Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Backing Labour to win the popular vote on June 8th

SystemSystem Posts: 11,015
edited May 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Backing Labour to win the popular vote on June 8th

William Hill have a market up on who will win the popular vote without the Tories. With the SNP standing in only Scotland, then finishing second  in the popular vote is impossible unless turnout somehow craters in the rest of the United Kindgom, so that’s not an option. UKIP winning this bet is very unlikely given they are standing 254 fewer candidates than Labour and in some polls are down to 3%. Others such as the Greens, Plaid, or the other parties are also very unlikely given the lack of candidates they have standing.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,100
    First, like the Tories.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,100
    For this bet not to come in requires Labour to lose damn near 1 in 3 of those currently telling pollsters they will support Jeremy Corbyn and for them to move en masse to the LibDems, rather than the Can't Be Arsed Party. Looks a banker to me.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,719

    For this bet not to come in requires Labour to lose damn near 1 in 3 of those currently telling pollsters they will support Jeremy Corbyn and for them to move en masse to the LibDems, rather than the Can't Be Arsed Party. Looks a banker to me.

    Agreed. Betting on individual constituencies provides grander opportunities, though perhaps the best ones are gone now, and more fun, but if you have the spare funds to make such a return worth more than pennies, seems a good spot.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Omg, forgot all about Eurovision, missed the lot – gutted.
  • Options
    For this bet not to deliver would require the general Election not to take place for one reason or another in which case one would simply receive one's stake back or rather worse, for Hills to go bottoms up ...... neither is remotely possible.

    Which reminds me, how about Hills or another of those nice generous bookies out there funding the prize money for a PB.com GE competition. Surely one or other of them could find four or five hundred quid for such an important event. Time was when Shadsy could be relied upon but seemingly no longer.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,256
    Sixth like ukip?
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Who will come second in the popular vote ? Of course, it will be Labour ! WH is offering 1/20 ? Are they mad ?

    There must be a catch.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Omg, forgot all about Eurovision, missed the lot – gutted.

    Double for Portugal. European Championship and now Eurovision.
  • Options
    PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    Jeremy Corbyn is dire. But so is Mrs May. I couldn`t vote for either of them.

    But even direness has its degrees. Which is why May always comes out on top in polls.
  • Options
    daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    kle4 said:

    For this bet not to come in requires Labour to lose damn near 1 in 3 of those currently telling pollsters they will support Jeremy Corbyn and for them to move en masse to the LibDems, rather than the Can't Be Arsed Party. Looks a banker to me.

    Agreed. Betting on individual constituencies provides grander opportunities, though perhaps the best ones are gone now, and more fun, but if you have the spare funds to make such a return worth more than pennies, seems a good spot.
    The best individual constituencies to bet on currently are probably LD targets currently held by Con, where the likelihood of Con retaining the seat is probably now high. I suspect that the bookies haven't yet caught up with how dire the LDs (and TF) are, even in comparison to Labour (and JC). Their policy positioning is inept, with support of minority causes that are more likely to put off potential voters than win them over. Their vote share may not improve on 2015 and they may lose as many (or more) seats than they gain. One taxi might be enough for all their MPs after the GE.

  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    How can one talk of elections when Maisie Williams is going to play Wolfsbane in "New Mutants".
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited May 2017
    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,709
    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    Do you think that UKIP's NOTA vote was only 5% of its total? I'd suggest that it was much more in which case should you not distribute that part between Greens, LibDems,Plaid, SNP?
  • Options
    timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    daodao said:

    kle4 said:

    For this bet not to come in requires Labour to lose damn near 1 in 3 of those currently telling pollsters they will support Jeremy Corbyn and for them to move en masse to the LibDems, rather than the Can't Be Arsed Party. Looks a banker to me.

    Agreed. Betting on individual constituencies provides grander opportunities, though perhaps the best ones are gone now, and more fun, but if you have the spare funds to make such a return worth more than pennies, seems a good spot.
    The best individual constituencies to bet on currently are probably LD targets currently held by Con, where the likelihood of Con retaining the seat is probably now high. I suspect that the bookies haven't yet caught up with how dire the LDs (and TF) are, even in comparison to Labour (and JC). Their policy positioning is inept, with support of minority causes that are more likely to put off potential voters than win them over. Their vote share may not improve on 2015 and they may lose as many (or more) seats than they gain. One taxi might be enough for all their MPs after the GE.

    I agree.. backing Paul Scully in Sutton at 2/7 is a no brainer
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,709
    Cornyn as FBI director would cause big Senate shakeup
    I hope that's not a misprint (b'' and n' are next to each other on the keyboard) ;-) )
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/13/john-cornyn-fbi-director-senate-238355
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Skimming the last thread with low numbers from foreign countries posted I thought it was YouGov combined approval ratings for @TSE music taste and fashion sense.

    Apologies to @TSE .... it was nothing of the sort - They were far too high.

    Apparently It was overseas students of the Dianne Abbott Mathematics Academy with their estimation on how many hours on Sunday it would take Ms Abbott before she gave a conclusive answer to how many beans make five.
  • Options
    peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,875
    edited May 2017
    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    That's an interesting simulation and probably quite close to the worst realistic outcome for the Tories assuming as it does, zero gains from either Labour or LibDems.
    I'd argue mildly about how you've allocated the 2/3rds loss of UKIP votes. Personally I'd have gone 15% DNV, 60% Tory, 20% Labour and yes 5% LibDem. My guess is that would leave the Tories with the smallest of overall majorities.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    What national shares does that come to?

    Con 43%?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    Actually she says Salmond defines a generation as 35 years.

    When asked how long she thought “a generation” should be, Davidson said: “What was Alex Salmond’s definition? He said that between the ̓̓79 and 2014 referendum that was about a generation. That works for me.”
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,976
    Good morning, everyone.

    Ha, the title omission makes it sound a bit misleading :p

    Looks nailed on, frankly. Not a fan of such short odds, though.

    F1: my pre-race ramble, with two tips, is up here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/spain-pre-race-2017.html

    I've got to be honest, I'm slightly regretting the Bottas bet now. Ah well.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,976
    Meanwhile, Labour fail to notice that Robin Hood was against high taxation:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39910293
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    edited May 2017
    RobD said:

    Actually she says Salmond defines a generation as 35 years.

    When asked how long she thought “a generation” should be, Davidson said: “What was Alex Salmond’s definition? He said that between the ̓̓79 and 2014 referendum that was about a generation. That works for me.”
    Silly definition really if (if!) he did say that, because the comparable referendum to 1979 was the one on setting up Holyrood in 1997 - so roughly 18 years a generation which sounds more like it (17 more years until the next referendum on Scotland's status would fit with that).

    However long It is it's clear that the SNP believed they had waited long enough. This is starting to look like a bad miscalculation - what I thought was well-judged posturing that Sturgeon didn't believe in but would throw red meat to her left flank of irreconcilables looks as though under circumstances she clearly wasn't expecting it has left her vulnerable on the right.

    However, in her further defence, the way things are going on Scotland at the moment it could easily be now or never for that second referendum.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,976
    F1: weirdly, Alonso's to win odds on Ladbrokes are still suspended (were yesterday evening too). Also, there's a discrepancy.

    Bottas is 5.5 to lead lap 1, but 8 to win.

    If he leads lap 1 there's a far improved chance he ends up winning.

  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    That's an interesting simulation and probably quite close to the worst realistic outcome for the Tories assuming as it does, zero gains from either Labour or LibDems.
    I'd argue mildly about how you've allocated the 2/3rds loss of UKIP votes. Personally I'd have gone 15% DNV, 60% Tory, 20% Labour and yes 5% LibDem. My guess is that would leave the Tories with the smallest of overall majorities.
    They're his England only totals. Even then it all seems a little unlikely on current Polling.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181

    Meanwhile, Labour fail to notice that Robin Hood was against high taxation:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39910293

    John Macdonnell as Chancellor would be halfway to being the new Robin Hood.

    He would take from the rich, as far as he could.

    However, because of all the money he would borrow, he would give all that money to a bunch of different rich people instead.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    Even if UKIP lost all its votes, split according to those shares you give, Con would only get up to ~360
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    Meanwhile, Labour fail to notice that Robin Hood was against high taxation:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39910293

    Fellows: Robin Hood was a myth. A mythical robber who was in league with that big bad sheriff, Corbyn the Fence.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited May 2017
    RobD said:

    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    Even if UKIP lost all its votes, split according to those shares you give, Con would only get up to ~360
    Adding in a Scotland factor perhaps adds another handful, but to reach anywhere near 400 we need regional swings in Midlands and North, which must mean smaller swings elsewhere.
  • Options
    daodao said:

    kle4 said:

    For this bet not to come in requires Labour to lose damn near 1 in 3 of those currently telling pollsters they will support Jeremy Corbyn and for them to move en masse to the LibDems, rather than the Can't Be Arsed Party. Looks a banker to me.

    Agreed. Betting on individual constituencies provides grander opportunities, though perhaps the best ones are gone now, and more fun, but if you have the spare funds to make such a return worth more than pennies, seems a good spot.
    The best individual constituencies to bet on currently are probably LD targets currently held by Con, where the likelihood of Con retaining the seat is probably now high. I suspect that the bookies haven't yet caught up with how dire the LDs (and TF) are, even in comparison to Labour (and JC). Their policy positioning is inept, with support of minority causes that are more likely to put off potential voters than win them over. Their vote share may not improve on 2015 and they may lose as many (or more) seats than they gain. One taxi might be enough for all their MPs after the GE.

    Nice idea daodao, but I personally fancy a number of LibDem held seats (plus the Greens' single seat at Brighton Pavilion), where in each case the incumbent is the odds-on favourite, yet Baxter sees them being comfortably defeated. Can Baxter be so wrong?
    Here are 5 examples:

    Bermondsey & Old Southwark
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Labour 52% 2.25 (Laddies/Coral), LibDems 27% 1.67

    Brighton Pavilion
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Tories 55% 9.0 (PP/BetfairSports), Greens 24% 1.1

    Twickenham
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Tories 68% 2.625 (BetFred), LibDems 23% 1.5

    Kingston and Surbiton
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Tories 66% 2.0 (Bet365, Betfred, Laddies) LibDems 20% 1.91

    North Norfolk
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Tories 63% 2.1 (SkyBet, BetFred) LibDems 32% 1.9
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961

    RobD said:

    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    Even if UKIP lost all its votes, split according to those shares you give, Con would only get up to ~360
    Adding in a Scotland factor perhaps adds another handful, but to reach anywhere near 400 we need regional swings in Midlands and North, which must mean smaller swings elsewhere.
    Yeah, but this is all based on the assumption there is zero Lab to Con swing.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,976
    Mr. K, some reckon he was invented by dyers' guilds to promote their wares.

    Mr. Doethur, it's bloody alarming he and Corbyn are so close to power, and supported by so many people.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181

    daodao said:

    kle4 said:

    For this bet not to come in requires Labour to lose damn near 1 in 3 of those currently telling pollsters they will support Jeremy Corbyn and for them to move en masse to the LibDems, rather than the Can't Be Arsed Party. Looks a banker to me.

    Agreed. Betting on individual constituencies provides grander opportunities, though perhaps the best ones are gone now, and more fun, but if you have the spare funds to make such a return worth more than pennies, seems a good spot.
    The best individual constituencies to bet on currently are probably LD targets currently held by Con, where the likelihood of Con retaining the seat is probably now high. I suspect that the bookies haven't yet caught up with how dire the LDs (and TF) are, even in comparison to Labour (and JC). Their policy positioning is inept, with support of minority causes that are more likely to put off potential voters than win them over. Their vote share may not improve on 2015 and they may lose as many (or more) seats than they gain. One taxi might be enough for all their MPs after the GE.

    Nice idea daodao, but I personally fancy a number of LibDem held seats (plus the Greens' single seat at Brighton Pavilion), where in each case the incumbent is the odds-on favourite, yet Baxter sees them being comfortably defeated. Can Baxter be so wrong?
    Here are 5 examples:

    Bermondsey & Old Southwark
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Labour 52% 2.25 (Laddies/Coral), LibDems 27% 1.67

    Brighton Pavilion
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Tories 55% 9.0 (PP/BetfairSports), Greens 24% 1.1

    Twickenham
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Tories 68% 2.625 (BetFred), LibDems 23% 1.5

    Kingston and Surbiton
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Tories 66% 2.0 (Bet365, Betfred, Laddies) LibDems 20% 1.91

    North Norfolk
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Tories 63% 2.1 (SkyBet, BetFred) LibDems 32% 1.9
    Only one of those seats is held by the Liberal Democrats.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,807

    daodao said:

    kle4 said:

    For this bet not to come in requires Labour to lose damn near 1 in 3 of those currently telling pollsters they will support Jeremy Corbyn and for them to move en masse to the LibDems, rather than the Can't Be Arsed Party. Looks a banker to me.

    Agreed. Betting on individual constituencies provides grander opportunities, though perhaps the best ones are gone now, and more fun, but if you have the spare funds to make such a return worth more than pennies, seems a good spot.
    The best individual constituencies to bet on currently are probably LD targets currently held by Con, where the likelihood of Con retaining the seat is probably now high. I suspect that the bookies haven't yet caught up with how dire the LDs (and TF) are, even in comparison to Labour (and JC). Their policy positioning is inept, with support of minority causes that are more likely to put off potential voters than win them over. Their vote share may not improve on 2015 and they may lose as many (or more) seats than they gain. One taxi might be enough for all their MPs after the GE.

    Nice idea daodao, but I personally fancy a number of LibDem held seats (plus the Greens' single seat at Brighton Pavilion), where in each case the incumbent is the odds-on favourite, yet Baxter sees them being comfortably defeated. Can Baxter be so wrong?
    Here are 5 examples:

    Bermondsey & Old Southwark
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Labour 52% 2.25 (Laddies/Coral), LibDems 27% 1.67

    Brighton Pavilion
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Tories 55% 9.0 (PP/BetfairSports), Greens 24% 1.1

    Twickenham
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Tories 68% 2.625 (BetFred), LibDems 23% 1.5

    Kingston and Surbiton
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Tories 66% 2.0 (Bet365, Betfred, Laddies) LibDems 20% 1.91

    North Norfolk
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Tories 63% 2.1 (SkyBet, BetFred) LibDems 32% 1.9
    There was a recent constituency poll which put Caroline Lucas comfortably ahead in her seat.
  • Options
    peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,875
    edited May 2017
    felix said:

    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    That's an interesting simulation and probably quite close to the worst realistic outcome for the Tories assuming as it does, zero gains from either Labour or LibDems.
    I'd argue mildly about how you've allocated the 2/3rds loss of UKIP votes. Personally I'd have gone 15% DNV, 60% Tory, 20% Labour and yes 5% LibDem. My guess is that would leave the Tories with the smallest of overall majorities.
    They're his England only totals. Even then it all seems a little unlikely on current Polling.
    Felix - I think this simulation was intended as a "what if" exercise, as opposed to being any sort of accurate forecast of what surbiton is actually expecting to be the outcome.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,970
    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    Actually she says Salmond defines a generation as 35 years.

    When asked how long she thought “a generation” should be, Davidson said: “What was Alex Salmond’s definition? He said that between the ̓̓79 and 2014 referendum that was about a generation. That works for me.”
    Silly definition really if (if!) he did say that, because the comparable referendum to 1979 was the one on setting up Holyrood in 1997 - so roughly 18 years a generation which sounds more like it (17 more years until the next referendum on Scotland's status would fit with that).

    However long It is it's clear that the SNP believed they had waited long enough. This is starting to look like a bad miscalculation - what I thought was well-judged posturing that Sturgeon didn't believe in but would throw red meat to her left flank of irreconcilables looks as though under circumstances she clearly wasn't expecting it has left her vulnerable on the right.

    However, in her further defence, the way things are going on Scotland at the moment it could easily be now or never for that second referendum.
    I thought that ‘a generation’ was 25 years. Can’t recall where I heard it though, or learned it. Stuck in my mind from way, way back.
    Merans one would become a grandparent at 50 of course, which for me at any rate was about right.
    Although there’ve been several more grandchildren since.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,807

    RobD said:

    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    Even if UKIP lost all its votes, split according to those shares you give, Con would only get up to ~360
    Adding in a Scotland factor perhaps adds another handful, but to reach anywhere near 400 we need regional swings in Midlands and North, which must mean smaller swings elsewhere.
    344 plus 15-17 from Wales and 6-12 from Scotland gives 365-373.

    However, the Conservatives are likely to outperform the national swing in Labour Leave seats, which will push up their total
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    felix said:

    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    That's an interesting simulation and probably quite close to the worst realistic outcome for the Tories assuming as it does, zero gains from either Labour or LibDems.
    I'd argue mildly about how you've allocated the 2/3rds loss of UKIP votes. Personally I'd have gone 15% DNV, 60% Tory, 20% Labour and yes 5% LibDem. My guess is that would leave the Tories with the smallest of overall majorities.
    They're his England only totals. Even then it all seems a little unlikely on current Polling.
    Felix - I think this simulation was intended as a "what if" exercise, as opposed to being any sort of accurate forecast of what surbiton is actually expecting to be the outcome.
    OK.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    Actually she says Salmond defines a generation as 35 years.

    When asked how long she thought “a generation” should be, Davidson said: “What was Alex Salmond’s definition? He said that between the ̓̓79 and 2014 referendum that was about a generation. That works for me.”
    Silly definition really if (if!) he did say that, because the comparable referendum to 1979 was the one on setting up Holyrood in 1997 - so roughly 18 years a generation which sounds more like it (17 more years until the next referendum on Scotland's status would fit with that).

    However long It is it's clear that the SNP believed they had waited long enough. This is starting to look like a bad miscalculation - what I thought was well-judged posturing that Sturgeon didn't believe in but would throw red meat to her left flank of irreconcilables looks as though under circumstances she clearly wasn't expecting it has left her vulnerable on the right.

    However, in her further defence, the way things are going on Scotland at the moment it could easily be now or never for that second referendum.
    I thought that ‘a generation’ was 25 years. Can’t recall where I heard it though, or learned it. Stuck in my mind from way, way back.
    Merans one would become a grandparent at 50 of course, which for me at any rate was about right.
    Although there’ve been several more grandchildren since.
    It's a rough rule of thumb used by sociologists. Don't know where it came from. Think it's probably the average age of becoming a parent in the 1950s, but can't be sure.

    I would personally argue that it should be the moment of officially leaving home, but that varies widely - for me it was 19, for others I have seen them still at home in their 30s.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    Even if UKIP lost all its votes, split according to those shares you give, Con would only get up to ~360
    Adding in a Scotland factor perhaps adds another handful, but to reach anywhere near 400 we need regional swings in Midlands and North, which must mean smaller swings elsewhere.
    Yeah, but this is all based on the assumption there is zero Lab to Con swing.
    The polling figures for Labour look like that is not far off.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    MikeK said:

    Meanwhile, Labour fail to notice that Robin Hood was against high taxation:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39910293

    Fellows: Robin Hood was a myth. A mythical robber who was in league with that big bad sheriff, Corbyn the Fence.
    TSE as Will Scarlet-Shoes
    McDonnell as Little John
    Dianne "Abbott" as trandender Friar Tuck
    Nick Palmer as The Sheriff of Nottingham Broxtowe
    Alan-a-Iain-Dale as himself
    Fitalass as Maid Marian
    Prince JohnO as himself (better than a peerage)

  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,597
    ydoethur said:

    Meanwhile, Labour fail to notice that Robin Hood was against high taxation:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39910293

    John Macdonnell as Chancellor would be halfway to being the new Robin Hood.

    He would take from the rich, as far as he could.

    However, because of all the money he would borrow, he would give all that money to a bunch of different rich people instead.
    I think you might be mixing him up with George Osborne - he was the one who borrowed all the money.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    daodao said:

    kle4 said:

    For this bet not to come in requires Labour to lose damn near 1 in 3 of those currently telling pollsters they will support Jeremy Corbyn and for them to move en masse to the LibDems, rather than the Can't Be Arsed Party. Looks a banker to me.

    Agreed. Betting on individual constituencies provides grander opportunities, though perhaps the best ones are gone now, and more fun, but if you have the spare funds to make such a return worth more than pennies, seems a good spot.
    The best individual constituencies to bet on currently are probably LD targets currently held by Con, where the likelihood of Con retaining the seat is probably now high. I suspect that the bookies haven't yet caught up with how dire the LDs (and TF) are, even in comparison to Labour (and JC). Their policy positioning is inept, with support of minority causes that are more likely to put off potential voters than win them over. Their vote share may not improve on 2015 and they may lose as many (or more) seats than they gain. One taxi might be enough for all their MPs after the GE.

    Nice idea daodao, but I personally fancy a number of LibDem held seats (plus the Greens' single seat at Brighton Pavilion), where in each case the incumbent is the odds-on favourite, yet Baxter sees them being comfortably defeated. Can Baxter be so wrong?
    Here are 5 examples:

    Bermondsey & Old Southwark
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Labour 52% 2.25 (Laddies/Coral), LibDems 27% 1.67

    Brighton Pavilion
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Tories 55% 9.0 (PP/BetfairSports), Greens 24% 1.1

    Twickenham
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Tories 68% 2.625 (BetFred), LibDems 23% 1.5

    Kingston and Surbiton
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Tories 66% 2.0 (Bet365, Betfred, Laddies) LibDems 20% 1.91

    North Norfolk
    Chance of Winning and Odds: Tories 63% 2.1 (SkyBet, BetFred) LibDems 32% 1.9
    There was a recent constituency poll which put Caroline Lucas comfortably ahead in her seat.
    We shall see .....the Greens vote is down heavily on a national basis according to the polls and they seem likely to lose support to Labour in this constituency, while Labour itself loses support to the Tories, PLUS UKIP isn't fielding a candidate which is likely to significantly assist the Tories. All in all and certainly based on Baxter's calculations, their odds of 8/1 look very generous, but DYOR.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181

    I think you might be mixing him up with George Osborne - he was the one who borrowed all the money.

    Macdonnell has said, IIRC, that he intends to borrow an extra £250 billion over and above our substantial current account deficit.

    Or have I misunderstood that? Does he intend to borrow it from old grannies in Rochdale or something?

    He has also, by the by, said he will massively increase spending and simultaneously eliminate the deficit by hiking taxes only on those people who earn more than he does.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    Actually she says Salmond defines a generation as 35 years.

    When asked how long she thought “a generation” should be, Davidson said: “What was Alex Salmond’s definition? He said that between the ̓̓79 and 2014 referendum that was about a generation. That works for me.”
    Silly definition really if (if!) he did say that, because the comparable referendum to 1979 was the one on setting up Holyrood in 1997 - so roughly 18 years a generation which sounds more like it (17 more years until the next referendum on Scotland's status would fit with that).

    However long It is it's clear that the SNP believed they had waited long enough. This is starting to look like a bad miscalculation - what I thought was well-judged posturing that Sturgeon didn't believe in but would throw red meat to her left flank of irreconcilables looks as though under circumstances she clearly wasn't expecting it has left her vulnerable on the right.

    However, in her further defence, the way things are going on Scotland at the moment it could easily be now or never for that second referendum.
    I thought that ‘a generation’ was 25 years. Can’t recall where I heard it though, or learned it. Stuck in my mind from way, way back.
    Merans one would become a grandparent at 50 of course, which for me at any rate was about right.
    Although there’ve been several more grandchildren since.
    It's a rough rule of thumb used by sociologists. Don't know where it came from. Think it's probably the average age of becoming a parent in the 1950s, but can't be sure.

    I would personally argue that it should be the moment of officially leaving home, but that varies widely - for me it was 19, for others I have seen them still at home in their 30s.
    It is the average time childbirth to childbirth, so varies with the average age for having one's first child. I would guess it was 4 to the century a century ago, now more like 3.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,597
    The average age of a first time mum in the UK is around 28. 25 years per generation isn't too shabby.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    No ICM overnight?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,610
    On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.

    The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3
  • Options
    FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    ED BALLS LIKES EVANESCENCE KLAXON (It's been waiting patiently to be sounded):

    https://twitter.com/edballs/status/863529261860311040
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,597
    ydoethur said:

    I think you might be mixing him up with George Osborne - he was the one who borrowed all the money.

    Macdonnell has said, IIRC, that he intends to borrow an extra £250 billion over and above our substantial current account deficit.

    Or have I misunderstood that? Does he intend to borrow it from old grannies in Rochdale or something?

    He has also, by the by, said he will massively increase spending and simultaneously eliminate the deficit by hiking taxes only on those people who earn more than he does.
    £250 bn sounds like small beer compared to Osborne's unplanned borrowing.

    And if McDonnell does become chancellor (stop laughing at the back), then he would be hit by his own income tax rise, as his salary would go up!
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    Even if UKIP lost all its votes, split according to those shares you give, Con would only get up to ~360
    Adding in a Scotland factor perhaps adds another handful, but to reach anywhere near 400 we need regional swings in Midlands and North, which must mean smaller swings elsewhere.
    Yeah, but this is all based on the assumption there is zero Lab to Con swing.
    The polling figures for Labour look like that is not far off.
    A couple of points either way will make a big difference. At the moment it looks as though the Tories are up 10, which would imply a bigger share of the UKIP votes, or some swing from labour cancelled by swing from UKIP->Labour.
  • Options
    In genealogy a short generation is reckoned at 25 and a long generation at 33 i.e. depending upon the society there are either three or four generations per century. If that doesn't make immediate sense in a time when most married couples had say five or six children the eldest / eldest / eldest / eldest led to four generations per century the youngest youngest youngest youngest led to three.

    And that is what so infuriated me with Neil Kinnock asking why he was the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to go to university. Leaving aside intrinsic thickness in his family there have only been universities for about 30 generations. For the previous 970 generations they did not exist.
  • Options
    MarkLittlewoodMarkLittlewood Posts: 36
    edited May 2017
    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    This only adds up to 533 seats, no?

    Edit: Oh I see, England only, right?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961

    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    This only adds up to 533 seats, no?
    England only in this example
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    Even if UKIP lost all its votes, split according to those shares you give, Con would only get up to ~360
    Adding in a Scotland factor perhaps adds another handful, but to reach anywhere near 400 we need regional swings in Midlands and North, which must mean smaller swings elsewhere.
    Yeah, but this is all based on the assumption there is zero Lab to Con swing.
    The polling figures for Labour look like that is not far off.
    A couple of points either way will make a big difference. At the moment it looks as though the Tories are up 10, which would imply a bigger share of the UKIP votes, or some swing from labour cancelled by swing from UKIP->Labour.
    I have a feeling that UKIP will still get more than a million votes on it's reduced field. Is there any betting on this?
  • Options
    daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    Con gaining 8% vote share at the expense of UKIP, with other parties unchanged in E&W, but a marked swing towards Con in Scotland (doubling vote share at the expense of all other parties) gives the following result according to Electoral Calculus: Tory majority 112, with Con 381, Lab 200, LD 5, SNP 42, PC 3, Green 1 and NI 18. This is quire plausible on current polling. Chairman May may would be vindicated and have her sizable majority, but JC shouldn't need to resign with such an outcome.
  • Options
    ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    Do you think that UKIP's NOTA vote was only 5% of its total? I'd suggest that it was much more in which case should you not distribute that part between Greens, LibDems,Plaid, SNP?
    Much of their NOTA vote will stay with them (where they stand).
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    daodao said:

    Con gaining 8% vote share at the expense of UKIP, with other parties unchanged in E&W, but a marked swing towards Con in Scotland (doubling vote share at the expense of all other parties) gives the following result according to Electoral Calculus: Tory majority 112, with Con 381, Lab 200, LD 5, SNP 42, PC 3, Green 1 and NI 18. This is quire plausible on current polling. Chairman May may would be vindicated and have her sizable majority, but JC shouldn't need to resign with such an outcome.

    Surely the perfect Tory result? Jez clings on while the Tories bank a mega majority.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,922
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    Even if UKIP lost all its votes, split according to those shares you give, Con would only get up to ~360
    Adding in a Scotland factor perhaps adds another handful, but to reach anywhere near 400 we need regional swings in Midlands and North, which must mean smaller swings elsewhere.
    Yeah, but this is all based on the assumption there is zero Lab to Con swing.
    The polling figures for Labour look like that is not far off.
    A couple of points either way will make a big difference. At the moment it looks as though the Tories are up 10, which would imply a bigger share of the UKIP votes, or some swing from labour cancelled by swing from UKIP->Labour.

    The Tory vote will turn out.

    The Labour vote won't.

    Voting against May is not a great reason to go to the polls, especially when you have to vote for Corbyn.

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    edited May 2017

    ydoethur said:

    I think you might be mixing him up with George Osborne - he was the one who borrowed all the money.

    Macdonnell has said, IIRC, that he intends to borrow an extra £250 billion over and above our substantial current account deficit.

    Or have I misunderstood that? Does he intend to borrow it from old grannies in Rochdale or something?

    He has also, by the by, said he will massively increase spending and simultaneously eliminate the deficit by hiking taxes only on those people who earn more than he does.
    £250 bn sounds like small beer compared to Osborne's unplanned borrowing.

    And if McDonnell does become chancellor (stop laughing at the back), then he would be hit by his own income tax rise, as his salary would go up!
    Under Osborne in 2011 we borrowed £121 billion, less than under Darling on 2009 when it was £175 billion.

    What Macdonnell is proposing to do is borrow, in a single year over and above the rest of our deficit, roughly 40% more than Darling borrowed as Britain was fighting to emerge from the worst financial crash since 1929.

    Under Darling the yield on our gilts pushed up to around 5%. Under Osborne we lost our triple A rating. Under Macdonnell, we'd probably have another downgrade and still higher yield and in all likelihood interest rates to borrow the £300 billion (at a minimum) he would be borrowing or at least trying to borrow in the first year.

    If you can't see that that is not going to work...

    PS - one of the things I can't fault Corbyn and Macdonnell for is their lack of personal greed. I think there is a chance that they would waive their salaries as PM and Chancellor so I stand by my earlier remark.

    PPS - under Osborne our national debt rose by around £600 billion in total over six years. Compared to that, £250 billion is certainly NOT small beer, still less when it is taken in one-sixth of the time.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,922

    On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.

    The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

    Not sure that makes much sense. Labour, LDs, Greens and Nats combined are going to get at least 40% of the vote. It's possible they'll get more than 45%.

  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,970
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    Actually she says Salmond defines a generation as 35 years.

    When asked how long she thought “a generation” should be, Davidson said: “What was Alex Salmond’s definition? He said that between the ̓̓79 and 2014 referendum that was about a generation. That works for me.”
    Silly definition really if (if!) he did say that, because the comparable referendum to 1979 was the one on setting up Holyrood in 1997 - so roughly 18 years a generation which sounds more like it (17 more years until the next referendum on Scotland's status would fit with that).

    However long It is it's clear that the SNP believed they had waited long enough. This is starting to look like a bad miscalculation - what I thought was well-judged posturing that Sturgeon didn't believe in but would throw red meat to her left flank of irreconcilables looks as though under circumstances she clearly wasn't expecting it has left her vulnerable on the right.

    However, in her further defence, the way things are going on Scotland at the moment it could easily be now or never for that second referendum.
    I thought that ‘a generation’ was 25 years. Can’t recall where I heard it though, or learned it. Stuck in my mind from way, way back.
    Merans one would become a grandparent at 50 of course, which for me at any rate was about right.
    Although there’ve been several more grandchildren since.
    It's a rough rule of thumb used by sociologists. Don't know where it came from. Think it's probably the average age of becoming a parent in the 1950s, but can't be sure.

    I would personally argue that it should be the moment of officially leaving home, but that varies widely - for me it was 19, for others I have seen them still at home in their 30s.
    Ah, I see. Thanks. However the idea of it being round about the interval from birth to regeneration/reproduction seems sensible.
  • Options
    paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461

    On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.

    The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

    Too simplistic methinks. Labour have managed to get nearer 32pc from that 22pc pond.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,970
    edited May 2017
    daodao said:

    Con gaining 8% vote share at the expense of UKIP, with other parties unchanged in E&W, but a marked swing towards Con in Scotland (doubling vote share at the expense of all other parties) gives the following result according to Electoral Calculus: Tory majority 112, with Con 381, Lab 200, LD 5, SNP 42, PC 3, Green 1 and NI 18. This is quire plausible on current polling. Chairman May may would be vindicated and have her sizable majority, but JC shouldn't need to resign with such an outcome.


    Notable that the only posters I saw last week in Wales were for PC. I was mostly in Ynys Mon, and Gwynedd, though!
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    Even if UKIP lost all its votes, split according to those shares you give, Con would only get up to ~360
    Adding in a Scotland factor perhaps adds another handful, but to reach anywhere near 400 we need regional swings in Midlands and North, which must mean smaller swings elsewhere.
    Yeah, but this is all based on the assumption there is zero Lab to Con swing.
    The polling figures for Labour look like that is not far off.
    Leaving aside any arguments about whether the polls are actually getting it wrong (again,) we evidently need to factor in some potentially quite significant changes in voting patterns. It is not impossible that Labour's vote share could more-or-less hold up, by squeezing what's left of its opponents' votes in some already safe constituencies (one is thinking in particular of those that are very urban/poor/non-white,) whilst going backwards in others, especially out in the provinces.

    Labour could easily, post-June 8th, find itself even more heavily entrenched in inner London, Liverpool and Manchester, whilst at best treading water and at worst sliding downhill at a rate of knots everywhere else. The council elections, with Welsh Labour not doing as badly as feared and strong results in Lancashire on one hand, but the Conservatives doing atypically well in the Midlands on the other, are a likely portent of this.

    FWIW, I don't believe that there's zero direct swing from Lab to Con. I doubt that the net flow of voters is massive, but Labour's performance in the local elections was historically bad, as well as that of the Tories being historically strong for a sitting Government. The Labour performance, at the very least, can't all be accounted for with "because Ukip" - and the lost votes must've gone somewhere. It's not impossible that all of those extra voters either went to other "progressive" parties or sat on their hands, but the likelihood of no meaningful percentage of them deciding to give Mrs May/the Conservative Party a chance seems remote.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181

    On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.

    The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

    Not sure that makes much sense. Labour, LDs, Greens and Nats combined are going to get at least 40% of the vote. It's possible they'll get more than 45%.

    It also adds up to 90%, leaving out he undecideds* who will presumably vote on other issues.

    *Autocorrect amusingly turned that into 'undeceived!'
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.

    The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

    Too simplistic methinks. Labour have managed to get nearer 32pc from that 22pc pond.
    Also Labour and LD have a policy of seeking Soft Brexit, not no Brexit (albeit with the LD wanting that on a ballot paper for a second referendum).

    Not that a soft Brexit is on offer, I grant you.
  • Options
    Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060

    On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.

    The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

    Too simplistic methinks. Labour have managed to get nearer 32pc from that 22pc pond.
    Yes. Labour's Brexit policy is largely irrelevant to the people who want to vote for them: if you care so much it will change your vote you are probably voting UKIP or Conservative on one side, and Lib Dem on the other. If you want to vote Green then you are probably not interested in voting for a winning party unless you are in one or two particular constituencies.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    daodao said:

    Con gaining 8% vote share at the expense of UKIP, with other parties unchanged in E&W, but a marked swing towards Con in Scotland (doubling vote share at the expense of all other parties) gives the following result according to Electoral Calculus: Tory majority 112, with Con 381, Lab 200, LD 5, SNP 42, PC 3, Green 1 and NI 18. This is quire plausible on current polling. Chairman May may would be vindicated and have her sizable majority, but JC shouldn't need to resign with such an outcome.


    Notable that the only posters I saw last week in Wales were for PC. I was mostly in Ynys Mon, and Gwynedd, though!
    Posters do seem to be out of fashion now. Hardly anyone here displays them. There were none locally for the Brexit referendum either.
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    No ICM overnight?

    No sign from either the ICM website or Twitter feed, or from the poll aggregators. So either there isn't one, or this weeks' has been done for Peston and is being embargoed.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,597

    On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.

    The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

    Too simplistic methinks. Labour have managed to get nearer 32pc from that 22pc pond.
    Also Labour and LD have a policy of seeking Soft Brexit, not no Brexit (albeit with the LD wanting that on a ballot paper for a second referendum).

    Not that a soft Brexit is on offer, I grant you.
    Soft Brexit means we get to win Eurovision once every 10 years.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607

    On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.

    The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

    Not sure that makes much sense. Labour, LDs, Greens and Nats combined are going to get at least 40% of the vote. It's possible they'll get more than 45%.

    It depends on where Labour end up tbh. There's a good chance that the polls are all wrong and Labour get 25% rather than 30%.

    Working class friends of mine who I grew up with are abandoning ship at the moment, I was out with a few yesterday at a rehearsal dinner. Most of them have only ever voted Labour in the three elections we've been able to vote in (2005, 2010, 2015) there was a fairly even Leave/Remain split but a straw poll now shows a huge increase to the Tory vote (well Theresa) and while most like Jez's ideas and some think he may be a nice person, he's not the guy we want negotiating our exit from the EU.

    None of them have ever been polled by any polling company and all of them will definitely vote.

    One thing that has changed in our group of friends is that almost all of us have got married or have long term partners, I don't know what difference that has made but I've felt many gravitating towards more conservative positions since then. When everyone was younger and single radical leftist policies were popular, I was a lone beacon of sanity, now whether it's age or having the responsibility of having a partner/wife that is mostly gone.
  • Options
    freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    surbiton said:

    Who will come second in the popular vote ? Of course, it will be Labour ! WH is offering 1/20 ? Are they mad ?

    There must be a catch.

    There's no catch, let's say you want to back it for £1000, they stand to lose £50. When placing the bet either in a shop or online the chances are you'll have another bet.

    This is a most extraordinary thread header, if the Racing Post tipped something at 1/20 they would lose all credibility.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181

    On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.

    The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

    Too simplistic methinks. Labour have managed to get nearer 32pc from that 22pc pond.
    Also Labour and LD have a policy of seeking Soft Brexit, not no Brexit (albeit with the LD wanting that on a ballot paper for a second referendum).

    Not that a soft Brexit is on offer, I grant you.
    Soft Brexit means we get to win Eurovision once every 10 years.
    Does Hard Brexit mean we win it every year and have to not only cringe in embarrassment at the poor quality of the entries but pay for the blasted thing as well?
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Martin Boon of ICM was on Twitter last night, as TSE noted, and if ICM have a poll imminent it certainly isn't showing Labour at 30%. It's rare to see a pollster so openly sceptical about rivals' findings.
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    daodao said:

    Con gaining 8% vote share at the expense of UKIP, with other parties unchanged in E&W, but a marked swing towards Con in Scotland (doubling vote share at the expense of all other parties) gives the following result according to Electoral Calculus: Tory majority 112, with Con 381, Lab 200, LD 5, SNP 42, PC 3, Green 1 and NI 18. This is quire plausible on current polling. Chairman May may would be vindicated and have her sizable majority, but JC shouldn't need to resign with such an outcome.


    Notable that the only posters I saw last week in Wales were for PC. I was mostly in Ynys Mon, and Gwynedd, though!
    Posters do seem to be out of fashion now. Hardly anyone here displays them. There were none locally for the Brexit referendum either.
    They do seem to have been dying off for some years. Around town so far I've seen two little orange Lib Dem diamonds in the windows of houses, and one (admittedly very large) Tory placard attached to a fence. And that's it.

    Maybe it's just that the reputation of politics has taken such a battering from the accumulation of negative media through the internet and 24 hour news, coupled with the Iraq War and expenses scandals, that people who would previously have been willing to show public support for any given party now prefer to keep their opinions to themselves?
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,922
    That precipitous state visit invitation is looking more ill-considered by the day. Hopefully, it can be put off until well into next year, when maybe Trump will no longer be around. We will gain absolutely nothing from him coming.

  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,709

    On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.

    The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

    On that definition I'm a Re-Leaver. A democratic, if poorly informed, decision was taken. Now it's questions of how that decision is implemented with the least damage possible and where we go from here in building new relationships with the EU and the rest of the world. Questions that few people are giving much thought to, including most worryingly, Theresa May.

  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    Even if UKIP lost all its votes, split according to those shares you give, Con would only get up to ~360
    Adding in a Scotland factor perhaps adds another handful, but to reach anywhere near 400 we need regional swings in Midlands and North, which must mean smaller swings elsewhere.
    Yeah, but this is all based on the assumption there is zero Lab to Con swing.
    The polling figures for Labour look like that is not far off.
    Selectively maybe.. but I don't think that's true.. You should listen to 5 live.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607

    Martin Boon of ICM was on Twitter last night, as TSE noted, and if ICM have a poll imminent it certainly isn't showing Labour at 30%. It's rare to see a pollster so openly sceptical about rivals' findings.

    I honestly believe that polls are going to to struggle to find Lab -> Con switchers this time, normally they are easy to identify in the centre ground, this time because of the PM's pitch they are coming from the working classes, a group which is notoriously difficult to poll accurately.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,914

    surbiton said:

    Who will come second in the popular vote ? Of course, it will be Labour ! WH is offering 1/20 ? Are they mad ?

    There must be a catch.

    There's no catch, let's say you want to back it for £1000, they stand to lose £50. When placing the bet either in a shop or online the chances are you'll have another bet.

    This is a most extraordinary thread header, if the Racing Post tipped something at 1/20 they would lose all credibility.
    I'm sure this was 1/5 until quite recently
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,610

    On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.

    The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

    Not sure that makes much sense. Labour, LDs, Greens and Nats combined are going to get at least 40% of the vote. It's possible they'll get more than 45%.

    It's talking about the Brexit effect - obviously a lot more than that informs voters choices - but the lack of a big pool of dedicated REMAINERS could explain why the Lib Dems are struggling
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    MaxPB said:

    Martin Boon of ICM was on Twitter last night, as TSE noted, and if ICM have a poll imminent it certainly isn't showing Labour at 30%. It's rare to see a pollster so openly sceptical about rivals' findings.

    I honestly believe that polls are going to to struggle to find Lab -> Con switchers this time, normally they are easy to identify in the centre ground, this time because of the PM's pitch they are coming from the working classes, a group which is notoriously difficult to poll accurately.
    Labour supporters need to accept the possibility of and then work through the implications of the pollsters having the Conservative figure about right. And Conservative supporters need to accept the possibility of and then work through the implications of the pollsters having the Labour figure about right. Neither seems to have done this yet.
  • Options
    timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    As a Tory activist in a lib dem held seat and someone who has been knocking on doors daily for the last 3 weeks it has become obvious that people do not have a clue for what the LDs stand for this time around. Even ardent remainers are totally sceptical about their position.
    Seeing a lot of LD-Tory switchers and also lab-tory switchers. Hardly any Tory-LD switchers. I know its early days but most peoples positions seem set.
  • Options
    freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    surbiton said:

    Simulation 01:

    I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:

    UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05
    [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]

    No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.

    Results are as follows:

    CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.

    In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.

    Even if UKIP lost all its votes, split according to those shares you give, Con would only get up to ~360
    Adding in a Scotland factor perhaps adds another handful, but to reach anywhere near 400 we need regional swings in Midlands and North, which must mean smaller swings elsewhere.
    Yeah, but this is all based on the assumption there is zero Lab to Con swing.
    The polling figures for Labour look like that is not far off.
    A couple of points either way will make a big difference. At the moment it looks as though the Tories are up 10, which would imply a bigger share of the UKIP votes, or some swing from labour cancelled by swing from UKIP->Labour.

    The Tory vote will turn out.

    The Labour vote won't.

    Voting against May is not a great reason to go to the polls, especially when you have to vote for Corbyn.

    I agree with you. I had lunch with a Tory MP last week who is 1/200 to keep his seat, his Labour opponent is unbelievably weak, its almost as if they've given up in a seat they held from 1997-2010. The tories see an opportunity to keep the boot firmly on the labour throat.

    Not good for democracy but labour are in a dreadful mess
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.

    The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

    Too simplistic methinks. Labour have managed to get nearer 32pc from that 22pc pond.
    Also Labour and LD have a policy of seeking Soft Brexit, not no Brexit (albeit with the LD wanting that on a ballot paper for a second referendum).

    Not that a soft Brexit is on offer, I grant you.
    Soft Brexit means we get to win Eurovision once every 10 years.
    The Jury votes did us some favours last night. we only got 12 points from 42 countries in the telephone voting.

    Moldova was robbed.
  • Options
    paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    isam said:

    surbiton said:

    Who will come second in the popular vote ? Of course, it will be Labour ! WH is offering 1/20 ? Are they mad ?

    There must be a catch.

    There's no catch, let's say you want to back it for £1000, they stand to lose £50. When placing the bet either in a shop or online the chances are you'll have another bet.

    This is a most extraordinary thread header, if the Racing Post tipped something at 1/20 they would lose all credibility.
    I'm sure this was 1/5 until quite recently
    Coral opened 1.08 labour more votes than LD I think. But it's 1.04 now after some better labour poll figures and zero progress from the yellows.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    FF43 said:

    On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.

    The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

    On that definition I'm a Re-Leaver. A democratic, if poorly informed, decision was taken. Now it's questions of how that decision is implemented with the least damage possible and where we go from here in building new relationships with the EU and the rest of the world. Questions that few people are giving much thought to, including most worryingly, Theresa May.

    I'm a Re-Leaver (what a silly, contrived and misleading name btw). I am amazed that otherwise lucid Remain voters can take any other view, and yet call themselves believers in democracy. I think they think: let's retrospectively disenfranchise all Leave voters for being thick proles, and once you've done that there's a clear democratic mandate for Remain. Yet they think the Leavers are the fascists.
  • Options
    freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    isam said:

    surbiton said:

    Who will come second in the popular vote ? Of course, it will be Labour ! WH is offering 1/20 ? Are they mad ?

    There must be a catch.

    There's no catch, let's say you want to back it for £1000, they stand to lose £50. When placing the bet either in a shop or online the chances are you'll have another bet.

    This is a most extraordinary thread header, if the Racing Post tipped something at 1/20 they would lose all credibility.
    I'm sure this was 1/5 until quite recently
    Really? That's a completely different matter, put that in a double and boost your winnings by 20%.

    Not doubting you in any way that really is finding it in the street.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,409

    isam said:

    surbiton said:

    Who will come second in the popular vote ? Of course, it will be Labour ! WH is offering 1/20 ? Are they mad ?

    There must be a catch.

    There's no catch, let's say you want to back it for £1000, they stand to lose £50. When placing the bet either in a shop or online the chances are you'll have another bet.

    This is a most extraordinary thread header, if the Racing Post tipped something at 1/20 they would lose all credibility.
    I'm sure this was 1/5 until quite recently
    Coral opened 1.08 labour more votes than LD I think. But it's 1.04 now after some better labour poll figures and zero progress from the yellows.
    Ladbrokes had this bet (Labour to beat Lib Dems) at 1/5 when it opened. Not sure what price it is now.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,922
    FF43 said:

    On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.

    The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

    On that definition I'm a Re-Leaver. A democratic, if poorly informed, decision was taken. Now it's questions of how that decision is implemented with the least damage possible and where we go from here in building new relationships with the EU and the rest of the world. Questions that few people are giving much thought to, including most worryingly, Theresa May.

    Yep, same here. There is no staying in now, so the focus has to be on making leaving as painless as possible.

  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.

    The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

    Not sure that makes much sense. Labour, LDs, Greens and Nats combined are going to get at least 40% of the vote. It's possible they'll get more than 45%.

    It's talking about the Brexit effect - obviously a lot more than that informs voters choices - but the lack of a big pool of dedicated REMAINERS could explain why the Lib Dems are struggling
    The hard Remain faction is heavily skewed towards London and Scotland as well.

  • Options
    paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461

    On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.

    The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

    Not sure that makes much sense. Labour, LDs, Greens and Nats combined are going to get at least 40% of the vote. It's possible they'll get more than 45%.

    It's talking about the Brexit effect - obviously a lot more than that informs voters choices - but the lack of a big pool of dedicated REMAINERS could explain why the Lib Dems are struggling
    I think you're spot on there. Maybe farron hoped he could hoover up all those 22pc but he isn't even getting half. they need to be more than just remain.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,922

    On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.

    The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

    Not sure that makes much sense. Labour, LDs, Greens and Nats combined are going to get at least 40% of the vote. It's possible they'll get more than 45%.

    It's talking about the Brexit effect - obviously a lot more than that informs voters choices - but the lack of a big pool of dedicated REMAINERS could explain why the Lib Dems are struggling

    If you are a dedicated Remainer in England surely the LDs are your only option. I suspect 22% is way too high. Journalists take too much notice of Twitter.

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    chestnut said:

    On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.

    The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

    Not sure that makes much sense. Labour, LDs, Greens and Nats combined are going to get at least 40% of the vote. It's possible they'll get more than 45%.

    It's talking about the Brexit effect - obviously a lot more than that informs voters choices - but the lack of a big pool of dedicated REMAINERS could explain why the Lib Dems are struggling
    The hard Remain faction is heavily skewed towards London and Scotland as well.

    London, undoubtedly. Scotland I would argue is less certain:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/15/nicola-sturgeon-abandons-bid-remain-eu-poll-shows-record-level/
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Yes very interesting. Nothing more so than that Labour have only ever had three leaders who won a general election
This discussion has been closed.