UKC

Interesting prediction on current polling here

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

No overall control and LDs without enough for a collation to get OC. Chaos? New election? NatsNI parties being grown up enough to join in properly?

The biggest source of error is the UKIP effect. Politically they're right wing, but their greatest source of voters are the 'working class' group that traditionally would have been considered labour.

So, if they sit quiet they'll get the anti EU lot, if they are more vocal they will be seen fit the right wing party they are.

In reply to MG:

What a lot of these predictors are failing to factor in - due to it being very different to what has happened historically, and they normally try to extrapolate changes from historical data - is the complete collapse of Labour in Scotland. [I don't know how Electoral Calculus works.]

Because of that I reckon it will be a Tory majority, Tory-led coalition or minority government. But fundamentally blue.

In reply to climbwhenready:

They were predicting 50 Nat seats- a lot more than currently.

In reply to climbwhenready:

If you choose the option to make your own prediction you can see how their formula works. They only factor Con to Lib, Lab to Lib, Lib to Lab and then a UKIP scaling factor - which is how they put UKIP at 17% of the vote and no seats. That means UKIP losing 1 seat from now.

If I had the time to download the data, I'd partially reverse the Con>Lib and Lab->Lib for 2010, then put in swings Con->UKIP and Lab->UKIP, the latter being greater.

Take for example Barking. ElectoralCalculus gives 99% of Labour win.
But dig into the numbers. Last year the BNP came third. If the BNP + UKIP from 2010 vote UKIP they would not need a large Lab->UKIP and Con->UKIP swing to put UKIP to win, about 20% Con>UKIP and 35% Lab->UKIP would do it. And from the Clacton by-election those are not extremes.

One factor that is difficult to predict is where will the Lib Dem votes go. Who does a liberal (small l) vote for if you don't trust the LD.

In reply to climbwhenready:


Doubt it, the London borough and northern cities are still providing Labour with enough seats.
Personally I'd bet on a Labour minority government, and IMHO, that would be the best thing since sliced bread, as this will force them to adopt pragmatic centre-left policies instead of the usual political posturing.

In reply to Philip:

Do you think? In the recent Heywood & Middleton by-election. The Labour vote held up and the Tory and Liberal vote collapsed. With UKIP benefiting from a tactical switch from the Tories and the BNP not fielding a candidate.

In reply to Philip:


Damn, I was hoping you were going to tell me that.

In reply to The New NickB:


The Cons, Lab and Libdems all "lost" roughly 8,000 votes so the Lab vote didn't "hold up". UKIP gained about 9,000.
I have found no evidence of where the UKIP votes "came" from. Have you? I suspect that they were Tory votes more than Labour votes (despite the media slant to the opposite) but am only guessing.

In reply to Philip:


This is myth and UKIP wishful thinking. A narrative pushed by the press which people are accepting without question.

In reply to The New NickB:


I think you're looking at the % not the votes. The Lab % held up on a massive decrease in turnout. What you have to decide is who didn't turn out? LD+Lab voters in 2014 were only 45% of LD+Lab in 2010.

For UKIP to have only gained the BNP and Con losses, that would mean all 16000 missing voters were LD and Labour. That would be 85% of LDs not voting and 50% of Labour. Is it really credible that in a Labour stronghold, with a threat of UKIP only half their supporters turned out. That would be on a par with some of the worst turnout records for the total voters.

The two extremes are:
1. Labour voters are not voting, other are
2. Labour voters are voting UKIP, turnout is generally low

I think the assumption is (1) but the reality nearer (2). The mistake that some are making is that assuming UKIP will only gain from Conservatives. If that were true, it would split the vote and Labour would win a lot of marginal seats. With (2) the effect is lessened, and UKIP will win seats. I think instead of a Labour victory, we'll get a Labour minority, with the danger than a Conservative + UKIP coalition might be larger. A labour+SNP coalition might be the only alternative.

Either way, neither sound comforting.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Nick is talking percentages, which while not ideal is a lot better than the figures you are giving in isolation. Obviously his assumption is the non-voters were proportional in who they might have voted for....... if there is deviation from this it is probably in Labour's favour, Labour get their loyal vote out in GEs.

In reply to MG:


Just what, exactly, does being 'grown up' entail - giving up on independence and accepting Westminster rule for ever? That would be a pretty stupid thing for the SNP to do with > 50% of the vote in Scotland, opinion polls now showing that if there was another referendum > 50% of people would vote yes and that >45% of people want another referendum within 10 years. On present trends the SNP will get independence and with 50 MPs they could easily have the balance of power in Westminster and massive leverage to get concessions which will smooth the path to the next referendum.

If I was the SNP I'd demand an automatic right to call an independence referendum if a Scottish Government is elected with that in its manifesto and regulation of the BBC and media being devolved to Holyrood so next time the media can't afford to be so openly unionist.

In reply to Philip:



Yes.

The other big flaw is your assumption that former LD voters won't vote UKIP. That may makes sense it terms of policy, but many of these will be 3rd part/ptotest voters. They are looking for an alternative but will be quite fickle about what that alternative is.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The percentage of vote increased on a lower turn out. This is holding up.

We were surprised it help up as well as it did considering the very specific set of local issues.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:



>Damn, I was hoping you were going to tell me that.

I'll tell you - or make a polite suggestion anyway. You stick with the Lib Dems. You accept that the Lib Dems (who admittedly of all parties should have known better) ignored the facts of coalition politics when they made their tuition fees pledge, and you, grudgingly, let them off that hook. I can't see any other reason for not trusting them, unless you couldn't trust anyone prepared to enter a coalition with the Tories, in which case I don't think the Lib Dems were ever for you. If you're a true "liberal" or if you regard staying in the EU as really important, then the Lib Dems deserve your support.

Martin

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Ooh I don't know . Maybe stuff like getting beyond a myopic, what can we get for ourselves now viewpoint, trying to help govern the UK as a whole, recognising they lost the referendum rather than pretending it didn't happen, not turning everything into a England (sorry, Westminster) Scotland fight. That sort of thing.

Well it's not a "big" flaw. It reinforces the argument that UKIP will gain non Conservative votes. Where 2010 LD votes will go is an unknown, but it's unlikely they will all go en masse to one party, and so I don't think it makes much difference to the likelihood of any of the potential outcomes.

In reply to The New NickB:

No it's not. If I draw a game of football 5-5 one week and 1-1 the next week my goal scoring didn't "hold up".

Regardless of the terminology, unless one can identify how peoples' voting patterns actually changed any analysis is pretty meaningless either in actual or percentage terms. Even then, given the collapse in the turnout, and given that this will probably be at least partly reversed at a general election, any analysis is going to be very speculative.

Think of it this way, if all UKIP's votes came from ex Labour voters then Labour's vote not only didn't "hold up",, they are in big trouble. If all UKIP's votes came from ex Tory voters and Labour voters just didn't bother because it was a bye -election then Labour's vote didn't "hold up" but it is the Tories who are buggered.

In reply to MG:

Perhaps not descending to playground jibes but I fear that might be too much to ask:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29895593

(admittedly DUP in this case but they're as bad as each other)

In reply to Philip:


Fine, that was not your earlier claim.

I am from the area, so if you are intrested can give my slant. There has always been a large minority of working class tories/rightwingers in the north, but fPTP has given most seats to labour. The majority of working class right wingers in the north will switch to UKIP.

Anecdotal , I know, but if you consider that both of UKIPs real attempts at Westminster seats are formers Tory constituencies, you start to see a picture.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The feedback locally is that the Labour campaign was lacklustre, the local party is being sanctioned, lots of infighting, candidate was parachuted in, half the councillors didn't do any campaigning for her.

They still increased their share of the vote on a low turnout. UKIP had a huge campaign, targeted issues around Asian gangs and teenage sexual exploitation, loads of local campaigning. Tories and Lib Dems barely bothered at all, BNP didn't even have a candidate and they got 3200+ votes in 2010.

Sure they picked up some ex Labour voters, but the facts really do not support the suggestion that this is very significant.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


I've just scrolled up, and yes it was. My point is, you cannot model 2015 by taking 2010 and assuming UKIP will split the Con vote and LD will vote Lab.

In reply to Philip:
This is what you wrote

"Politically they're right wing, but their greatest source of voters are the 'working class' group that traditionally would have been considered labour."

and that is what I was replying too........ did I misinterpret you?

In reply to The New NickB:



The Reckless vote will be more telling. Look at the pre-2010 figures, quite a lot of movement over the years. If Labour are not suffering from protest as they were in 2010 they should romp home.

In reply to The New NickB:


Well, what I'm after is some "facts" e.g.. a local poll. The media is painting the result as an indicator that Labour's strongholds are under threat from UKIP. I am sceptical about that but nobody seems to have any "facts' or decent evidence either way.

In reply to MG:


People vote for them because they want them to focus on Scotland rather than the UK. They may have lost the referendum but their membership is 3x what it was, they are headed for 5x as many MPs and the polls are showing more than 50% of people would vote Yes if there was another referendum tomorrow. The 'grown up' thing to do when you get that kind of approval from the electorate is to keep going.

In reply to Mike Stretford:




Possibly. How do you think that above is not consistent with "UKIP will gain non Conservative votes"?
I think my argument is self consistent, although I accept you disagree about Labour voters.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm not aware of any polls, so we will have to deal with the known facts. Which I have stated. Then ask does this support the media view.

In reply to The New NickB:


It could do, yes, as I outlined previously.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Not really, but I am going to struggle to convince you I think. Especially with the limited words I have time for on my phone.

In reply to The New NickB:


There simply isn't enough data to draw any reliable conclusions. That Labour's share of a hugely reduced turnout held up certainly undermines the media slant but other interpretations are equally valid, or invalid.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Much more information that that. Some of which I have conveyed. I have to admit some of my view comes from my knowledge of the constituency (I live and work in it) and knowing which polling stations were particularly quiet etc.

In reply to The New NickB:


Well, as I've intimated, I suspect you are right!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If the SNP had 50 seats in a coalition government you would have an opportunity to create the kind of left leaning progressive government that the SNP aspire to. But the only concessions you have listed for your negotiations are for greater independence. Would the SNP really reject the chance to shape the UK and just focus on their nationalist aims?

I think this poll does show one major advantage of holding the referendum on 2014. The SNP will hold on to a vast number of yes voters who have never previously voted for them.

In reply to The New NickB:
I think you are right. I saw various models based on reducing votes in or out of proportion for the parties in the last election (Lab, Con, Lib and a big BMP rump then UKIP) and since some Lab votes certainly went to UKIP (enough votors said so on the TV reports) the overall Lab vote must have held up pretty well to make the math work. That most ex-Lib and ex-Lab must have voted Green helps this view. (unless of course some ex-Cons voted Lab this time to keep UKIP out... couldn't resist the pun btw ..

People can play with the numbers themselves (link below)... the main shifts were obviously Con to UKIP and BMC to UKIP but a very significant % Lab to UKIP swing, wrongly claimed by many commentators, would have have seen a UKIP win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heywood_and_Middleton_by-election,_2014#Result...

In reply to Offwidth:



I have a different conclusion from the same set of numbers. In your analysis, nearly all missing Lab and LD voters just didn't vote, but all the conservatives that voted last time voted again for either Con or UKIP?

Some useful info on UKIP's current supporters. Based on 2010 voting, so perhaps a lot of the LD and some of Con had floated over from Lab in 2005. I also expect that they are gaining more on anti-immigration basis than on from anti-EU bureaucracy. The % of UKIP voters who voted Con in 2010 has dropped from 60% in 2013 to 45% earlier this year.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/02/24/where-ukip-gets-its-support/

In reply to Philip:
It's not illegal to think stupid things. Even something pretty wierd would never come close to justifying such huge differences in turnout. My view from reading what people who knew the area said was more ex labour votors voted than anyone else, some of whom voted UKIP and Green.

In reply to Martin Hore:

>You accept that the Lib Dems (who admittedly of all parties should have known better) ignored the facts of coalition politics when they made their tuition fees pledge, and you, grudgingly, let them off that hook. I can't see any other reason for not trusting them, unless you couldn't trust anyone prepared to enter a coalition with the Tories, in which case I don't think the Lib Dems were ever for you. If you're a true "liberal" or if you regard staying in the EU as really important, then the Lib Dems deserve your support.

That I accept. What I find difficult to accept is the sheer naivety in their dealings with a coalition partner who wanted to act like they had the mandate to end all mandates.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The fact that the SNP are now the flagship party for Devo Max makes it complicated, but I agree they will hold balance of power if simply because some of the No Referendum Voters will vote SNP to maintain pressure to achieve Devo Max. But if Devo Max is then achieved it will ironically be at odds {for some people} as regards independence. Looking purely at the next general election as a one off situation, I think the SNP will hold the balance of power.

In reply to MargieB:


I agree this could well happen and would effectively mean the tories 'english votes for english matters' policy becoming real. Another step on the road for independence for Scotland.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

If that were to be perceived as the path to independence then it would result in another referendum like Quebec and I sort of believe this will be the scenario perhaps exposing satisfaction in Devo Max! or other federal options..

As regards the general election and it's political complexion, no doubt it is for Scotland a continuation of the discussion started at the referendum {what a mistake Cameron made in not having other options!} and I certainly see it as a major issue when I vote,- but England, Wales and Northern Ireland must have differing priorities, and in many ways no one party covers all these issues so it must result in a consensus coalition government musn't it?

In reply to MargieB:

>{what a mistake Cameron made in not having other options!}

Cameron got the result he wanted, didn't he ?

In reply to GrahamD:
On one level he Cameron {originally} believed that the no vote would win- end of story. There was a No vote but it is not h=the end of the story. The no voters are not a homogeneous group as he imagined but have varying degrees of opinion on the constitution. That makes it an ongoing situation but I think Cameron misjudged it and thought that it would "can" it by just having a" two idea" referendum. It is still an ongoing discussion in Scotland and will be expressed now in a general election.