Snap General Election?

[Moonhawk]

Helicopter123 said:

What it means is that the Tories, despite a truly awful campaign to date, are still out of sight.

Support doesn't seem to have suffered all that much from the campaign. From 5th May - 25th May, the Tories were polling around 46.3% on average. The average of the results above is 44.8% (only 1.5% lower)

This is a higher percentage of the popular vote than Margret Thatcher had in 1979 (whether this translates into seats is yet to be seen)

Labour over the same period was averaging 31.5% - whereas the average of the results above is 35.0% (3.48% higher). Most of Labours gains seem to have come from UKIP and LD supporters switching sides (I suspect a lot of these aren't due to Labour's policies or a good campaign - they are tactical votes designed to try and stop the Tories getting in).

[Vaud]

Burwood said:

Given Thursday is a typical 'get pissed' day for students, I'm afraid their new young voters will stay at the Union rather than go voting

Many have finished exams and are now heading home/away...

[robemcdonald]

Moonhawk said:

Helicopter123 said:

What it means is that the Tories, despite a truly awful campaign to date, are still out of sight.

Support doesn't seem to have suffered all that much from the campaign. From 5th May - 25th May, the Tories were polling around 46.3% on average. The average of the results above is 44.8% (only 1.5% lower)

This is a higher percentage of the popular vote than Margret Thatcher had in 1979 (whether this translates into seats is yet to be seen)

Labour over the same period was averaging 31.5% - whereas the average of the results above is 35.0% (3.48% higher). Most of Labours gains seem to have come from UKIP and LD supporters switching sides (I suspect a lot of these aren't due to Labour's policies or a good campaign - they are tactical votes designed to try and stop the Tories getting in).

This is an interesting point. I think it highlights the tribalism in uk politics (and every facet of life actually). For example most posters here knew who they were going to vote for as soon as the election was announced. Weeks before any manifesto had been published (and subsequently revised). It genuinely baffles me how people can make decisions without having all the information.
During the presidential election Trump said he could go onto fifth avenue shoot someone and still get elected. As much as I think the man is a buffoon, he was right. The same thing goes for the Conservatives. The campaign has been an unmitigated disaster, yet they will still win.
We may as well have held the election the day after it was announced and not bothered with the campaigns or manifestos as they have had no impact for the majority of voters.

[Moonhawk]

robemcdonald said:

We may as well have held the election the day after it was announced and not bothered with the campaigns or manifestos as they have had no impact for the majority of voters.

Has it ever been any different.

When you look at the underlying vote - most elections are pretty close between the winning parties. Only those in bold did the winning party have a popular vote exceeding 10% more than the second place party - and the elections have been as close as 2.8% between them.

2015 - 36.9 vs 30.4
2010 - 36.1 vs 29.0
2005 - 35.2 vs 32.4
2001 - 40.7 vs 31.7
1997 - 43.2 vs 30.7
1992 - 41.9 vs 34.4
1987 - 42.2 vs 30.8
1983 - 42.4 vs 27.6
1979 - 43.9 vs 36.9

Each party has a set of hard core voters who will never vote any other way. General elections are mostly decided by floating voters in marginal seats........mostly.

I live in a safe seat - so my vote is largely irrelevant.

Edited by Moonhawk on Monday 29th May 10:14

[gothatway]

Vaud said:

Many have finished exams and are now heading home/away...

Good point - I wonder if that was a factor in the timing of the election ?

What's the current expectation regarding Scotland's electorate ? Davidson seems popular, Sturgeon getting less so. Will Tories win seats from Nats, will Labour stage any sort of comeback, will it have any significant net effect on Westminster balance of power ?

[Tuna]

speedy_thrills said:

...Why would voters in the UK expect quality of living to now improve under a Conservative government when the UK has been a has been a consistent under performer for so long?

Though, how many of the electorate vote on the basis of comfort factor "My life is ok right now, let's give the current government another go"...? right up to the point where things look rough, and the nation flips over to the opposition. It's not about being promised unicorns and roses in the future so much as whether there's food on the table and a bit of cash for holidays right now.

Like it or not, this election is about more than just whether we're going to be comfortable for the next five years. The Brexit negotiations are going to affect a generation or more. Both sides have steered clear of saying exactly what they plan to do, but we can begin to judge the negotiating teams and how far we trust them not to screw it up. (Or take the LibDem approach of clicking our heels together and wishing we were back in Kansas.) Whichever, you can't just look at a single party, declare they are under-performers and use that to justify voting for the alternative - they may be far, far worse.

[98elise]

robemcdonald said:

Moonhawk said:

Helicopter123 said:

What it means is that the Tories, despite a truly awful campaign to date, are still out of sight.

Support doesn't seem to have suffered all that much from the campaign. From 5th May - 25th May, the Tories were polling around 46.3% on average. The average of the results above is 44.8% (only 1.5% lower)

This is a higher percentage of the popular vote than Margret Thatcher had in 1979 (whether this translates into seats is yet to be seen)

Labour over the same period was averaging 31.5% - whereas the average of the results above is 35.0% (3.48% higher). Most of Labours gains seem to have come from UKIP and LD supporters switching sides (I suspect a lot of these aren't due to Labour's policies or a good campaign - they are tactical votes designed to try and stop the Tories getting in).

This is an interesting point. I think it highlights the tribalism in uk politics (and every facet of life actually). For example most posters here knew who they were going to vote for as soon as the election was announced. Weeks before any manifesto had been published (and subsequently revised). It genuinely baffles me how people can make decisions without having all the information.
During the presidential election Trump said he could go onto fifth avenue shoot someone and still get elected. As much as I think the man is a buffoon, he was right. The same thing goes for the Conservatives. The campaign has been an unmitigated disaster, yet they will still win.
We may as well have held the election the day after it was announced and not bothered with the campaigns or manifestos as they have had no impact for the majority of voters.

I could do it because Labour under Corbyn is not a choice any sensible person should make. I have not always been a Conservative voter, so I'm happy to have an informed choice. At the moment the only party I can vote for the one that will keep Labour (well Corbyn) out.

My mother is normally a Labour voter but cannot vote for Corbyn.

[turbobloke]

robemcdonald said:

Moonhawk said:

Helicopter123 said:

What it means is that the Tories, despite a truly awful campaign to date, are still out of sight.

Support doesn't seem to have suffered all that much from the campaign. From 5th May - 25th May, the Tories were polling around 46.3% on average. The average of the results above is 44.8% (only 1.5% lower)

This is a higher percentage of the popular vote than Margret Thatcher had in 1979 (whether this translates into seats is yet to be seen)

Labour over the same period was averaging 31.5% - whereas the average of the results above is 35.0% (3.48% higher). Most of Labours gains seem to have come from UKIP and LD supporters switching sides (I suspect a lot of these aren't due to Labour's policies or a good campaign - they are tactical votes designed to try and stop the Tories getting in).

This is an interesting point. I think it highlights the tribalism in uk politics (and every facet of life actually). For example most posters here knew who they were going to vote for as soon as the election was announced. Weeks before any manifesto had been published (and subsequently revised). It genuinely baffles me how people can make decisions without having all the information.
During the presidential election Trump said he could go onto fifth avenue shoot someone and still get elected. As much as I think the man is a buffoon, he was right. The same thing goes for the Conservatives. The campaign has been an unmitigated disaster, yet they will still win.
We may as well have held the election the day after it was announced and not bothered with the campaigns or manifestos as they have had no impact for the majority of voters.

Rightly so when, for example, the Labour manifesto has a stash of freebies that aren't free, they'll burden future generations, and even then there's a £30bn black hole. Who in their right mind would fall for that and change their voting ntention from Tory to Labour?

It's also a good thing if it diminishes the selfish vote which is cast on the basis of analysing the manifestos to discover "how much will I get out of it" rather than any consideration of what's best in the medium- to longer-term interests of the country as a whole. The idea that Labour in any form past or present would be good for the country in that way not only goes against a well-established pattern of Labour economic failure but has to overcome the totally appalling set of individuals who would hold sway over the country in the current Labour Party.

As to the Labour Party of the future, we need to wait and see what emerges from the ashes after crashing and burning this year and in 2022. They may get a new snake oil salesman who will fool enough of the country once again as Blair did.

[Johnnytheboy]

Stickyfinger said:

MarshPhantom said:

Currently down in Dorset for the week, the dearth of Vote Tory signs anywhere here or on the way is quite an eye opener.

LOL......sure mate

(I frigging live in the SWest...Labour support is MASSIVE.......... hahahaha)

Must be in a different bit from where I live then. Probably Bridport, that's hippie central.

Still returns a Tory MP by a huge margin.

[Vaud]

gothatway said:

Good point - I wonder if that was a factor in the timing of the election ?

I doubt it, probably picked to avoid being in May for obvious reasons but avoid heading into July...

[Moonhawk]

turbobloke said:

It's also a good thing if it diminishes the selfish vote which is cast on the basis of analysing the manifestos to discover "how much will I get out of it" rather than any consideration of what's best in the medium- to longer-term interests of the country as a whole.

It would be interesting to poll both voting intention and whether you feel you will personally gain in the short term by voting the way you intend.

Personally I think I have probably lost out under the Tories already due to changes in VAT rate, flat rate VAT rules and contractor dividend tax rules etc. I will probably lose out under the Tories in the next term too - due to changes in the social care funding (which will impact me directly - as well as any inheritance I might get) and their refusal to rule out tax rises for things like VAT, Income tax etc.

I still intend to vote for them this time however (I haven't always) as I think they are on the right path to getting the country back into the black and Labour's promises and their intended method of funding them are IMO an economic disaster waiting to happen.

Edited by Moonhawk on Monday 29th May 11:00

[PurpleMoonlight]

Moonhawk said:

Personally I think I have probably lost out under the Tories already due to changes in VAT rate, flat rate VAT rules and contractor dividend tax rules etc. I will probably lose out under the Tories in the next term too - due to changes in the social care funding (which will impact me directly - as well as any inheritance I might get) and their refusal to rule out tax rises for things like VAT, Income tax etc.

They have stated in the manifesto that VAT will remain unchanged, but they have already shown their willingness to try to breach their promises with the self employed NI. Furthermore, even if they were to promise not to increase income tax and NI I wouldn't trust them. They would just create a whole new tax instead, eg the dividend tax.

It's largely why I don't bother to vote and never have. They cannot be trusted.

[turbobloke]

Moonhawk said:

turbobloke said:

It's also a good thing if it diminishes the selfish vote which is cast on the basis of analysing the manifestos to discover "how much will I get out of it" rather than any consideration of what's best in the medium- to longer-term interests of the country as a whole.

It would be interesting to poll both voting intention and whether you feel you will personally gain in the short term by voting the way you intend.

Personally I think I have probably lost out under the Tories already due to changes in VAT rate, flat rate VAT rules and contractor dividend tax rules etc. I will probably lose out under the Tories in the next term too - due to changes in the social care funding (which will impact me directly - as well as any inheritance I might get) and their refusal to rule out tax rises for things like VAT, Income tax etc.

I still intend to vote for them this time however (I haven't always) as I think they are on the right path to getting the country back into the black and Labour's promises and their intended method of funding them are IMO an economic disaster waiting to happen.

Likewise, in that I did very well from Labour's 13-year national trainwreck and not so well under the Coalition and then CMD - however, so far in my voting history, the Conservatives have consistently been the least worst option. I'll be voting Tory again in June for the same reason only more so with Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott

[Gargamel]

speedy_thrills said:

I think the answer is Germany but why G7? Find a better benchmark, OECD at least.

As for unemployment data the UK is broadly similar to other developed countries, that is they are now back at full employment really.

If I could be politically bias for a moment here however if I was a voter in the UK my questions would actually be about how the Conservatives can improve median per capita inflation adjusted (often called "real") income. This has been an area the UK has performed particularly poorly in for over a decade now, here is a link to ONS data. The majority of the UK population is employed (74.1%) and unemployment isn't a worry but questions about if the standard of living is still a Conservative priority and what they'll be doing differently to the previous Conservative government. Here is a chart of the UK compared to international peers. Why would voters in the UK expect quality of living to now improve under a Conservative government when the UK has been a has been a consistent under performer for so long?

Good Post.

I must however take issue with your claims on Unemployment. UK sits at 4.5%
France 9% Italy 12% and Spain 17% These are major European economies, Germany is an exceptional case due to the currency effect.

I agree however that Productivity, Wages vs cost of living and Housing Costs must be a principle concern. It will be interesting to see if Brexit provides assistence with this.

Eg, Less Migration, less pressure on house prices. Bonfire of "Eu red tape" (unlikely) increases productivity.

However one thing IS FOR SURE. Returning the UK to a position where Unions have collective bargaining in almost every major firm is not going to increase productivity comrade.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

A summary of polls appearing over the weekend, from UK polling report.

Opinium
CON 45%
LAB 35%
LDEM 7%
UKIP 5%

ComRes
CON 46%
LAB 34%
LDEM 8%
UKIP 5%

ORB
CON 44%
LAB 38%
LDEM 7%
UKIP 5%

YouGov
CON 43%
LAB 36%
LDEM 9%
UKIP 4%

ICM
CON 46%
LAB 32%
LDEM 8%
UKIP 5%

Overall a CON lead of around 10 points by means of a simple average (mean).

Fieldwork was generally undertaken last week through to Friday.

What does it mean? Who knows!

Look at the range of Lab figures compared to everyone else. Relatively huge. What's that mean - that Labour's support is the least easy to measure, I wonder, and so its figures are the least reliable?

#wishfulthinking

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 29th May 13:22

[turbobloke]

speedy_thrills said:

IWhy would voters in the UK expect quality of living to now improve under a Conservative government when the UK has been a has been a consistent under performer for so long?

Why should it be an automatic "given" that this will necessarily increase or indeed should increase for a period of time not forever following national and individual overspending? This country and, on average, its voters are already drunk on credit i.e. debt. Why, apart from purely selfish reasons around instant gratification, would it be a good thing, when in the short term it would require a labouresque splurge which we don't have the means for and don't need, and in the long-term require the absence of Labour in office for a decade or two? That last point can be hoped for but not guaranteed - see earlier post about snake oil sales (Blair).

[turbobloke]

Greg66 said:

Labour's support is the least easy to measure, I wonder, and so its figures are the least reliable?

Based on appearances, it's somewhat more volatile and that may be for all manner of reasons. I think it's equally likely to represent differences in polling co methodology in terms of telephone/online, then demographics/turnout in how the raw data is processed.

[pingu393]

B'stard Child said:

My father pays 40% tax on his income (mostly pension and a small amount of earnings as he's still working at 80)

I know the post was four pages ago (I'm catching up slowly ) and about a slightly different subject, but could the 40% tax threshold not be used as the cut-off for the Winter Fuel Allowance?

It would be very easy to administer if it were.

[PurpleMoonlight]

pingu393 said:

I know the post was four pages ago (I'm catching up slowly ) and about a slightly different subject, but could the 40% tax threshold not be used as the cut-off for the Winter Fuel Allowance?

It would be very easy to administer if it were.

Of course, but you can rest assured that the Government will devise some plan that is complicated and unfair instead like Child Benefit withdrawal.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Monday 29th May 14:00

[AmitG]

I'm very interested to see what happens with the young people's vote. Every election there is the usual refrain about how young people protest a lot but don't turn out on the day. Will it be different this time?

Are there sufficient numbers of young people of voting age to swing it for Corbyn, or at least make a meaningful difference to the result? Or is it irrelevant compared to the other age groups?