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 6 22
  1. @ LeftieLiberal
    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.

    Yes, that is interesting. Presumably she is going more for defecting Tories than left-wing unionists.

  2. Saying that.“no one knows what does Brexit means” is nonsense.

    It means not being part of the EU’s jurisdiction. It does not pass our laws, nor does it enforce them. Therefore it cannot mean any system where the EU retains that power by the backdoor. It means having an international law relationship, and the principles of international law are reciprocity and sovereign equality.

    It is like saying that you do not know what Scottish independence means when, of course, it means Westminster having no power in Scotland or vice versa.

    Now, whether the result is a good relationship is not is another matter. In international affairs, relationships get colder as well as warmer.

    So post-Brexit you do not know whether you will have a good or bad relationship. Same as between and independent Scotland and rUK.

    You can argue, and heavens know they did, that these sort of uncertainties make Brexit too great a risk.

    But to say that no one knows what Brexit meant is an invention of those who would prefer to be non-voting members than non-members.

  3. @leftieliberal

    “This could really damage her against the SNP.”

    In her speech this morning Sturgeon said that that there appear to be more Tories in the Lib Dems than Lib Dems.

  4. @J1832

    Leaving the EU with absolutely no involvement or connection with it in future may well be your Brexit, but surely you’d agree that it’s not every Leave supporters Brexit. And that is why we are where we are.

    And when I said that the Indyref waters were muddied I meant that whilst the SNP had produced what they wanted from Indy, that was just one wish list and hadn’t been negotiated or agreed. Thus the unionists were able to pour scorn on their ambitions. Maybe if the SNP hadn’t been so clear as to what they wanted and relied on jingoistic Scottish nationalism instead they might have won, like the EU leave side a few years later.

    In other words if your going into a referendum, either fully define and agree what you want, or leave how you’re going to achieve it totally vague, but if you want to win don’t give the opposition your unagreed wish list to allow them to tear it apart.

  5. Daniel
    “So, was 2015 a one off where something strange happened? Or will we again see Labour support inflated in the polls?”

    Yes, that was the one where UKIP got over 4 million votes, many of which would have come from Labour. It’s looking unlikely that TBP will do that well, but you never know.
    “Either Scotland is a drain, and all you economic wizards should want rid, or Scotland is not, and…over to you.”

    We need somewhere to keep Trident. Scotland’s like a rather expensive dock. :)
    “It is difficult to get a format which will inform-I assume that IS the objective.”

    That’s a bit naive. Not like you at all. The objective is to get a big audience.

  6. @Joseph1832 – “It means not being part of the EU’s jurisdiction. It does not pass our laws, nor does it enforce them. Therefore it cannot mean any system where the EU retains that power by the backdoor.”

    You obviously don’t accept the Johnson deal as Brexit then?

    Check out Article 10 and annex 5 of the Irish Protocol. It doesn’t sound like you know this yet, but under Johnson’s frontstop, the EU (and the ECJ) will have control over any UK wide measure that falls under current and future states aid rules.

    This means any policy that selectively confers an advantage on any sector, industry or undertaking and that is not covered by a general block exemption and where de minimis rules have been breached, will not be legal. This will be enforceable in UK courts, who will be legally bound to apply current and future EU law.

    The only way to avoid this would be to restrict such policy to GB only (eg to exclude NI) thereby breaking everyone’s promises on Brexit. Even so, this would still not meet your definition of Brexit.

  7. Appears I misread a graph earlier! Anyway, both new graphs from IFS are in their LDEM manifesto “initial reaction” write-up

  8. Electoral Calculus have now added confidence ranges around their “central” prediction

    Central (range low-high)

    CON: 361 (278-441)
    LAB: 201 (123-275)
    LIB: 19 (12-51)
    Brexit: 0 (0-17)
    Green: 1 (0-2)
    SNP: 46 (26-50)
    PlaidC:4 (1-6)
    UKIP: 0 (0-0)
    Other: 0 (0-1)

    They also show NI on their main homepage (although on “central” number for there)

    2c: I pretty much agree their “central” numbers and great to see them put a confidence range around the numbers (note YG MRP had a huge around their forecast in GE’17.

    Beyond saying the bands are 90% confidence levels it’s unclear what kind of Monte Carlo (or similar) simulation they are running (ie are they moving the VI %s around, moving the tactical voting around, or both)

    Some of the ranges look a bit out (eg SNP should IMO have a range more like 39-53 (90% confidence) and IMO they must be moving both %s and tactical voting but minor details aside this is another great addition to Electoral Calculus model

    Note even their high number for LAB is well short of a majority which leads to another smaller change in the section on:

    “Probability of possible outcomes”

    Rearranged into descending order of CON seats rather than the way they show it:

    Con majority: 78%
    Con minority: 3%
    No overall control: 9%
    Lab minority: 10%
    Labour majority: 1%

    I’ve explained the CON seat range numbers for the above quite a few times already

  9. @TOH

    Given that results seem to go your way, and yet you’re still filled with all that rancour, I put it to you that you’re a bad winner.

    I still haven’t worked out what Scotland gets from the Union, or what the UK gets from being out of the EU, but I’m sure you being happy is all that matters.

  10. @Pete B

    Classy. Fitting. Intelligent enough for your peers. Well done.

  11. Betfair markets imply the following % likelihoods:

    CON majority: 65%
    CON minority: 17%
    LAB minority: 9%
    LAB majority: 3%

    and a few coalition arrangements[1] to get to 100%

    NB punters tend to like “long shots” so you usually see the “favourite” a bit lower than they should be and the “wild cards” a bit higher.

    [1] Note no main party has said they’d enter a coalition with anyone else but you’re going to get a few people putting a couple quid on those kinds of “long shots” (and you can bet on CON+BXP coalition if you want – just about theoretically possible but I wouldn’t bovver)

  12. Self-oops, got the min govts wrong way round in the 5:28pm.

    It should read:

    CON majority: 65%
    CON minority: 9%
    LAB minority: 17%
    LAB majority: 3%

    Also please read the small print in the rules, notably:

    “If a government is not formed and second general election is called, then this market will be made void”

    Hence, IMO, the two “minority” markets are a tad too high.

    CON are billy no mates and LDEM and SNP would IMO both (separately but especially together) charge too high a price for PM Corbyn to pay. It might happen but 17% is too high IMO (and money where mouth is applies)

  13. @TW

    CON are billy no mates and LDEM and SNP would IMO both (separately but especially together) charge too high a price for PM Corbyn to pay.

    What if Labour ditch Corbyn or he resigns? I don’t see how he could hang on if he doesn’t make substantial inroads into the Tories, despite what Len says.

    After a Tory majority, I see this as the most likely outcome.

  14. @ EOTW – “What if Labour ditch Corbyn or he resigns?”

    Valid point. I wouldn’t rule that out and not my party but I’ll make a few IMO points:

    – LAB/Corbyn could have done that anytime between Sep and 19Oct, or even after that (ie when a VoNC in Boris would have worked), they didn’t[1]
    – Len wants Corbyn to stay (and pretty sure Momentum do to)
    – Even if Corbyn goes then Len and Lansman would want his heir to be Corbyn2 (ie probably still not palatable to LDEM)

    The most likely scenario is IMO, Corbyn agreeing to whatever Nicola wants (and she’s made that clear) if LAB+SNP = 323+ (I’d add a bit of “cushion” on that as I’m not sure every LAB MP would want that, I’ve used 330+ before and broken it down as 280+50)

    All IMO. If JJ or any LAB person wished to comment then they obviously can and should.

    [1] LDEM or SNP could have tried to “bounce” LAB into it back then as well. SMogg would have tabled a VoNC called by non-LOTO leader. I doubt it would have passed but it would have put pressure on Corbyn to accept someone.. well.. acceptable. Bit late now.

  15. Even if Corbyn resigns the problem for Labour post election is the arithmetic of the Parliamentary party, will it be skewed to the left, middle or right?

  16. @ JJ / LAB folks – could someone comment on the “process” aspects of Corbyn resigning and a new LAB minority govt “acceptable” leader being appointed, specifically how long that would take and who would vote on it.

    No need to go through the leadership challenge process as a/ would take too long, b/ PLP would fail dismally (again)

    @ LDEM folks – being realistic then who would Swinson accept as temp PM (eg Long Bailey?) and what conditions would she have (eg scrap the pointless[1] 3mths renegotiation and just go straight for a 2nd ref (eg May’s deal v Remain))

    [1] No LAB, LDEM or SNP person will ever admit it of course but May’s deal (WA “backstop” and vague PD) was/is exactly what Corbyn wanted/wants. He can add a bit to the PD if he wants and redo the fonts in the WA if he likes but May’s deal allowed for the EXACT kind of deal that Corbyn wanted/wants.

  17. @Robbie Alive

    “@ 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.”

    Cheers Robbie.:-)

    I will email my thoughts to JC and then at the next hustings he might say “and Valerie who is disabled and lives in Manchester told me………………………. “.

    for those who missed the end of the last thread

    ‘I just wish Corbyn had said something along the lines of
    “we will negotiate a better deal with a customs union, protection of workers’ rights blah blah, and give people a real choice in a second referendum.
    But any deal can have unforeseen consequences and I believe we are better off remaining and actively pursuing our national interests, rather than sulking and carping on the sidelines”.’

  18. Somerjohn

    Thanks for the joke – I knew it with Brezhnev.

    My two favourite ones:

    In 1980 the Soviets invented a resurrection compound and they decided to try it with Lenin. It works, and Lenin is invited to the Politbureau meeting.
    “Comrade Lenin, we are building socialism well, but we have a few problem. Your experience would be invaluable. Look around please, and report back to us.”
    Some time passes, the Politbureau gives up on Lenin when one evening Brezhnev’s phone rings
    “This is Lenin from Cruiser Aurora. We are starting the whole thing from the beginning.”

    in 1989 the same compound is used for resurrecting Stalin. It works, and Stalin spends a few weeks on investigating the situation, then he reports back to the Politbureau.
    “Comrades, I have a three point action plan: 1) arresting all opposition, 2) expulsion and arrest of the party opposition members, 3) painting the Kremlin to blue.”
    There is a palpable shock. Finally one member:
    “Comrade Stalin, why painting the Kremlin to blue?”
    Stalin looks around, nobody speaks.
    “Right, then we are minuting that the Politbureau agrees unanimously on the first two points, and the third point will be discussed again when the time is right.”


    “Given that results seem to go your way, and yet you’re still filled with all that rancour, I put it to you that you’re a bad winner.

    I still haven’t worked out what Scotland gets from the Union, or what the UK gets from being out of the EU, but I’m sure you being happy is all that matters.”

    I find that amazing, you are the one filled with rancour, I am feeling very benign. As to winning I am certainly not counting any chickens yet. All to play for in the election at this stage.

  20. IFS on the Boris “leak”: “The impact of raising the NICS threshold”

    There is also a “red tape” type saving to a lot of small businesses who have seasonal or part-time workers but it’s hard to put a number on that (and I’ll admit it would be small even if you did)

    Happy to say it’s a “blunt tool” (no need for the “extremely” adjective though). Also happy to agree with

    “The government could target low-earning families much more effectively by raising in-work benefits, which would deliver far higher benefits to the lowest-paid”

    but I’m sensing some bias when they add

    “for a fraction of the cost” after the above.

    When you say fraction most folks think what 1/4, 1/2?? OK so 7/8ths is a fraction but unless you state what the “raising in-work benefits” would be then why add “a fraction of the costs”??

    Also you should get a “multiplier” effect from tax cuts as they should boost spending (and hence VAT receipts, etc). OK, that might be small but it shouldn’t be totally ignored and their is a lot of research on the impact of putting more money into people’s pockets.

    Anyway, hopefully the above was just part of a broader package that we’ll see in the manifesto. Note they say “It would cost around £2 billion in 2020-21” so not a lot given some of the numbers going around

  21. I don’t think Johnson’s behaviour did much to appeal to female voters. I thought his consistent refusal to shut up, when Julie Etchingham politely asked him to desist, was mouthy and ill-mannered.
    There’s no two ways about it; the man is a cad :-)

  22. Technically 5/2 (more commonly called 2.5x) is a fraction as well – maybe that is what IFS meant?

    I’ve certainly seen some numbers that would be “raising in-work benefits” by at least £5 billion in 2020-21 but I very much they’ll be in the CON manifesto.

    You might see +£1.75 billion in 2020-21 (depends if they are a bit “naughty” with inflation linking or not)

    Hello from a cold and wind Bournemouth East where only the Tories seem to be campaigning.
    I think JC will carry on as leader of the Labour Party ‘unless the party members’ decide to vote him out.

    On another Labour topic, I saw a reference to Labour going back to 1970, but then Labour had 288 seats with 43.1% of the seats and the SNP had one seat. I well remember Harold winning in 1964, 1966 and then twice in 1974, narrowly. Five years later Labour lost a vote of no confidence when the SNP and Liberal Party joined with the Tories to bring down Harold’s successor, Jim Callaghan.

  24. German (sick) joke – Greece’s youth unemployment rate

    They like a bit of schadenfreude in Brussels and Berlin :(

  25. Chris the 1970 comment was about policy.

    Trev – no idea about the party would manage Corbyn standing aside to allow another Labour figure to be PM for 6-9 months to deliver a second ref.

    Novel idea, he could remain party leader but not PM, this works in Germany for example or has done in the past I recall.

  26. @Valerie

    That is what I would like Corbyn to say. It is not what he will say and – to be honest – I don’t think it is what he should say. If I were him and had a reputation for being Eurosceptic I would say.

    I am absolutely clear that a hard Tory Brexit is in nobody’s interests. I believe that we have to have a close and collaborative arrangement with Europe and that we can negotiate one that works. That said, no arrangement will work without a mandate from the British people and that is why i think it essential that we have a referendum on a viable deal as against remain, Either option can work but both need a mandate.

    That seems to me an honourable position. Jim Jam can say whether holds it and indeed why he is not more explicit about the position he does hold.

  27. TREVOR
    “If a government is not formed and second general election is called, then this market will be made void”

    How do they define a Government not being formed? In the strict sense a Government will be formed. It might not last very long. But it must be formed.

  28. 17.4miilion Brits might find this one funny though

    “Discussing Brexit with a Rem0aner is like asking a vegan how they want their steak cooked”

    FWIW, I like my steak same as my Brexit: Blue ;)

  29. @ PETERW – Betfair rules are specific to each market. For the “next govt” rules then click on the “i” in below:

    We’ve discussed it before and I’ll fully admit their rules are a bit “vague”.

    I’d like to collect my winning before 6Jun 2024 but that would be the default under FTPA.


    “That seems to me an honourable position.”

    Not at all Charles, the vote was to leave the EU and that is what we should do. There is no democratic justification for remaining. I find the LibDem position totally undemocratic and they should change their name, to remove the word democratic since it is no longer justified.

  31. Looking at the crossbreaks from the latest yougov, there is very little swing now from Tory to Lib Dem- maybe around 1%. Lib Dem vote is now mainly coming from Labour and I don’t think this is going to work too well for LD in their marginals. After 2017 there may be some Labour votes to squeeze in some seats but any ultra marginals would have been squeezed in 2017 anyway.

    Don’t think their strategy of winning over remain Tories has worked and I reckon under 20 seats now is definitely a possibility with gains evenly split from Lab and Con while wrecking some Labour holds or targets in the process- LD vote producing a net loss for remain.

  32. @ JJ – “Novel idea, he (Corbyn) could remain party leader but not PM”

    That’s a good idea – less sure it’s “novel” but you can claim it for sure.

    Hypothetical of course but IF (big if) we are in the situation of needing a new PM to write a letter to Michel (Tusk’s replacement from 1Dec) then yeah, maybe[1]

    To expand on the “hypothetical” scenario then you get a 4th extension long enough to hold a 2nd ref and presumably agree on “status quo” for everything else (ie MPs effectively get 6mths off) – that avoids any risk of LDEM looking like Corbyn’s lapdogs (might be a bit harder sell for SNP though?!?)

    Now who negotiates a 3rd deal with EU?!? Starmer? What deal will he negotiate? I shouldn’t press the point but do you think it will be May’s WA with a few extra bits in May’s PD (ie why the heck waste 3mths on the re-re-re-negotiation of an “Oven Ready” deal that ticks all of LAB’s boxes – especially since loads of LAB MPs will vote against it anyway)

    NB You don’t even have to be an MP to be PM. Leaders of Green, SNP and Brexit party are not MPs (and not standing to be an MP) although none of them would ever actually be PM of course.

    However, kudos to PETERW I think who once suggested Larry the #10 cat could be PM. IIRC we even have a cat standing to be an MP (and even if he doesn’t win his seat he could still be PM!!!). I’m not sure a cat could write a letter but all it would need is a “paw” to hit “send” on an email. I think we’re onto something him but I’ll resist making Catbert (from Dilbert) jokes.

    [1] I don’t like “hindsight” but you do have to wonder why no one thought of that back in early Sep-19Oct?!?

  33. It may not feel like it, but we are in truth at what in the pre-FTPA era would have been very much the beginning of the election campaign. Both 1974 elections were just three weeks long. The 1970 election was announced on 18th May and held on 18th June.The 1983 election announcement was made on 9th May with Polling Day on 9th June.In relation to those earlier campaigns,therefore, electioneering is barely getting under way now. What I see no evidence of so far is the mass public meetings addressed by party leaders in city halls across the land – meetings which in the 1960s and 1970s would have been attended by hundreds – sometimes thousands – of members of the public. I recall footage of Harold Wilson being interrupted by hecklers at such meetings in the course of the 1964 and 1966 elections – and he was brilliant at dealing with them and very able to turn the heckling to his advantage. Ted Heath , George Brown and Quinton Hogg were also pretty effective in that environment – Alec Douglas-Home much less so. By the 1970s I believe that most of such meetings were ticket only – making it more difficult for hecklers to intervene etc.I attended such meetings as late as 1983 , 1987 and indeed 1992 – with the latter being addressed by Bryan Gould. I am surprised that party leaders no longer appear to do this – given that some clearly have the skills to perform very well in such an environment.
    To be fair, Corbyn did have big open air meetings in 2017 – and may well do so again. They were largely,however, confined to the party faithful with little advance notice given.Perhaps I am simply guilty of being nostalgic here , but I sense that we have lost something in terms of the authenticity of the campaigning process.

  34. I’m still dumbfounded to read from most of our regular ROC contributors their obvious disdain for authentic hustings during elections. Campaigning has become sanitised horribly over recent years with choreographed photo opportunities replacing direct engagement with either voters or political opponents. Dreary set-piece interviews with clapped out old relics whose journalistic heydays were somewhere in the mists of the 1970s, walkabouts and meetings with hand-picked supporters, soundbite-ridden press conferences, phoney policy launches, all filtered through insider journalists and presenters. We have to better than this surely and the atrocious turnouts in many of the more recent General Elections give testimony to widespread voter disillusionment.

    Last night’s debate, derided in advance by mainly fearful and nervous Tory supporters, and duly ridiculed afterwards by the same people who pledged not to watch, was deeply flawed and the format imperfect, but even allowing for that it was vastly more vibrant and revealing than an Andrew Neil or Andrew Marr studio inquisition.

    We saw, uniquely, the PM and Leader of the Opposition laying their personalities out in front of millions of the public (sometimes known as the electorate), and each other too, in about as unvarnished way as possible in this ultra-controlled, party machine dominated election landscape. At its best, it was exciting and unpredictable as we witnessed the two men react to each other and the audience. There was a whiff of cordite in the air at times and politics felt fleetingly real and vibrant. Visceral and emotional too, not choked to death by micro-management.

    I want to see how these leaders react and how they really feel about the issues that effect us all. I’ve seen them interviewed by Marr, Neil, Peston, Dimbelbey, Paxman etc hundreds of times and learned practically nothing, If anything remotely interesting emerges it is snuffed out by interrupting and hectoring interviewers desperately looking for the “trip up” moment. The legendary “car crash” interview of their dreams. Paxman v Howard wet dreams. This is dated and hackneyed nonsense and you probably learn far more about the characters of politicians when you see them in unscripted moments with members of the public.

    No, let Corbyn and Johnson have a ding-dong exchange between themselves where they ask most of the questions of each other, not “grilled” by some old duffer or stooge who, if they half close their eyes, probably think Harold Wilson is still Prime Minister.

    Let’s get back to some raw politics and there were some glimpses of it last night. Hopefully with a much less controlled format on December 6th, we might get a real look into these two men vying for the highest political office in the land. What they believe, what they want this country to be, what angers them, what delights them, where their flaws are, where their strengths lie, and let millions of our fellow citizens see it and judge it for themselves. There are your two potential PMs. Right there. You’ve seen them now in the raw. Not via Danny Finkelstein or Rafael Behr columns, not bickering with Andrew Neil or Robert Peston, or as the subject of 14 page Paul Dacre pull-outs, you’ve seen them debating with each other.

    Take your pick. It’s an important choice

    “Even if Corbyn resigns the problem for Labour post election is the arithmetic of the Parliamentary party, will it be skewed to the left, middle or right?”

    Skewed? Skewered through the middle based on current polls.

    But being serious, the worry is that the Brexit Election gives the Tories a big majority to unleash their minimalist state agenda on the UK.

    I don’t see Johnson lasting 5 years, but who knows!?

  36. @Graham

    I was writing my post as you were submitting yours. I think we see politics very similarly and I agree very much with your nostalgic musings for those electoral days of old.

    I wish I’d read it before I wrote mine!


  37. @TOH

    “Not at all Charles, the vote was to leave the EU and that is what we should do. There is no democratic justification for remaining. I find the LibDem position totally undemocratic and they should change their name, to remove the word democratic since it is no longer justified.”

    But leave how? And what will the new relationship be? And citizens rights, trade, travel etc etc?

    I’m sure politicians would be very grateful if you could fill them in on all this, as you clearly know.

  38. @ CHRISLANE1945 – You can’t surely be suggesting that SNP MIGHT deliberately block any new PM in order for UK to crash out of the EU with “No WA or PD” on 31Jan?!?

    Polling suggests a “No Deal” Brexit would help the case for Scottish Independence so it’s a fair point if that was what you meant. Out of the EU and out of the UK would win the vote with several of my uncles in NE Scotland (but they put leaving the CFP as #1 and leaning SCON this time I think)

    Anyway, I reckon I was possibly the only person in England who bovvered to watch Sturgeon on ITV last night but she was pretty clear about what she wanted.

    She even stated she would want to be on “I’m a celebrity get me out of here[1]” with Farage (and stated Boris and Farage are the same thing – ie a nod to all BXP VI to vote CON on 12Dec)

    Join the dots and it seems to me she have done a pact[2] with Farage

    [1] It’s a stretch on the word “celebrity” for sure but given Kezza and Boris’s dad have been on it, they clearly ain’t that fussy about “Z” lister “celebs” ;)

    [2] Not a verbal or written pact of course, just an “awareness” that if CON win most seats but not an outright majority then we might crash out of EU with “No Deal” on 31Jan’20 – which is exactly what they both want ;)

  39. @Graham

    I’m afraid the gravitas of politicians of old is long gone.

    I blame the Internet and social media, and considerably shortened attention spans.

  40. “Throughout its campaign, the DWP would summarise what it called “Myths” about universal credit and then give readers the “Facts”. The ASA looked at three of the claims – and found they weren’t facts at all. They were lies, told by the government to its own taxpayers.

    In big letters, the DWP boasted that “people move into work faster on Universal Credit than they did on the old system”. After poring over the statistics, the ASA has found this claim “did not reflect the evidence … had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading”.

    “If you need money,” readers were assured, “your Jobcentre will urgently pay you an advance.” In its ruling, the ASA takes the government to task for not making it clear that this is only a loan and that the vast majority of claimants will have to wait five weeks for their first UC payment.

    Finally, the adverts’ claim that “your Jobcentre can pay rent directly to landlords” was again found to be misleading because it only applies to a small number of claimants. The ASA looks at one other charge, that the ads might not be identifiable as such, and while it worries about the “quite small” font that admits this is DWP marketing, only partially upholds it. In total, that’s three clear rulings against the DWP, plus one partially upheld.”

  41. @JiB

    One could blame the Internet and social media, in that people connect with people, compare notes and inform one another of their common ills.

    Without the Internet, you and I could not agree or disagree. A politician would declare that people are not all that bothered, as they aren’t talking about it, and we wouldn’t have any experience to the contrary.

    I blame the politicians for not delivering on things promised, promising things undeliverable, and never missing an opportunity to stuff the voters when the party demands it of them.

    What we’re seeing are the political machines getting a handle on the new medium of political electioneering, and bending it to their own ends. The main difference is that there are too many 1st hand witnesses to the things they say or do, who are prepared to speak, and their voice is heard.

    How many folk have come across a situation where councillor ‘x’ has taken credit for something, but a friend or neighbour has said of the councillor,

    “He/she didn’t do anything, but popped up for the photo, when the newspaper came along.”

    The modern media world requires politicians to actually do stuff, and they can’t hide indefinitely as they once could. Their past online life is recorded. All their voting history is available in a minute.

    If the media attempt to support politicians, they too will face the music. The print media certainly has. If transparency removes a gravitas that was never really there (for politicians or the media), it’s not a bad thing. It’s just that most people dislike change.

  42. @Jonesinbangor

    I totally agree re-the gravitas of politicians having gone. The social media doubtless has contributed to that , but the underlying reasons go far deeper .
    The collapse of deference to authority over quite a few decades will have played a big part in this – as has the way that politicians conduct themselves. I am not sure whether it is largely a reflection of my age – I am in my mid-60s – , but I cannot mentally accept that Johnson and Corbyn are in any sense the equals of Wilson and Heath – or of Macmillan and Gaitskell. The respect is simply no longer there – and it has been replaced by derision and contempt.

  43. Trev,

    I suspect that under a temp Government requiring SNP and LD support there would not be a renegotiation.

    The LDs may hold they key.

    On the one hand the responsible thing for a pro-EU party to agree to is for a soft Brexit deal to be agreed so that if leave wins at least it is a close relationship. However, the harder the leave option in the ref the more likely remain would win?

    Sorry Prof, I have no idea what Corbyn would do and reckon only a few do. Saying my position will depend on what deal we are able to negotiate is probably the most we can expect.

  44. Jonesinbangor,

    I blame the Internet and social media, and considerably shortened attention spans”

    What were you saying?????


  45. Jim Jam I don’t think I asked you what Corbyn would do…?

  46. TREVOR. Hello to you. I think SNP will not be able to block Brexit since I think the Tories will have a substantial majority.

    Yes, I loved listening to Harold on the stump, but the 1970 campaign was too complacent, I think.

    JIM JAM. I think 2019 Labour is to the right of 1970 but to the left of 1983.

  47. Chrislane:

    “I think 2019 Labour is to the right of 1970 but to the left of 1983.”

    Not easy to compare – but without thinking to hard about it I think it’s not to the left of 83.

  48. 148,000 register to vote today.

    Under 25: 54.2k

    25 -34: 43.6k

    35 – 44 21.5k

    45 – 54 13.5k

  49. Chrislane,

    I don’t recall the 1970 Manifesto being particularly left wing – far less so than the February 1974 Manifesto..

  50. Sorry Prof was Charles.

1 2 3 4 5 6 22