You would think political gravity will pull back some of the extreme poll results. I mean, that narrowing will occur, partly because some will realise they don't like Starmer, and some non-voting Tories will recant. But maybe not! I'm not sure that a Labour govt with 500 MPs would be good.
The extrapolation from that to a prediction of number of MPs for each party is an extreme outlier, and that probably reflects how that's extrapolated from the poll data rather than the poll itself.
I suspect the seat prediction is accurate to the polling. FPTP can be very distorting at the extremes. The best example IMV, is 1945 when the Conservatives won an overall majority with fewer votes than Labour.
The particular factor here is that Reform are potentially splitting the right of centre vote more than ever before on a background of collapsing Tory support.
FPTP only works at all because vote share is not evenly distributed. If it was, then the party with the most votes would win ALL the seats.
If we look at these numbers:
Lab 48%, Con 18%, Reform 13%, Lib Dem 9%.
What that means in relatively safe seats is this kind of pattern:
The Uniform Swing model with this swing (mostly driven by Con collapse) means this happens in lots and lots of seats.
Relatively safe Conservative becomes Labour marginal.
Historically, this model has been reliable.
Two caveats: 1. I think this poll exaggerates the situation and we shall see.
2. This goes in the other direction. In big change elections (like '97) because of tactical voting and voter enthusiasm with "getting rid of..." the seat change is often greater.
This is why I think the Tories will be very, very nervous about this one, even as they dismiss it as a likely outlier...
I do not believe this poll for one minute. I do suspect that a lot of people will be voting Labour and LibDem just because they are currently anti Conservative
I think it probably reflects how people currently feel. I'm sceptical that people will feel the same after a 6 week campaign.
If Rishi is appearing on the debates or taking any lead in the campaign then you might as well give the keys to No 10 to Starmer now. He is awful at campaigning and cannot hold his own in debates. He had no real political acumen. If they have any idea at all the campaign organisers will only allow him minimal input.
I'm not suggesting he'll convince more people to vote tory, just that a lot of people are going to be deeply unenthused by Starmer, and he will inevitably be subject to some dirty tricks that so far he's largely avoided, so I'm expecting very low turnout. Plus a fair number of people who say they won't vote tory will vote for a "good local MP" who happens to be a tory.
Plus a fair number of people who say they won't vote tory will vote for a "good local MP" who happens to be a tory.
Yes that happens in all parties. I have done that myself - voted for my Labour MP who I admired when I didnt like what was going on in the broader party.
Sure, but the effect is going to be more pronounced for the party on the receiving end of a drubbing, as a lot of longstanding MPs will be under threat.
In every election these past 2 or 3 years there have been anti government protest votes.
It has been obvious to me for a long time that Labour will win the election. It's my opinion that, come the election, traditional Conservative voters will decide that the time for protest is over. They will turn out to vote Conservative in what have traditionally been safe Conservative seats. They will win well over 100 seats
I do not believe this poll for one minute. I do suspect that a lot of people will be voting Labour and LibDem just because they are currently anti Conservative
I think it probably reflects how people currently feel. I'm sceptical that people will feel the same after a 6 week campaign.
If Rishi is appearing on the debates or taking any lead in the campaign then you might as well give the keys to No 10 to Starmer now. He is awful at campaigning and cannot hold his own in debates. He had no real political acumen. If they have any idea at all the campaign organisers will only allow him minimal input.
I'm not suggesting he'll convince more people to vote tory, just that a lot of people are going to be deeply unenthused by Starmer, and he will inevitably be subject to some dirty tricks that so far he's largely avoided, so I'm expecting very low turnout. Plus a fair number of people who say they won't vote tory will vote for a "good local MP" who happens to be a tory.
Plus a fair number of people who say they won't vote tory will vote for a "good local MP" who happens to be a tory.
Yes that happens in all parties. I have done that myself - voted for my Labour MP who I admired when I didnt like what was going on in the broader party.
Sure, but the effect is going to be more pronounced for the party on the receiving end of a drubbing, as a lot of longstanding MPs will be under threat.
A large number of sitting Tory MPs are not running. I don't think the incumbent effect is particularly big in Westminster elections (I know it's a measurable few % in congress) but even that small advantage is not there for many Tory seats...
I do not believe this poll for one minute. I do suspect that a lot of people will be voting Labour and LibDem just because they are currently anti Conservative
I think it probably reflects how people currently feel. I'm sceptical that people will feel the same after a 6 week campaign.
If Rishi is appearing on the debates or taking any lead in the campaign then you might as well give the keys to No 10 to Starmer now. He is awful at campaigning and cannot hold his own in debates. He had no real political acumen. If they have any idea at all the campaign organisers will only allow him minimal input.
I'm not suggesting he'll convince more people to vote tory, just that a lot of people are going to be deeply unenthused by Starmer, and he will inevitably be subject to some dirty tricks that so far he's largely avoided, so I'm expecting very low turnout. Plus a fair number of people who say they won't vote tory will vote for a "good local MP" who happens to be a tory.
Plus a fair number of people who say they won't vote tory will vote for a "good local MP" who happens to be a tory.
Yes that happens in all parties. I have done that myself - voted for my Labour MP who I admired when I didnt like what was going on in the broader party.
Sure, but the effect is going to be more pronounced for the party on the receiving end of a drubbing, as a lot of longstanding MPs will be under threat.
A large number of sitting Tory MPs are not running. I don't think the incumbent effect is particularly big in Westminster elections (I know it's a measurable few % in congress) but even that small advantage is not there for many Tory seats...
Not a big effect, but it’s still there. In 1992 I was in a marginal constituency. It was Labour’s No 1 target seat in London and, I think, 12th in the country. The sitting Tory MP who had been in post since 1974 was planning to retire in 92, but the local party persuaded him to fight one more election as they realised that having a familiar face/name was their last ditch attempt at holding the seat. He still lost though.
I do not believe this poll for one minute. I do suspect that a lot of people will be voting Labour and LibDem just because they are currently anti Conservative
I think it probably reflects how people currently feel. I'm sceptical that people will feel the same after a 6 week campaign.
If Rishi is appearing on the debates or taking any lead in the campaign then you might as well give the keys to No 10 to Starmer now. He is awful at campaigning and cannot hold his own in debates. He had no real political acumen. If they have any idea at all the campaign organisers will only allow him minimal input.
I'm not suggesting he'll convince more people to vote tory, just that a lot of people are going to be deeply unenthused by Starmer, and he will inevitably be subject to some dirty tricks that so far he's largely avoided, so I'm expecting very low turnout. Plus a fair number of people who say they won't vote tory will vote for a "good local MP" who happens to be a tory.
Plus a fair number of people who say they won't vote tory will vote for a "good local MP" who happens to be a tory.
Yes that happens in all parties. I have done that myself - voted for my Labour MP who I admired when I didnt like what was going on in the broader party.
Sure, but the effect is going to be more pronounced for the party on the receiving end of a drubbing, as a lot of longstanding MPs will be under threat.
A large number of sitting Tory MPs are not running. I don't think the incumbent effect is particularly big in Westminster elections (I know it's a measurable few % in congress) but even that small advantage is not there for many Tory seats...
Not a big effect, but it’s still there. In 1992 I was in a marginal constituency. It was Labour’s No 1 target seat in London and, I think, 12th in the country. The sitting Tory MP who had been in post since 1974 was planning to retire in 92, but the local party persuaded him to fight one more election as they realised that having a familiar face/name was their last ditch attempt at holding the seat. He still lost though.
Which is actually quite impressive in the context of an election the Tories unexpectedly won
In every election these past 2 or 3 years there have been anti government protest votes.
That has happened in every election since elections have existed.
But not all have been against the government of the day. In Uxbridge and South Ruislip the protest was against the mayor of London
It's quite something that Starmer's own messaging managed to turn a near miss at gaining a fairly safe seat from the tories into a protest against his own party for a policy on which the tory government insisted.
I do not believe this poll for one minute. I do suspect that a lot of people will be voting Labour and LibDem just because they are currently anti Conservative
I think it probably reflects how people currently feel. I'm sceptical that people will feel the same after a 6 week campaign.
If Rishi is appearing on the debates or taking any lead in the campaign then you might as well give the keys to No 10 to Starmer now. He is awful at campaigning and cannot hold his own in debates. He had no real political acumen. If they have any idea at all the campaign organisers will only allow him minimal input.
I'm not suggesting he'll convince more people to vote tory, just that a lot of people are going to be deeply unenthused by Starmer, and he will inevitably be subject to some dirty tricks that so far he's largely avoided, so I'm expecting very low turnout. Plus a fair number of people who say they won't vote tory will vote for a "good local MP" who happens to be a tory.
Plus a fair number of people who say they won't vote tory will vote for a "good local MP" who happens to be a tory.
Yes that happens in all parties. I have done that myself - voted for my Labour MP who I admired when I didnt like what was going on in the broader party.
Sure, but the effect is going to be more pronounced for the party on the receiving end of a drubbing, as a lot of longstanding MPs will be under threat.
A large number of sitting Tory MPs are not running. I don't think the incumbent effect is particularly big in Westminster elections (I know it's a measurable few % in congress) but even that small advantage is not there for many Tory seats...
Not a big effect, but it’s still there. In 1992 I was in a marginal constituency. It was Labour’s No 1 target seat in London and, I think, 12th in the country. The sitting Tory MP who had been in post since 1974 was planning to retire in 92, but the local party persuaded him to fight one more election as they realised that having a familiar face/name was their last ditch attempt at holding the seat. He still lost though.
Which is actually quite impressive in the context of an election the Tories unexpectedly won
FPTP only works at all because vote share is not evenly distributed.
That’s also its greatest strength, especially in the context of the UK. It’s what enables Plaid Cymru and the SNP to punch well above their weight, and therefore make sure that purely Welsh and Scottish issues stay reasonably important. With pure PR, both parties would be less relevant to the governance of the country than Reform.
FPTP only works at all because vote share is not evenly distributed.
That’s also its greatest strength, especially in the context of the UK. It’s what enables Plaid Cymru and the SNP to punch well above their weight, and therefore make sure that purely Welsh and Scottish issues stay reasonably important. With pure PR, both parties would be less relevant to the governance of the country than Reform.
True indeed.
For what it's worth, I favour multi-seat constituencies, with effectively local PR. It would ensure a proportionate outcome, maintain constituency work (i.e. you would have a number of MPs you could choose to write to) and it would still allow regional parties to do well and independent MPs to get elected.
I may start a thread on it, when I get the time, but I am envisaging combining 18-20 Westminster seats into one. (Scotland would be three constituencies and on current polling Labour and the SNP would get around 20 MPs each across those three).
I'm not sure if there's been any serious suggestion to introduce a pure PR system across the entire country, I've only ever seen suggestions for PR within regions of the nation - with variations of different size of those regions.
That’s also its greatest strength, especially in the context of the UK. It’s what enables Plaid Cymru and the SNP to punch well above their weight, and therefore make sure that purely Welsh and Scottish issues stay reasonably important. With pure PR, both parties would be less relevant to the governance of the country than Reform.
Sorry, but unless one chooses a very odd system of PR, that's nonsense. If one chooses the system they have in Ireland, with medium sized multi-member constituencies, that will give you a fair result.
Besides, the disproportionate size of the present SNP phalanx in Westminster in the current Parliament is one of the strongest arguments against FPTP, far more of a corrupt abuse distortion of representation even than the majority the last general election gave to the Conservatives.
FPTP only works at all because vote share is not evenly distributed.
That’s also its greatest strength, especially in the context of the UK. It’s what enables Plaid Cymru and the SNP to punch well above their weight, and therefore make sure that purely Welsh and Scottish issues stay reasonably important. With pure PR, both parties would be less relevant to the governance of the country than Reform.
True indeed.
For what it's worth, I favour multi-seat constituencies, with effectively local PR. It would ensure a proportionate outcome, maintain constituency work (i.e. you would have a number of MPs you could choose to write to) and it would still allow regional parties to do well and independent MPs to get elected.
I may start a thread on it, when I get the time, but I am envisaging combining 18-20 Westminster seats into one. (Scotland would be three constituencies and on current polling Labour and the SNP would get around 20 MPs each across those three).
AFZ
One advantage of mult-seat constituencies would be to help constituents be better represented when some of their MPs would not hold cabinet or ministerial positions
I suppose one should mention here that last year's redrawing of the constituency boundaries eliminated the significant excess of Welsh seats at Westminster (and modest excess of Scottish seats). At the next election, Wales and Scotland will be represented at Westminster in proportion to their electorate.
I wonder what would happen if you defined constituencies purely algorithmically. I'm imagining an algorithm that clusters locations based on how often people from one location travel to another location. It might have interesting consequences in commuter land.
Besides, the disproportionate size of the present SNP phalanx in Westminster in the current Parliament is one of the strongest arguments against FPTP, far more of a corrupt abuse distortion of representation even than the majority the last general election gave to the Conservatives.
Giving an absolute and near insurmountable majority based on a minority of the vote is surely the most corrupt aspect of FPTP, given that it has practical effects on the governance of the country.
Where there is a minority government, disproportionate representation of smaller parties gives them excessive influence as well.
And how often has that happened under FPTP? When we've had a hung parliament most recently a bung to the DUP was sufficient for everything except Brexit. Prior to that ministerial cars and chummy photo ops was enough for the lib dems to roll over and give Cameron what he wanted. The last time the govt was without a majority was in the latter days of Major, when Trimble agreed to prop him up.
Quite comic that Tories are accusing the new Labour MP Natalie Elphicke, of lobbying for her husband, later banged up for sex offences. But hang on, this was 4 years ago, wasn't it? Ah, yah, but Elphicke was Tory then, you see, so twas OK.
The extrapolation from that to a prediction of number of MPs for each party is an extreme outlier, and that probably reflects how that's extrapolated from the poll data rather than the poll itself.
I suspect the seat prediction is accurate to the polling. FPTP can be very distorting at the extremes. The best example IMV, is 1945 when the Conservatives won an overall majority with fewer votes than Labour.
You mean the Conservatives won a majority of the seats in 1945? If so, how did Attlee end up as PM?
No, I think it's the 1951 election that @alienfromzog is thinking of, when Labour lost narrowly to the tories, despite having the largest number of votes overall.
Quite comic that Tories are accusing the new Labour MP Natalie Elphicke, of lobbying for her husband, later banged up for sex offences. But hang on, this was 4 years ago, wasn't it? Ah, yah, but Elphicke was Tory then, you see, so twas OK.
I suspect that Starmer will actually be quite glad to see the back of Egregious Elphicke, come the GE...
The extrapolation from that to a prediction of number of MPs for each party is an extreme outlier, and that probably reflects how that's extrapolated from the poll data rather than the poll itself.
I suspect the seat prediction is accurate to the polling. FPTP can be very distorting at the extremes. The best example IMV, is 1945 when the Conservatives won an overall majority with fewer votes than Labour.
You mean the Conservatives won a majority of the seats in 1945? If so, how did Attlee end up as PM?
Sorry 1951... D'oh! Stupid brain, I knew I was gonna do that...
Quite comic that Tories are accusing the new Labour MP Natalie Elphicke, of lobbying for her husband, later banged up for sex offences. But hang on, this was 4 years ago, wasn't it? Ah, yah, but Elphicke was Tory then, you see, so twas OK.
I think you’re missing the point - they’ve accepted they’re going to lose and there’s nothing they can do about it.
This is a warning to the Labour Party and people on the Tory benches that if they cross the floor then the whips’ little black book will be publicly opened.
Labour, having a little black book of their own, will almost certainly take the hint. Wavering back benchers who knows? Depends what they think the Whips’ Office might know about them I guess…
Because, if your party leadership can't convince their MPs to vote as instructed by the strength of the arguments they can present for that position then the next resort is blackmail.
Because, if your party leadership can't convince their MPs to vote as instructed by the strength of the arguments they can present for that position then the next resort is blackmail.
To be fair, there's a fair amount of leaning of the "you do want to develop your parliamentary career within the party, don't you?" type in between the two.
But, fundamentally no different from the business model of "if you want to get promoted do what you're told and follow the rules". Which isn't really the same as "we've a list of things you won't want others to know about, do what we say or they get leaked to the media".
Oh, the purpose of the whips office is to know something about everyone.
Am I the only one who heard that in my head in the voice of Sir Humphrey from Yes Minister?
No, it's definitely an echo of Sir Humphrey...
Meanwhile, Scumak and his evil tory criminal bastards are determined to wreak as much cruelty on refugees as they can, with no concern for what the law (or common humanity) might say:
The ever loathsome Greasy Smug has just been on Radio 4 openly and explicitly advocating to invite Reform into the Tory party and regain lost ground specifically by targetting Reform voters.
God save us from such a fate, now or in the future.
The ever loathsome Greasy Smug has just been on Radio 4 openly and explicitly advocating to invite Reform into the Tory party and regain lost ground specifically by targetting Reform voters.
God save us from such a fate, now or in the future.
Poor old Wishi-Washi.
With *friends* like Greasy Smug The Ever Loathsome (pure spawn of Azathoth that he is), who needs enemies?
The ever loathsome Greasy Smug has just been on Radio 4 openly and explicitly advocating to invite Reform into the Tory party and regain lost ground specifically by targetting Reform voters.
God save us from such a fate, now or in the future.
Sir Jacob's plan would be for Conservatives to stand down in seats that Reform could win and for Reform to stand down in seats that the Conservatives could win
The ever loathsome Greasy Smug has just been on Radio 4 openly and explicitly advocating to invite Reform into the Tory party and regain lost ground specifically by targetting Reform voters.
God save us from such a fate, now or in the future.
Sir Jacob's plan would be for Conservatives to stand down in seats that Reform could win and for Reform to stand down in seats that the Conservatives could win
That sort of pre-election pact tends to go down poorly with voters (there would be people who would vote Conservative but not Reform and vice versa who would be disenfranchised) and also the Electoral Commission - not so relevant in the FPTP system, but if that sort of pact was suggested for the Scottish Parliament elections then the Electoral Commission would treat the Conservatives+Reform as a single party.
Why would Rees-Mogg think highly of an Old Etonian who plays at being posh and whose apparently boundless self-confidence meant he kept failing upwards?
Comments
I suspect the seat prediction is accurate to the polling. FPTP can be very distorting at the extremes. The best example IMV, is 1945 when the Conservatives won an overall majority with fewer votes than Labour.
The particular factor here is that Reform are potentially splitting the right of centre vote more than ever before on a background of collapsing Tory support.
FPTP only works at all because vote share is not evenly distributed. If it was, then the party with the most votes would win ALL the seats.
If we look at these numbers:
Lab 48%, Con 18%, Reform 13%, Lib Dem 9%.
What that means in relatively safe seats is this kind of pattern:
Con 28,000 -> 18,000 (-10k)
Lab 14,000 -> 19,000 (+5k)
Ref 4,000 -> 9,000 (+5k)
You get the idea.
The Uniform Swing model with this swing (mostly driven by Con collapse) means this happens in lots and lots of seats.
Relatively safe Conservative becomes Labour marginal.
Historically, this model has been reliable.
Two caveats: 1. I think this poll exaggerates the situation and we shall see.
2. This goes in the other direction. In big change elections (like '97) because of tactical voting and voter enthusiasm with "getting rid of..." the seat change is often greater.
This is why I think the Tories will be very, very nervous about this one, even as they dismiss it as a likely outlier...
AFZ
Sure, but the effect is going to be more pronounced for the party on the receiving end of a drubbing, as a lot of longstanding MPs will be under threat.
It has been obvious to me for a long time that Labour will win the election. It's my opinion that, come the election, traditional Conservative voters will decide that the time for protest is over. They will turn out to vote Conservative in what have traditionally been safe Conservative seats. They will win well over 100 seats
A large number of sitting Tory MPs are not running. I don't think the incumbent effect is particularly big in Westminster elections (I know it's a measurable few % in congress) but even that small advantage is not there for many Tory seats...
That has happened in every election since elections have existed.
Not a big effect, but it’s still there. In 1992 I was in a marginal constituency. It was Labour’s No 1 target seat in London and, I think, 12th in the country. The sitting Tory MP who had been in post since 1974 was planning to retire in 92, but the local party persuaded him to fight one more election as they realised that having a familiar face/name was their last ditch attempt at holding the seat. He still lost though.
Which is actually quite impressive in the context of an election the Tories unexpectedly won
Which means he never really got the apprenticeship most politicians get in working for a seat. Which is one reason why he struggles campaigning now.
But not all have been against the government of the day. In Uxbridge and South Ruislip the protest was against the mayor of London
It's quite something that Starmer's own messaging managed to turn a near miss at gaining a fairly safe seat from the tories into a protest against his own party for a policy on which the tory government insisted.
One of the big highlights of the night
That’s also its greatest strength, especially in the context of the UK. It’s what enables Plaid Cymru and the SNP to punch well above their weight, and therefore make sure that purely Welsh and Scottish issues stay reasonably important. With pure PR, both parties would be less relevant to the governance of the country than Reform.
True indeed.
For what it's worth, I favour multi-seat constituencies, with effectively local PR. It would ensure a proportionate outcome, maintain constituency work (i.e. you would have a number of MPs you could choose to write to) and it would still allow regional parties to do well and independent MPs to get elected.
I may start a thread on it, when I get the time, but I am envisaging combining 18-20 Westminster seats into one. (Scotland would be three constituencies and on current polling Labour and the SNP would get around 20 MPs each across those three).
AFZ
Besides, the disproportionate size of the present SNP phalanx in Westminster in the current Parliament is one of the strongest arguments against FPTP, far more of a corrupt abuse distortion of representation even than the majority the last general election gave to the Conservatives.
One advantage of mult-seat constituencies would be to help constituents be better represented when some of their MPs would not hold cabinet or ministerial positions
I wonder what would happen if you defined constituencies purely algorithmically. I'm imagining an algorithm that clusters locations based on how often people from one location travel to another location. It might have interesting consequences in commuter land.
Giving an absolute and near insurmountable majority based on a minority of the vote is surely the most corrupt aspect of FPTP, given that it has practical effects on the governance of the country.
And how often has that happened under FPTP? When we've had a hung parliament most recently a bung to the DUP was sufficient for everything except Brexit. Prior to that ministerial cars and chummy photo ops was enough for the lib dems to roll over and give Cameron what he wanted. The last time the govt was without a majority was in the latter days of Major, when Trimble agreed to prop him up.
You mean the Conservatives won a majority of the seats in 1945? If so, how did Attlee end up as PM?
Come back, Clem - England needs you...
I suspect that Starmer will actually be quite glad to see the back of Egregious Elphicke, come the GE...
A most unappealing couple, Nat n'Chuck.
Sorry 1951... D'oh! Stupid brain, I knew I was gonna do that...
My bad.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_United_Kingdom_general_election
I think you’re missing the point - they’ve accepted they’re going to lose and there’s nothing they can do about it.
This is a warning to the Labour Party and people on the Tory benches that if they cross the floor then the whips’ little black book will be publicly opened.
Labour, having a little black book of their own, will almost certainly take the hint. Wavering back benchers who knows? Depends what they think the Whips’ Office might know about them I guess…
To be fair, there's a fair amount of leaning of the "you do want to develop your parliamentary career within the party, don't you?" type in between the two.
Am I the only one who heard that in my head in the voice of Sir Humphrey from Yes Minister?
No, it's definitely an echo of Sir Humphrey...
Meanwhile, Scumak and his evil tory criminal bastards are determined to wreak as much cruelty on refugees as they can, with no concern for what the law (or common humanity) might say:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/13/rwanda-deportation-law-should-not-apply-in-northern-ireland-court-rules
God save us from such a fate, now or in the future.
Poor old Wishi-Washi.
With *friends* like Greasy Smug The Ever Loathsome (pure spawn of Azathoth that he is), who needs enemies?
Sir Jacob's plan would be for Conservatives to stand down in seats that Reform could win and for Reform to stand down in seats that the Conservatives could win
Sid & Doris Bonkers would no doubt vote Deform, if the Self-Servatives stood down in Bonkers Town.
His only talent is to sound "reasonable" and "considered" with his fucking stupid posho accent.
He might have a talent as a coat stand if he shut up.
That’s pushing it a bit. A coat stand is something useful.