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 2 3 4 5 22
  1. Norbold

    “Why? What possible difference will that make to your decision of which party to vote for?”

    Likely none at all since I have never been tempted to vote Labour but I will be slightly better informed on the background to the election.

  2. ‘Spurs sack Pochettino’

    The BBC Sport web site confirms Mourinho as the new Spurs manager.

    I have a great deal of sympathy for Poch, just as Wenger had to work under severe financial constraints after Arsenal moved to the Emirates, so he has suffered from Levy’s desire to build a stadium to out-do Arsenal’s. Stadiums don’t win matches; football teams do.

    I hope that Arsenal do the right thing and sack Emery, who has disappointed with none of the excuses that Poch had and appoint Pochettino. You don’t go from being a good manager to a bad manager overnight and Poch’s record at both Southampton and Spurs was good up to this season.

    Also it would be good to see a Pochettino-Mourinho North London derby. I look forward to St Totteringham’s Day being reinstituted this season (even though I’m a Villain, my wife is a Gooner).

    On the debate last night, I watched it and my response was meh.

    One interesting point in Swinson’s interview afterwards is that she said bluntly that she would use nuclear weapons (no qualification). That will upset many people on the left of the party; back in the Blair era Party Conference very nearly voted not to support Trident renewal and it took the Party leadership wheeling out all its big guns (including Paddy and Tim Garden) to get it through. This could really damage her against the SNP.

  3. Hireton

    “The Jacobites in Great Britain lost as 1745 was an attempt to restore the Stuart monarchy to the British throne.”

    Of course that’s right.

    David Carrod

    Perhaps Flodden 1513 would be better since it involved the Scot’s “Auld Alliance” with the French.

  4. In a targeted criminal action, the entire private twitter history of Aaron Banks has been accessed and uploaded online, according to the Grunge.

    Could be interesting…..

  5. Peter Kellner – one of Britain’s most highly regarded, and experienced political experts – has stated on Twitter:

    ” Among voters who have yet to decide finally how to vote, Corbyn seen as winner by 54%, Johnson 38%, don’t know 8%.”

    He went on: “Mainly firming up wavering Lab supporters,..significant.”

  6. 100 Years War. You lost – still not over it

  7. War of the Roses 500 or so years ago – Yorkshire still not over it.

  8. @Sam

    100 Years War. You lost – still not over it

    Who said it was over, we could still come back….

  9. The Other [email protected]: Glad we can agree, no doubt Scotland will vote again at some time in the future, and once we have left the EU there may be a strong desire to rejoin at some time in the future (although personally I doubt that), and new referendums will be held.

    If the tories don’t get a move on, Scotland will be out of the UK and back in the EU before the UK is out of the EU. And the rUK could be back in before they leave.

    Time is marching on to the extent that it is no longer credible [if it ever was] that the UK has to leave before it has the opportunity to decide that leaving would be a mistake.

  10. Yorkshire have their own political party, full manifesto

    https://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Yorkshire-Party-2019-General-Election-Manifesto.pdf

    Highlights:

    p16: “ON BREXIT: Respect the Referendum, Secure a Good Deal for Yorkshire and Take Powers Back from Westminster”

    p21: “A YORKSHIRE ASSEMBLY..”

    Back in 2004 the NE held a ref on devolution (78/22 against) and I haven’t seen much polling on breaking up England but devolution is the 1st step. Maybe in 2044 some English regions can see if it’s time for devolution?? Be nice to see some polling to see if any parts of England want to break up England – I doubt it, but you never know.

    PS There is (maybe was?) also South West Independence Party England – SWIPE! We also have the Ashfield Ind. Apologies if I’m missed out any others.

  11. “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,”

    The elaborate turnout models were brought in because all polsters overestimated Labour support in 2015. So, was 2015 a one off where something strange happened? Or will we again see Labour support inflated in the polls?

  12. Candidate in Leeds NE suspended because of antisemitic comments. this time is Conservative.

    On the continuing dissection of the debate: the latest analyses are tending to favour Corbyn. YG figures show a pretty clear win for him amongst undecided voters and amongst those who weren’t sure who would win before the debate.

    This clearly suggests Corbyn performed ahead of expectations. Peter Kellner suggests that this is largely based on former Labour voters lining up behind Corbyn, which might in itself be significant. This is a big pool in which Labour needs to fish, and an obvious way to eat into the large Tory lead.

    However, probably the most striking number is the fact that 48% of 2017 Conservative voters thought Corbyn did well. That is really very substantial. The approval scores don’t seem to have strictly followed partisan lines, which gives further weight to the idea that Corbyn had a better night than at first impression.

    None of this means much in terms of poll movements, but it dies highlight the potential risks to Johnson of engaging when apparently so far ahead in the polls.

  13. Just for a bit of light relief in these rather depressing times. Hopefully Laszlo at least will smile:

    Erich Honecker, General Secretary of the Socialist Party of Germany, wakes up at the crack of dawn, walks to his office, and greets the rising sun: “Guten morgen, Sonne!” and the Sun replies: “Guten morgen, Erich!”

    Around mid-day, he takes a break for lunch. He looks out the window: “Guten tag, Sonne!” and the Sun replies: “Guten tag, Erich!”

    After a hard day at work, he walks home. He waves to the setting Sun: “Gut nacht, Sonne!” “Fück you, Erich. I’m in the West now.”

  14. @Somerjohn – I still think the best Germanic joke is the story about a journalist at the 1936 Olympic Games who stopped a young man carrying a long stick and asked “Are you a pole vaulter”, whereupon the young man said “No, I’m German and my name is Herman”.

  15. LDEM manifesto

    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/57307/attachments/original/1574251172/Stop_Brexit_and_Build_a_Brighter_Future.pdf?1574251172

    Still waiting for the appendix or supplemenaty pages where they show that is all “fully costed” ;)

  16. @Alec

    You’ve just doubled my repertoire of German jokes!

  17. Grammar and fact pedantic types will have a field day reading LDEM manifesto. Bit ana! I know but I’ll pick one:

    p23 “Restore Corporation Tax to 20 per cent – reversing the Conservatives’ reduction of this tax to 17 per cent – and keep the rate is stable with a predictable future path”

    Oops!

    I see they’ve poached Javid’s new fiscal rule:

    p26: “Ensure overall national debt continues to decline as a share of national income

    Fair play. As Oscar Wilde’s full quote[1] applies there

    The 1p on income tax is ring fenced but fiddly to go through the rest of it. I’ll wait for the IFS to do the biz.

    p 79 and 83 covers PR and dropping voting age, etc although they don’t state it as a priority

    Anything worth poaching?? Not a lot of original content that I’d bother with other than:

    p79 : “Introducing a written constitution for a federal United Kingdom”

    Not sure you’ll see that in the Tory manifesto though.

    So next up LAB – that will be fun. How many “promises and pledges” are they gonna drop (eg Carbon Neutral by 2030) AND/OR how much is it all gonna cost the average tax payer (more than Javid’s original number would be my guess)

    [1] Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness ;)

  18. @James E

    “This seems to me to ignore all the obvious practical issues involved in Leaving the EU for the sake of a dig at London’s voters.”

    It’s not a dig at the voters. It’s a dig at the media and the politicians that tend to put London ahead of rUK when it comes to national policy. Nothing else.

  19. @David Carrod

    No.

    Get over it.

  20. Statgeek

    But surely you’re not seriously claiming that the fact that Londoners were 60:40 for Remain has been a cause for the long time taken from referendum to Withdrawal Agreement?

    My view is that :
    a) It couldn’t have been done in less than 2 years, as per the terms of Article 50.
    b) The delays on the part of May’s government were caused by the splits within her party (so not a London issue)
    c) The Conservatives are not particularly minded to give special attention to a group of voters who increasingly don’t support them anyway.

  21. @TOH / et al

    “Scotland voted to stay in the UK and the UK voted to leave the EU.”

    Repeating the same old past event with context does you no favours.

    Scots-born voters voted Indy;
    Westminster said lead us, but now ignore us;
    They used staying in the EU as a campaign tool;
    The state broadcaster l1ed;
    The politicians did the same (or dozens of issues, from pensions, to oil, to EU);

    Google for yourself, and accept there are many good reasons out there.

    It was a referendum based on misinformation. It was not a fair result.

    Curious. Why do you defend the misinformation, and why hang on to a country that you believe can’t make it alone? The two stances don’t align. Either Scotland is a drain, and all you economic wizards should want rid, or Scotland is not, and…over to you.

  22. Nice of LDEM to recognise the success of 9yrs of Tory govt:

    p43 ” UK low-carbon businesses already have a combined turnover of
    £80 billion and directly employ 400,000 people”

    So one of LAB’s signature policies has already been met – by the Tories!! ;)

    Most of other Green stuff is poached from others and toned down. EG Carbon Neutral by 2045 !?!? So 75% Tory and 25% Green?!?

    Either go for “radical” and 2030 or just leave the promise at CON’s 2050 and focus on the GLOBAL issues (fingers crossed that at least gets a few pages in CON manifesto, but probably optimistic on my part)

  23. Either Dominic Raab is playing into the ‘ Danny theory’ or he is a sociopath. Or both.

  24. “It was a referendum based on misinformation. It was not a fair result.”

    All votes are based on misinformation. The concept behind Universal Suffrage is that non of that matters and the overall result is the wisest possible decision that can be made.

    To believe otherwise is to be a fool – or somebody that doesn’t believe in democracy with Universal Suffrage.

    So which is it?

  25. The problem with the oft repeated line of ‘respect the Brexit Ref’ as TW shows it in the Yorkshire Party manifesto is that it’s a bit like saying ‘don’t drink’. What does it mean? Do you not drink anything? Do you not drink alcohol, do you not drink water? Is it fizzy drinks you shouldn’t swallow, or just cola, or maybe lemonade. No tonic water’s the one that’s bad for you, but 7up is OK.

    We moved to North Yorkshire in ’93 and left in ’09, though my heart is still there. I remember one problem with the regional assembly idea was that Yorkshire was joined with Humberside as far as the bureaucrats were concerned. That was fine as far as the north bank of the Humbergoes, but it meant letting the Lincolnshire Yellowbellies in and that would never do. I mean that’s almost as bad as joining with Lancashire.

  26. @ SCOTS – I assume SNP are going to issue a full set of Indy docs before the GE:

    – Economic Impact Assessment
    – Fully costed budget for the first term of independence
    – Timetable for negotiations
    – Statement on the terms of rejoining the EU (via A49 of Lisbon Treaty)

    Obviously the last two of those require other sides to approve but let’s assume they do.

    Key point is that I’m sure no one expects Scottish voters to “vote blind” in this GE given the lessons we’ve all learned from how not to go through a divorce (ie Brexit).

    So polite requests for UKPR’s Scottish contingent to send the links once SNP have released ALL the relevant info. I did a quick search on google but didn’t seem to find anything new ;)

  27. Joke verdicts. Somerjohn – very, very funny combination of nationality, cold war politics and astronomy. Tickled me. Alec – very funny too, but in a slightly Christmas Cracker sort of way. :-)}

    And the award goes to………………………………….Somerjohn!

    @ProfHoward

    ” Among voters who have yet to decide finally how to vote, Corbyn seen as winner by 54%, Johnson 38%, don’t know 8%.”

    He went on: “Mainly firming up wavering Lab supporters,..significant.”

    Let’s see how this pans out in terms of firm voting intentions but combined with Frosty’s interesting summary of the detailed post debate polling, it looks like job done for Team Corbyn. He was never going to convert Tories last night and therefore the height of his ambition would have been to stiffen the backbones of Labour waverers and win over the genuinely undecided. He wouldn’t have (re)captured all of these people, and some may go Johnson’s way on the basis of what they saw last night, but if Corbyn persuaded the majority of the undecided to look at him again, as these polls suggest they might, then he’s on the way to closing the gap. I don’t think beyond some fanciful knock-out blow he could have hoped or expected much more.

    Just one further thought on last night’s debate format. I gather the BBC are hosting the next and final Corbyn v Johnson head-to-head in Southampton on December 6th and I hope they look at what worked and what didn’t for ITV in Salford yesterday. I thought there were many flaws to the ITV format. The set was faintly ridiculous and stoking the audience with a balance of raucously partisan supporters of either leader, football terrace like, only encouraged choreographed and synchronised cheers, applause and heckles. It was ludicrous for commentators to tot up who was jeered and laughed at most when it was blatantly obvious that each of the men were jeered by their “away” fans at every opportunity. These were not impromptu and reflex audience reactions in the main, they were almost wholly partisan initiated and carefully orchestrated.

    So my earnest advice to the BBC is this. First and foremost, don’t let Andrew Neil anywhere near it. I know he’d like a high profile last hurrah before sloping off to accept a Tory peerage, but his impartiality is hopelessly compromised and, even if it wasn’t, I just don’t think he’s very good anyway. Never understood the national treasure status afforded him by some. Huw Edwards has to chair it and why on earth do we need a studio audience anyway? Two men on two podiums. Questions put to them on the key issues of the campaign (and we don’t need them filtered via Jim from Mansfield or Deidre from Penzance) and give both Johnson and Corbyn about 10 minutes to debate each question between themselves. Edwards to intervene as and when necessary to prevent too much deviation from the subject, although I’d be as laissez-faire as it’s possible to be..

    Forget opening and closing statements too. Let the two have a ding-dong. We don’t want sanitised media throttled charades.

  28. Plymouth Council have registered at least 850 students to vote in the GE without their knowledge or approval. It affects 3 marginal seats in the area.
    Some are only 17. The council has previous on this. Johnny Mercer has asked the Electoral Commission to investigate if this has happened elsewhere. A big story brewing.

  29. Johnson might just have blurted out a key manifesto announcement today by mistake, it seems. In a Q&A he announced raising the NI threshold to £12K, which journalists think took his spin doctors by surprise.

  30. I think I’ll settle for

    Billy Bunter v Black Bob

  31. Alec,

    Or maybe he did it on purpose to bury the LibDem manifesto launch.

  32. CB11: And the award goes to………………………………….Somerjohn!

    You’re very kind, but I must confess I lifted it hook, line and sinker (or morning, noon and night) from a BTL comment on the Guardian. It’s apparently a hoary old East German favourite.

  33. So if Corbyn hadn’t saddled Labour himself daffy Brexit policy, criticised in every quarter, including on here, he would have walked it. This problem has been his weak spot since his no-show in the EU ref.

    @ Valerie had the right line on previous thread & should be his scriptwriter.
    Has there ever been a leader of a UK major party who won’t say what his views are on the big issue of the day.

    Bonker Wonker

    The Pole Vaulter joke was rubbish & had the wrong punch line? Shud be: “How do you know my name is Walter”

  34. @Somerjohn

    “……..It’s apparently a hoary old East German favourite.”

    I know you’re a car man so I’m going to give you as a prize a little mounted model Trabant. Alec’s runners-up prize will be a real Trabant!

    Boom Boom.

    @Sam

    How about, doffing our caps to Peaky Blinders: –

    Alfie Solomons v Tommy Shelby

    :-)}

  35. On Politics Live today someone suggested the “debates” should just be a ring fight. Adjudication yes-but no audience questions. Max time allowed for the two to argue.

    A different contributor on the show remarked that a French Presidential candidate debate was extended to 2 and a half hours in that format-and they were still slagging each other off at the close.

    It is difficult to get a format which will inform-I assume that IS the objective.

    But today’s politicians just want to press pre-planned buttons & slag off the opposition with stuff which gets as close to lies as possible.

    So much as I think these people should be exposed to questions from members of the public & be forced to look them in the eye in front of a tv camera when answering ; there is a key problem with this format-there is no follow up by the questioner.So the politician gets away with it every time.
    I have yet to see an adjudicator figure who has really exposed failure to answer the question. Time is always short & they move quickly to the response from the opponent mode.And there is a degree of reticence in bringing the parties to heel.

    So I come to the reluctant conclusion that the presence of the public serves no purpose & actually aids obfuscation. I think there is only one format that will test these people-the forensic examination of chosen policies , with time for follow up questioning.

    And there is only one candidate for that format.

  36. The comments today regarding yesterday’s tv debate only reinforces my believe it what a total waste of time such debates are at this stage.

    Following the debate we have the usual partisan nonsense from not only on these pages but the political parties themselves with the usual schoolboy theatrics of our man did better than your man rubbish.
    Then we have an in-depth analysis of floating voters by yet another expert ,of a poll conducted by YouGov that suggest nothing more than undecided Labour voters are returning to the fold at the moment, again nothing unexpected in that.

    As I said at the beginning of the GE campaign ,its all froth including tv debates at this stage ,it’s only after manifestos are published and people get a idea of how parties will benefit them personally and how practical those ideas are in the real world including the cost to tax payers will we truly see how people will vote or rather how the uncommitted will vote.

    Tv debates may have a place when leaders can be questioned on manifestos as well as there position on brexit ,however all the time we have this ridiculous nit picking by the media the day after and the moronic tv audiences included in the mix, they have little value, quite frankly I would much rather all leaders were interviewed on a one to one basis by a skilled journalist than it be reduced to the level of a reality show by the tv companies competing for the debates .

  37. Whoops, another unforced error as Johnson announces the Tories’ big tax policy by mistake. It’s a pretty costly one, so I suspect some caveats. The easiest might be to play about with the 2% rate so as to remove the benefit to higher earners.

    HAL

    Or maybe he did it on purpose to bury the LibDem manifesto launch

    I somehow doubt that, the Lib Dem manifesto has had all the impact of a fart in the wind.

  38. @ SDA – The Essex Research Group (not to be confused with the ERG) have oft[1] considered starting up “SEAL IT”

    South East, Anglia and London Independent Territory

    Still part of the UK just an Independent Territory within the UK.

    We’d be able to set our own taxes, etc and spend our own taxes on SEAL IT priorities (NHS, education, police, etc). If the start point was current UK (or England only where applicable) taxes and spending then we’d be able to cut taxes, raise spending AND run a budget surplus – SWEET!!

    Being Independent within the Union then we’d be OK to keep a single currency with rUK but we’d insist on having a Stability and Growth Pact arrangement with rUK (copy+paste the EU one) and ensure we’re not part of a UK transfer union (again copy+paste of EU)

    What does that mean? Well rUK would have to go on “turbo austerity” to hit the 3% budget deficit target (a bit like Greece+co had to). Not SEAL ITs problem though, we’ll be running a budget surplus and we’d be leading rUK “by example”. We wouldn’t be so rude as to call rUK folk lazy though – that’s outrageous, even for SEAL IT folk!

    Trade deals would be service sector first of course and we wouldn’t need to care about rUK’s priorities on trade (similar to how Germany do it in EU, but obviously SEAL IT is the priority now)

    PS As for “Respect the ref” then I think the idea is to err.. Respect the ref.

    Why is that complicated? We Leave then see what is like before we have another ref. i don’t know any Leavers who have a problem with LDEM and SNP wanting to Rejoin the EU via Article 49 but vast majority of MPs (xSNP) wanted a ref and said they’d respect the result. Do we need to go through all the HoC votes on having a ref, triggering A50, etc again??

    [1] Well once or twice after a few beers. We disagree on some of the major key issues though (eg whether or not to make all beer free or just the first 4 pints – with a huge budget surplus we’d be able to chuck around some “populist” stuff to win the vote!) ;)

  39. Crossbat – I don’t follow so it doesn’t mean anything. Try again, though.

    I am sure you know that Billy Bunter was a fat, greedy person of limited intelligence who went around asking: “I say you chaps, what’s going on?”

    Black Bob was a shepherd’s dog who could not understand people but was always willing to try to help them.

    Have you ever been herded by a collie dog up a town street? I have.

  40. @STEAMDRIVENANDY

    The Indyref was lost on the petard of lack of agreed detail, enabling remain to muddy the waters of what might, or might not happen in the event of independence.

    I cannot agree with this statement. It was lost on three factors in my view. The fact that the SNP did not have a view of what the currency was going to be and the the fact that the EU would not say they would be allowed in as a matter of course and lastly they had a huge amount of detail as to what they were going to do what it would cost. it was that which was the achilles heel.

    In terms of the EU referendum Leave proposed virtually every form of leave form EEA through EFTA to Canada, Super Canada, Super Canada+ (+++) No one to this day know what brexit means. Most people were very clear as to what Independence meant becase the party that was delivering it produced a basica manifesto for it. There is no Brexit manifesto even today if you are a remainer you are arguing with the likes of TREVOR WARNE as an example there is no brexit deal even today. There was a what we are going to do about independence for Scotland and ion my view that was why it was easy to attack and why the SNP failed.

    the Leave campaign learnt from that. you got everything from the FoM is r4cist because each of the countries in the EU is white to the bt nothing about how we were going to leave other than VW telling Merkel to give us everything we want. We are still in the same place

    It is as if the SNP saying to the Tories, you will give us everything we want because we rely on barnett formula……..Yes it sounds stupid but that is what the leave campaign did and people bought it

  41. TURK

    @”I would much rather all leaders were interviewed on a one to one basis by a skilled journalist than it be reduced to the level of a reality show by the tv companies competing for the debates .”

    I agree entirely.

    And I think it is very important to do this because political discourse in this country is so debased now. The public is getting a really bum deal..

    There will always be the criticism by supporters of the interviewed politician , that the interviewer is “biased” against their man/woman.

    My solution to that would be to publish the political leaning /affiliation of the interviewer and have them interview the candidate they would not vote for. Difficult because this could prejudice the careers of those interviewers.

    It has always struck me though, that , whilst we must assume that any high level journalist will have a political viewpoint, that doesn’t mean they will be soft on their favoured candidate. It seems to me that the best way of showing “your” man/woman in a good light is to test them with searching questions. If they answer satisfactorily your faith is then justified. If they don’t & you trip them up-why would you want to vote for them?

  42. @ GARJ – Boris made the “announcement” in a Teeside fabrication plant ;)

    We also know he puts the milk in before the Tee.

    Anyway, the rumour on NI threshold increase is old although a lot of CON folks had assumed Javid had said no, not yet.

    We’ll see but my guess is that it will be “aspirational” rather than part of the manifesto.

    The one to watch IMO will be any promises (or lack thereof) about VAT, etc. 1% hike in VAT (with a few things move to nil rate – copy Greens manifesto on that) would more or less pay for NI threshold increase. I very much doubt that will be in the GE’19 manifesto but it would be a good policy IMO (and I’m very happy to have any and all ideas copy+pasted)

    One prediction for CON manifesto. It will have the lowest word and page count of all the GB wide parties (but not as low as the Yorkshire Party who kept it nice and simples)

  43. @TURK

    As I said at the beginning of the GE campaign ,its all froth including tv debates at this stage ,it’s only after manifestos are published and people get a idea of how parties will benefit them personally and how practical those ideas are in the real world including the cost to tax payers will we truly see how people will vote or rather how the uncommitted will vote.

    I think that this is where policies can be picked apart and issues resolved. The argument of the increasing NI thresholds as a example has already been shown that it benefit the upper 4 deciles more than it benefit the lower 6 deciles as does any threshold lift in terms of tax where as I would have gone for a lowering of the rate for the lowest paid.

    it is also why brexit is still so contentious because there is no brexit policy because there is no brexit deal. Boris is still selling the idea the EU will give the UK all it want because…..

    The point is that because there is no policy there is just a level of speculation and belief, Until manifesto are out we are basing everything on bluster

  44. @ COLIN – It’s a bit 1980s but how about a change of format for Johnson v Corbyn round2:

    “Two Tribes Go to War” by Frankie Goes to Holywood.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXWVpcypf0w

    Boris could sub in a 2nd – I’d go with Raab or Cleverly, probably Raab.

    It would get more potential CON VI folks watching ;)

  45. @Bantams

    “Plymouth Council have registered at least 850 students to vote in the GE without their knowledge or approval. It affects 3 marginal seats in the area.
    Some are only 17. The council has previous on this. Johnny Mercer has asked the Electoral Commission to investigate if this has happened elsewhere. A big story brewing.”

    Are they at Uni? Universities used to do this all the time for those living in Halls or other campus accommodation.

  46. Turk
    “As I said at the beginning of the GE campaign ,its all froth including tv debates at this stage ,it’s only after manifestos are published and people get a idea of how parties will benefit them personally and how practical those ideas are in the real world including the cost to tax payers will we truly see how people will vote or rather how the uncommitted will vote.”

    Exactly

  47. “In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
    G Orwell

  48. According to IFS then CON have also leaked a

    “proposed 3% of GDP cap on budget deficit”

    https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1197165956935671810

    Anyone spot that leak and have the original source?

    If its true then maybe they did read ‘The Collective’s Manifesto’ (TCM) after all (or are blatantly copying EU’s SGP) ;)

    If CCHQ did read TCM then for sure debt/GDP will go up a bit in next few years (ie LDEM pre-copying a “continuing to lower debt/GDP” target won’t be in the CON manifesto).

    If they state 90% cap on debt/GDP then is either an amazing coincidence or Javid really does have a great mind – I always liked him ;)

  49. STATGEEK

    You are just a bad loser and no democrat by your own admission it appears.

    As to Scotland and the Scottish, I am proud that they are part of the UK and sincerely hope they remain so. They bring much to the UK as does England, Wales & Norther Ireland.

    If at some time in the future Scotland decides to leave the UK via a legal referendum I would be sad but I would accept it as i am a democrat.

1 2 3 4 5 22

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of polls.

You are not currently logged into UKPollingReport. Registration is not compulsory, but is strongly encouraged. Either login here, or register here (commenters who have previously registered on the Constituency Guide section of the site *should* be able to use their existing login)