Tory remainers, then my feeling is they will stick with Johnson’s party. The LD ‘offer’ has not much resonance.

  46. if you think LAB will get 207+ seats (or LDEM get 26+ or SNP 51+) then you can get even better odds[1] now

    Better than evens on “all of above”, LAB 207+

    [1] Another old saying “Never catch a falling knife” (the flip side of which is “Let your profits run”). Sadly no Paddy Power ups on “Canterbury’17” yet but 340+ CON seats was recommended by “the collective” and still is!!

  47. @Profhoward – correct, thanks for putting that right, got my days confused, this wine must be stronger than i thought.

  48. The polls tonight largely no change with one or two showing an increased Tory vote (from Brexit party adjustment).

    The largest poll, YouGov, showed no/little change. It had a huge sample size so will have had little sampling error.

    Most will have had little impact from Labour manifesto given this was launched on Thursday.

    Need to await further polling mid/late next week.

  49. MRP from datapraxis suggests

    Con 349
    Lab 213
    LD 14
    SNP 49
    Plaid 5
    Green 1
    Speaker 1

    They have Raab’s majority falling to 2900, Duncan Smith winning by 1900 and mention Boris Johnson as potentially losing his seat due to tactical voting (no number given though, i imagine the model will show this is as a very unlikely low probability event, may have just been included to produce a nice headline). Haven’t found a link to the breakdown by constituency yet.

    Lib Dems at only 14 is a surprise even though i don’t expect them to do very well. Maybe the model struggles to deal with big swings due to tactical voting (or maybe it is correct!)

1 18 19 20 21 22