The mid-week polls so far are below:

SavantaComRes (25th-26th) – CON 41%(-1), LAB 34%(+2), LDEM 13%(-2), BREX 5%(nc)
YouGov/Sky/Times (25th-26th) – CON 43%(-1), LAB 32%(+2), LDEM 13%(-3), BREX 4%(+1)
ICM/Reuters (22th-25th) – CON 41%(-1), LAB 34%(+2), LDEM 13%(nc), BREX 4%(-1)
Kantar (21st-25th) – CON 43%(-2), LAB 32%(+5), LDEM 14%(-2), BREX 3%(+1)
Survation/GMB (20th-23rd) – CON 41%(-1), LAB 30%(+2), LDEM 15%(+2), BREX 5%(nc)

Taken individually, almost all the changes in these polls are within the margin of error (Kantar is the only exception). However, looking at them as a group there is a clear trend, with every poll showing a slight drop in Tory support and a slight increase for Labour. Taken together it’s clear there’s been a slight narrowing of the race though, of course, that still leaves a Conservative lead between 7 and 11 points. As usual, it is almost impossible to ascribe specific causes to this.

As well as the standard polls this week, YouGov published their MRP model. MRP is a method of using a large national sample to project shares at smaller geographical areas – in this case Parliamentary constituencies. By modelling how different demographics vote in seats with different characteristics, and then applying that model to each constituency, the MRP model produces vote shares for each individual constituency and, via that, projects seat totals for each party. Famously the YouGov MRP model projected a hung Parliament in 2017 when most people expected a Conservative majority.

The model this time is less surprising – it projected national vote shares of CON 43%, LAB 32%, LDEM 14%, BREX 3% (so very much in line with YouGov’s traditional polling), and seat numbers of Conservative 359, Labour 211, SNP 43, Liberal Democrat 13. This represents a Conservative majority of 68, much what we would expect to find on those shares of the vote (though the detailed projection is interesting, with the Conservative gains coming largely in the North and the urban West Midlands, with notable gains in West Bromwich, Wolverhampton and Stoke). Full details of the MRP model are here.

Finally this week, we’ve seen what is only the second Scottish poll of the campaign, this time from Ipsos MORI. Topline figures with changes from the 2017 election are CON 26%(-3), LAB 16%(-11), LDEM 11%(+4), SNP 44%(+7). Tabs for that are here.


724 Responses to “Midweek polling update”

1 2 3 4 15
  1. Some trending hashtags:

    #WheresBoris
    #BorisTheCoward

    And a slightly creative one, given the ice sculpture:

    #BorisJohnsonIsAMelt

    While Twitter is never the font of knowledge, it can be a source of topical amusement. It will be interesting if any of this filters into the minds of voters who aren’t vocal either way on the matter.

  2. Jonathon

    “If Labour get really thumped, then I hope that the decent Labour posters on this site can put it down to the anti-Semitic infiltrators. Hopefully they can expel them all and relaunch in the locals next year. ”

    Seeing as most of the outstanding antisemitism cases are against Jewish people we might be in a no win situation

    In all seriousness, people only care about antisemitism because we dont have a blairite leadership, if we have a blairite leadership the stories about anti semitism will stop but of course the anti semitism will still be there.

  3. I think the Conservatives are making a mistake by making a big issue of the Channel 4 debate.
    It brings a lot of prominence to the fact that Johnson has not yet agreed the Andrew Neil interview and it allows the narrative that Johnson is ducking big debates/interviews to become front and centre.

  4. Will Tories polling reduce to high 30’s as an average by end of next week ?

    I think there is a good possibility of this. Leave voters thinking about voting Tory for the first time, will be having thoughts about non Brexit issues and I can see some of these moving back to supporting other parties.

    Could it be neck/neck between Labour and Tories before election day ?

  5. “decent Labour posters” – presumably fully clad with no suggestive skin revealed?

    I have a feeling there are some polls we haven’t seen.

  6. R Huckle

    Admittedly I am talking my own book but I don’t think there is the remotest chance that the Tories will drop back to high 30%s average. Polls have shown that the Con vote is solid – more likely to vote and mote likely to have made their mind up already compared to the other parties.

    It’s also logical – Con voters have fewer options of where to move to that other parties.

    I don’t expect Con vote to move much out of the 41-44 range between now and the 12th. The question is whether and to what degree Lab can inch up from the 30-32 figures which they’re at, and then how VI translates into seats.

    On the last point, I know there’s been some very well informed people estimating this but I think there’s massive scope for error in assumptions – far greater scope that people’s assumptions on that is wrong that there is for the polls to be wrong.

    Adam

  7. “apparently chuka has sent out a letter saying labour is anti semitic and he left labour because of it. ”

    I got one of those (I am not in Cambridge tho).

  8. “decent Labour posters”

    – that counts me out! Bloody unfair.

  9. John33,
    “I think the assumption in the Tory inner circle is that what worked during the referendum campaign can be repeated again.”

    I think that a debate on detailed policy would leave the campaign unravelling. Brexit has been stopped so far on the basis of detail. BJs WA only started to get through parliament because he gutted it of agreed detail. He removed what agreement it already contained about future relationships, so that there wasnt anything to object to.

    Johnathan Stuart Brown,
    “It seems the more Jo has been on TV, the more people have disliked her.”

    This is not a nick clegg moment. NC said, ‘we are different to the others’. This was not bon out by events, but that isnt the point now. The libs strongest argument right now has been to be strongly remain. Yet to vote lib in most constituencies – in the great majority of constituencies- is to harm the remain cause. A believer in lib policy would be bonkers to vote lib now.

    “Will the Lib Dems get desperate enough to try to side line or remove her in the next days? ”

    It would make them look idiots if they did. If she changed her line to ‘vote labour to get reman, except in [legitimate target seats]’, she might get more respect.

  10. Worth a read – https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/29/wealthy-us-donors-gave-millions-to-rightwing-uk-groups

    This is part of a concerted campaign that has been going on since the 1950s. Brexit is part of that. It benefits very wealthy US businessmen, as well as the Russian government.

    On the Climate debate: I also think that the Conservative behaviour on this may be self defeating. Not showing up at the debate I doubt would really harm Johnson. They don’t think northern Lab leave voters are that bothered about climate change, and they are probably correct.

    However, I doubt that overtly threatening and bullying Channel 4 for doing something many liberal minded people would see as reasonable. After a poor campaign so far, the Lib Dems are looking for ways to rehabilitate themselves with southern soft Tory voters, and this is the kind of issue that might resonate. They have greater concern over climate change, they don’t trust Johnson, and they don’t like bullies.

  11. Alec

    “However, I doubt that overtly threatening and bullying Channel 4 for doing something many liberal minded people would see as reasonable.”

    Since the Conservatives offered a perfectly reasonable substitute in Michael Gove, Channel 4’s behaviour was totally unreasonable. I don’t know if Farage offered a substitute. Channel 4 are notoriously anti-Tory, remember Snow’s ” f*** the Tories”?

  12. Carfrew,
    “One was there, one represented by a block of ice ”

    Presumably the conservatives reckoned the ice better represented them?

  13. Alec

    On the final point, I agree though equally people in the UK generally dont like unfair behaviour. The provocation from C4 with the scrulpture last night, on top of their head call BJ a liar and John Snow’s comments at Glastonbury looks like them taking political sides. Imagine if the BBC Director General called a party head a liar and then Fiona Bruce said ‘**** the [insert party]’!!!!

    More broadly on the TV debates, I heard this morning that Corbyn has pulled out of Sky’s upcoming one, and the BJ / Andrew O’Neill situation is still in flux. Personally I think there’s far too many of them – I think something like 8-9 have been planned. I think it would be better if there were say 3-5, of which perhaps 2-3 were with leaders and the others with other senior members of their teams. Oh, and obviously a more sensible format than some which we’ve seen so far

    Adam

  14. @Alec

    I do wonder whether we will reach a point in the campaign where Tory remainers become more fearful of Johnson than Corbyn, and vote LD after all!

  15. Carfrew,
    “he probably didn’t discuss whether a Thorium reactor should operate in the fast or the thermal spectrum,”

    Nuclear power did come up, and the problem of needing to cover base load whent its dark, theres no wind and the tide is at neutral, but not in any real detail. It might be better to have gas or oil powered standby than nuclear. Even in terms of pollution on a cost benefit basis. It is looking to me as if the UK anyway should be thinking renewables rather than nuclear. No, not a wonderful deep debate, but infinitely better than Neil talking to himself.

  16. TOH

    “Since the Conservatives offered a perfectly reasonable substitute in Michael Gove, …”

    This was billed as a leaders’ debate. Why did the Conservative Party offer a substitute and not the real thing? That’s the issue here. Why are the Conservative Party afraid of putting Boris Johnson up for the debate?

  17. Ed Miliband first to be exposed as a “faux Brexiteer” – another “sandwich eating moment”?

    “It’s clear what Labour’s new strategy is in leave voting constituencies: lie

    https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/news/ed-miliband-targeted-tories-over-brexit-voting-record-his-team-dubs-attack-desperate-1327111

    72% Leave and so MIliband hopes his constituent fit the “th!ck” stereotype!?!?

    YG MRP have his seat as “likely LAB”, Electoral Calculus “safe LAB” but clearly the panic is causing some LAB-Remainers in Leave seats to panic that they might have to find a real job.

  18. PRINCESS RACHEL
    “In all seriousness, people only care about antisemitism because we dont have a blairite leadership”

    Which people? The Labour Party was the ‘Natural home’ of the Jewish community and they have upped sticks.
    For your premise – that it’s all confected – to be correct, Jewish voters would have to either be lying en mass and pretending to think Corbyn is something he isn’t because he’s after their money, or they’ve been hoodwinked by the Blairite/right-wing press. I don’t think that flies.
    For the record, I think the attacks on corbyn (on this issue) are overblown.
    I do think though that he brought it on himself a bit because he was using dog whistles to solidify support in the Muslim community. The dog whistles came back to bite him and left him a bit stranded. He’d be crazy to apologize ‘unreservedly’ as it would undermine all the groundwork of wooing, mosque visits etc.etc.
    Nevertheless, Corbyn will gain more votes than he loses from this – but it’s unfortunate that it turned out to be so dirty (He probably regrets ever going there, at least I hope he does).

  19. Electoral Calculus update: CON majority slashed to 12

    CON 41.9%, 331
    LAB 32.3%, 235
    LIB13.8%, 16
    Brexit 4.0%, 0
    Green 2.7%, 1
    SNP 3.8%, 45
    PlaidC 0.6%, 4

    They’ve been tinkering with their model but the main shift is in CON’s lead coming down to 9.6% which has resulted in LAB being seen to now keep a load of LAB-Leave marginals that were previously showing as being lost to CON.

    Other points:
    – SCON still shown to have 7 seats (ie SNP could easily take 3+ more)
    – LDEM only shown as taking Richmond Park and St.Albans (ie they could easily take 2+ more)

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

    NB To “replicate” their homepage, make your own prediction and use regional predictor and trend values (folks can also then enter their own numbers for Scotland, or other region)

  20. @John33

    “I do wonder whether we will reach a point in the campaign where Tory remainers become more fearful of Johnson than Corbyn, and vote LD after all!”

    Isn’t that the Tory plan?

    Middle class seats boost the Lib Dems, in working class seats boost Brexit.

    In both cases, take votes from Labour.

    Also known as the Tory favourite,” divide and rule”.

  21. Anthony Wells,
    ” Famously the YouGov MRP model projected a hung Parliament in 2017 when most people expected a Conservative majority.”

    I dont remember for sure what the first MRP results were last time. My recollection is that they were all too pro conservatives, and it converged towards the final result, as did all other polling.

    I posted a comment on the last thread about polling which got no responses I could see. I dont think anything I said would be controversial inside yougov, but it doesnt reflect the real world or even the debate here.

    I argued that opinion poling as it is widely reported, does not do what everyone claims it does. The reported headline VI is NOT a prediction of the election result. It is simply a snapshot of opinion now, or more probably last week.

    And yet the media talk about it as if it is a prediction. People here talk about it as if it is a prediction.

    A prediction could be made by taking the latest poll, looking at recent polls to determine trends, and then projecting the trend forward to polling day. Looks like hung parliament to me.

    I expect yougov do this in-house, and sell the results to political parties. I mean, I would, its a business. For whatever reasons, the public though gets simply bald results.

    I imagine there would be a significantly bigger range between companies in predictions than there is amongst the polling, which seems to broadly agree as advertised considering stated error margins. Perhaps that is why they dont publish it, too much uncertainty.

    Different point, what is the real effect of the campaign? Again I think you and yougov would agree (because you have posted to this effect) that people only make up their minds once there is a deadline. The question is though, does what is said in the campaign affect the final outcome, or is it just people look a the national situation, past record, and make a choice because they are expecting to vote on a given day.

    Some of both, which is more important?

    looking at the polls now, there is a clear trend in labour catching up to the tories. Just what happened in 2017. Probably for the same reasons. This time I think con have gathered to them the united leave vote much quicker. In fact largely before the election was called. Though they tried to call an election earlier and this time failed, but the whole new leader campaign was also the start of their election campaign. In some senses it has unravelled because of their inability to push along their narrative in parliament and get that quick election.

    So con started out much closer to their peak vote. Lab have less time to catch up, to gather to them the remain vote. But my point: in the end will the shorter capaign for labour than for the conservatives harm labour, or not. Will remainers stay divided because there was not time to persuade them the only credible remain vote is labour, or will voters make up their minds mindfull of the date of the election? In effect will the rate of conversion to labour speed up to fit the time available?

    As to MRP, to what extent does it build in and extrapolate recent trends? It could do this, or it could simply concentrate on trying to shed light on local results.

    If it does not seek to extrapolate trends, then in terms of it predicting national outcome it is just as subject to lagging behind the electorate as all the other polls.

  22. @NORBOLD

    “This was billed as a leaders’ debate. Why did the Conservative Party offer a substitute and not the real thing? That’s the issue here. Why are the Conservative Party afraid of putting Boris Johnson up for the debate?”

    People will see this through their political prism. However, and not being a Tory, the ice sculpture seems to give it away as a stunt.

  23. Still pretty goods odds on a “hung parliament”

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.136297311

    Anyone any “tips” on individual seats? I had mentioned Reading East (uni town seat) as being a good bet on LAB but bookies+betfair have now moved the odds on that one. I happen to have a chunk of CON keeping Beaconsfield but only due to someone wanting to bet a lot on Grieve winning his old seat back as LDEM backed Ind.

    Was hoping the v.low polling for LDEM might improve odds on a few of their potential gains but anyone hoping for a late turn in the tide for LDEM could look to the under/over markets (eg evens for 16.5+ on Paddy Power) – have that as a “book hedge”

  24. I did a Yougov poll yesterday and it had just two election questions. One was ‘if the election happened today which party would you vote for’ and the other was ‘ on the 12th, which candidate will I vote for’. I’m probably naive but I can’t really see what the purpose of asking two such similar questions might be, except maybe to try and check whether I might change allegiance.
    Much more interesting would be the result of a question that asked which party I would normally support. I’d be torn between my habitual Tory home and my current LibDem membership for such a question. However my answer to both questions that were asked was ‘Labour’.
    Surely this would be a relatively easy way to get a bead on the churn and the tactical voting involved?

  25. Leaders debates are something we seem to have imported from American Presidential elections, but we are not electing a president.
    In the British system, the leader of the party that wins a majority of seats becomes prime minister but, and this is a crucial difference, that leader may change, as happened with Thatcher, Blair, Cameron and May (and many others before that.)
    It would thus be more sensible, if we are to have these debates, for the parties to put forward a range of spokespeople to discuss the range of topics under discussion.
    Prime ministers are not required to be masters of all topics, that is why they appoint ministers who should have more detailed knowledge of their particular brief. Seeing a wider range of party spokesmen, to be questioned in particular policy areas, would be a good thing.

    That said, with our present celebrity culture, expertise is rarely appreciated.

  26. The Trevors,
    “72% Leave and so MIliband hopes his constituent fit the “th!ck” stereotype”

    Its funny how leavers keep claiming voters are thick. I wonder why they keep doing this? Milliband said no such thing: you did.

    So tell us why you think leavers are thick, and why other leavers keep implying they think so too?

    Was the leave campaign always predicated on appealing to thick voters who would decide on emotion rather than logic, whereas remain relied upon arguments? Is there somewhere a leave campaign playbook explaning they want to capture the uneducated vote? The people who can most easily be fooled?

    Its the comments leavers make which infer their own mindset and how they view voters. Cannon fodder.

  27. @Pete B

    “I can see why this might be difficult for a PM who was not of that church.”

    Brenda must have been relieved when Michael Howard didn’t win in 2005.

  28. Error in 8:50am. LDEM not seen to take St.Albans (that was my model!). Electoral Calculus (EC) sees them taking Cheltenham (which I agree with).

    They will take Richmond Park (99% sure of that and “money where mouth is” accordingly)

    Also note EC and YG MRP “disagree” on LAB-LDEM marginals. It’s only a few seats and both are ABC but YG MRP shows LAB doing better in “Uni seats” and hence keeping Cambridge (where as EC think LDEM will win it)

    IMO LAB will again do very well in the “uni seats” (although you can’t get good odds on Canterbury this time!)

  29. DANNY

    I dont remember for sure what the first MRP results were last time. My recollection is that they were all too pro conservatives, and it converged towards the final result, as did all other polling.

    Thankfully, we have the internet to help us find out. According to Wikipedia at least, YouGov’s MRP started with a 4% Con lead (as compared to the 2.5% result) when it was first released about 10 days out from the election, and didn’t really move at all, still predicting a 4% lead the day before. In terms of seat numbers it’s a little harder to find out, but as far as I can tell that first prediction was for the Tories to win 310 seats, so short of a majority, and that reduced over time to 302 (less than the 317 they actually won).

  30. David Colby,
    “I do think though that he brought it on himself a bit because he was using dog whistles to solidify support in the Muslim community. ”

    I posted a yougov which had 50% of the Uk population agreeing with one or more of a selection of comments which might be considered antisemitic. A bit old now, I expect there are others more recent.

    I expect Corbyn was seeking not to solidify support amongst muslims but amongst ordinary voters. There must be a significant chunk of labour voters who think this whole thing is a total witchhunt, and if Corbyn supports it they would not want to support him. I too think this a witchhunt, blown out of all proportion for political aims unrelated to antisemitism.

    For conservatives, there are more supporters who would agree with antisemitic comments, so there is no real problem. Conservatives are comfortable having such allegations made about them. Or they were, maybe less so now.

    Its like the problem of trying to appeal to both leave and remain. Con have a more clearcut side than labour.

  31. TW

    @”Still pretty goods odds on a “hung parliament””

    Yep.

  32. Apparently Nick Ferrari, aided by members of the public, is doing a “Neil” on Johnson on LBC right now:

    On Social care funding the following according to Guardian live:

    How will it then be funded, Ferrari asks? Johnson grumbles and mumbles for a bit. “You don’t know, do you? [..] You don’t have a clue!,” Ferrari says. “I don’t have this figure now, no,” Johnson says.

  33. WB61

    I know its the Guardian, but its just painful to read. Can’t imagine him doing AN on this basis.

  34. Nearlyfrench,
    “It would thus be more sensible, if we are to have these debates, for the parties to put forward a range of spokespeople to discuss the range of topics under discussion.”

    Maybe other formats would be better, that isnt the point. The point is conservatives had agreed to a leader’s debate, and then tried to cheat by sending along one of those experts you mention to debate with the other’s generalist leaders. Similarly, having got the others to debate with Andrew Neil, now they are trying not to do so themselves. Its like dissolving parliament to stop it opposing them. Its just cheating.

  35. The presumptions on LD numbers seem to assume that tactical voting doesn’t really deliver for them; this may be generally true but the reality is surely going to be that we get the odd “shock” with a relatively safe Tory seat going alongside quite a few others where they fell short by 2-4,000. If I was betting I’d think they’ll get around 20 seats rather than 12/13. Perhaps the bigger question is how many SE and London seats they stop Lab winning?

  36. Just a thought about the Ch4 refusal of MGove last night…given that advertising time would probably have been sold on the basis it was a leaders’ debate, would accepting Johnson’s replacement constitute a breach of contract between C4 and advertisers?

  37. Mike N,
    “would accepting Johnson’s replacement constitute a breach of contract between C4 and advertisers?”

    It would certainly have been a breach of contract with the viewers.

  38. Gary J
    “YouGov’s MRP started with a 4% Con lead (as compared to the 2.5% result) when it was first released about 10 days out from the election, and didn’t really move at all, still predicting a 4% lead the day before. In terms of seat numbers it’s a little harder to find out, but as far as I can tell that first prediction was for the Tories to win 310 seats, so short of a majority, and that reduced over time to 302 (less than the 317 they actually won).”

    Thanks for that – I’d searched YouGov’s site for the details. There is such a difference to 2017 in how MRP is now viewed, as it was widely dismissed 2 years ago.

    It’s an important point that YouGov simultaneously understated the Tories by15 seats, and understated the Labour vote by about 2%. The ‘errors’ in 2017 were mostly southern seats (such as Swindon South and Reading West) which they had as Labour gains, but they also had Labour losses in North Wales which didn’t materialise.

  39. I said at the start of the week that Labour has it in the bag.

    I confess to wobbling on that prediction, but as Johnson’s ability to shoot himself in the foot continues, I will stick to it.

    Much as I may rage against Labour’s priority and its offering BRINO as if it were a Leave option, it will work. The Tories did not just lose in 2017 because of Social Care and “nothing’s changed”, but because they killed round aimlessly when. Heir crisis started.

    Johnson has avoided a particular crisis, but kept the milling round.

  40. WTF is Boris Johnson’s dad doing on the TV shows today drying to defend his son.

    Who is he accountable to?

    What type of Prime Minister gets his dad to go and defend him on TV?

  41. YG MRP’17

    They were closest as their model “caught” what some folks had anticipated – the “youthquake” (which is possibly better called “uni seats” and correlated to “rented housing”, etc as well). They also showed CON not gaining very many seats in LAB-Leave “Heartlands” (which regular UNS type models would have missed due more to how close those marginals were (and still are) – that “error” was within a “confidence range” of what were highly confusing polling numbers)

    However, if you read the explanatory notes, then YG are very clear about the “confidence range” of their model and even at 95% they openly admit they will “miss” some seats (95% is not 100%!!)

    The main reason their model didn’t change much in seat predictions in GE’17 was because their model “caught” who many polling companies using GE’15 demographic turnout weighting missed. Some polling companies changed methodology mid-campaign but even of the day of the GE the polling was still wildly different between polling co.s. Survation were closest as their approach didn’t make assumptions about turnout by demographic. All those polling co.s that got it wrong in GE’17 have changed methodology since.

    The “story” of what was “missed” in this GE will only be known post 13Dec but so far, and excluding MoE and “house effects”/etc, the polls, the models and the MRP are all more or less aligned.

    Being “aligned” does not mean they will get the result spot on (unless a whole host of factors just happens to net out). There is obviously time for the polling to change and even if it stayed the same then the seat level “confidence ranges” that aggregate up to overall seat numbers are large enough to be the difference between a hung parliament and large CON majority.

    Electoral Calculus show a larger range than YG MRP as IMO they are also including a range of tactical voting into the Monte Carlo[1] simulations.

    [1] Fancy term for basically running lots of simulations with “realistic” changes in the variables that predict different outcomes. If you just move %s up and down a bit then you should get 50+ seat range for CON. If you move other variables around (eg tactical voting) the range will widen (eg you could get: CON-LAB lead lower (say 5%) + high tactical voting from Remain (adds 30+ seats) + low tactical voting from Leave (adds 0 seats) = low end of CON seats range (eg 280ish))

  42. @tonybtg

    You can imagine it can’t you, after Brexit proves a disaster Stanley saying Boris has told me that some big boys did it and then ran away :-)

    Add you own names as to who the big boys in this scenario are!

  43. Off to do another bit of missionary work for Corbyn in Headless Cross this morning. Glorious winter morning. Cold, with a trace of frost but sun blazing.

    Reminds me of poor old Neil Kinnock’s quote as he went to vote in Islwyn on that sunny early Spring morning in 1992. “Sun’s out, Tories out” said Neil in those unmistakable Welsh tones. I thought so too as I trooped down to the polling station that day in April 1992. Alas it wasn’t to be.

    Still, to cheer me up as I wend my merry away this morning, I’m going to reprise old Neil’s inauspicious phrase.

    So I’m going to say to myself, “Come on Nick. Sun’s out, Tories out.”

    Even if it might not be true!

  44. Wb61

    Actually, we need to see more of Johnson senior’s attempts at defending his son because he is completely useless at it,

  45. @TW – one individual seat which intrigues me is Truro and Falmouth. In 2017, the conservative majority dropped from 14,000 to 3,792.

    CON 44.4 (+0.3)
    LAB 37.7 (+22.5)
    LIB 14.9 (-1.9)

    Were the liberal democrat voters unaware that this was a two horse race whereas this time they may believe it is in play and not vote lib dem? Quite possibly given the previous result but was the labour surge a result of heavy campaigning which people would have noticed? This seat voted remain by about 55% and the conservative MP was Sarah Newton who was anti no-deal and resigned from the government to vote against it. Not sure who the new conservative candidate is but that might be a factor (as might the fact she is standing down if people liked her).

    So it is the sort of seat which could *potentially* go labour due to tactical voting even if there is no UNS or maybe even a small swing to the conservatives nationwide. Anyone from around there got any views? Tactical voting websites recommend voting labour rather than liberal democrat from what i can see, and yougov MRP has labour in 2nd, 13 points behind the conservatives, yet the bookmakers have labour third favourites with odds of 13-2. FWIW both Corbyn and Johnson were there the other day.

    Strikes me as a wildcard seat, could easily be a comfortable win for the tories against split opposition or be very close.

  46. Anyway, there is absolutely no way Johnson will want to do the Neil interview after the total plane crash (there’s a new one for ya) of an interview he did on LBC this morning.

  47. PS and it is obviously WHERE the CON-LAB lead changes that matters.

    A “regional model” will pick up a lot of the North/Midlands/Wales seat changes but might miss “metro/rural” or some other variable that a seat level model or MRP analysis can anticipate (in terms of a model) or spot (in terms of MRP).

    Most regions have a few “uni seats” and LAB do very well in “metro” seats – so might be vote stacking (ie getting even more “lumpy”) rather than recovering in the towns/rural areas).

    If LAB’s recovery is broader based (ie “smooth not lumpy”) then they will keep more seats that they might have lost to CON

    PPS For smaller parties such as LDEM then they need to get more lumpy (which in most cases will mean LAB VI tactically voting for them as a “broader” recovery will lower LAB votes in LAB-CON marginals (eg Ed the Donkey might have succeeded in telling Remainers he is a Brexiteer (so they’ll be less inclined to vote for him) and having genuine Leavers know he’s full of sh!t – small margins can make a difference)

  48. Its only 10.30 and Mr B Johnson has just indicated on LBC that he can’t answer questions on social care (unwittingly signalling to Mr Ferrari to “cut” a caller, not realising he was being recorded) and Mr S Johnson has described half the UK population as lacking literacy on the BBC daytime show “Victoria”. Meanwhile the Education Secretary has offended the teaching profession on Breakfast TV.

    Is this all part of a plan by the Tory party to distract and avoid discussing real issues – i.e. full-Trump type of politics?

  49. We have had so few polls this week that I think only the weekend ones will tell us whether the Tories have got a bounce from their manifesto which was launched on Sunday.

  50. Reminds me of poor old Neil Kinnock’s quote as he went to vote in Islwyn on that sunny early Spring morning in 1992. “Sun’s out, Tories out” said Neil in those unmistakable Welsh tones. I thought so too as I trooped down to the polling station that day in April 1992. Alas it wasn’t to be.

    I thought, in your bellwhether patch, that you had detected that the 1992 election wasn’t going to plan?

1 2 3 4 15