Scrutable

I'm increasingly skeptical of these tactical voting sites. There's been a lot of boundary changes and the presence of Reform means that predicting the future on the basis of the past seems much trickier than normal elections. I don't know how they come up with their suggestions. For my area they're recommending Labour but they have parachuted in a candidate from another county and while they came second last time round, they lost vote share. It would take a miracle to kick out our MP but he's clearly running scared as I've seen more leaflets from him in the last few months than I have in the last 30 years (at least 6 vs 0). I just don't see disaffected Tories switching to Labour, which is what would be needed to end his reign.

atled wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2024 6:16 pm Are you including ex cabinent Ministers, if so add the member for Chingford,Spoiler:

Iain Duncan Smith

.
Survation figures are:

Con 30.3
Lab 57.4
LD 5.0
Green 3.4
other 3.6

Not in the shots stakes, there has been so much churn that ex-cabinet members make up about half the candidates. (unsubstantiated claim disclaimer)

philbo wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2024 6:46 pm

lpm wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2024 2:59 pm

TimW wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2024 2:37 pm Round here: Fareham and Waterlooville / Suella

Braverman is one of those seats forecast to have a tactical voting failure.

Top seats where CON wins thanks to LAB/LD/GRN screwing each other are:

Code: Select all

Constituency	CON	LAB	LD	GRN	REF
					
North Cotswolds	24	24	23	15	13
Honiton & Sidmouth	27	24	23	5	20
North Devon	27	23	24	15	11
Tewkesbury	28	24	24	14	9
Harpenden & Berkhamsted	28	28	21	6	15
Runnymede & Weybridge	29	28	27	6	9
Melksham & Devizes	29	21	22	17	12
Eastleigh	29	24	28	6	12
Sevenoaks	30	22	21	5	21
Tunbridge Wells	30	24	29	0	15
South Cotswolds	30	21	29	7	12
Spelthorne	30	30	23	5	10
Stratford-on-Avon	30	21	29	10	9
Hamble Valley	31	27	22	6	14
Mid Buckinghamshire	31	31	23	4	10
Christchurch	32	26	21	7	14
East Hampshire	32	22	22	5	17
Fareham & Waterlooville	33	24	26	4	11
North East Hampshire	34	24	25	5	11
Maidenhead	36	27	30	6	 -   
Mid Dorset & North Poole	37	23	33	6	 -   
East Grinstead & Uckfield	39	33	20	7	 -   

I'm now in Mid-Bucks, a new seat, currently showing Labour in a strongish second to Greg "utter waste of space" Smith but confused by the 2019 Buckingham result that had a LibDem runner up. Both want to believe they can win, but there's a real worry the split will let him back in

Just for an extra bit of confusion, the Green candidate is also called Greg Smith.

Hello fellow confuddled constituent.

lpm wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2024 7:36 pm

dyqik wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2024 6:49 pm Isn't Tunbridge Wells where the Tory candidate is on tape saying he hates living in Tunbridge Wells?

Jn which case, I wouldn't rely on MRP models. That's one of the exceptions to most voters not caring about political intrigue.

That Tory was kicked out and replaced by another candidate of no doubt equal intellect.

How many people realize that he's been replaced?

The Tories losing Tunbridge Wells would be hilarious.

So is anyone going to be voting for someone because they like them or their party?

I for one am not voting for a whole bunch of people because of who they are or their party. I've only got the Greens left.

monkey wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2024 11:24 pm So is anyone going to be voting for someone because they like them or their party?

I for one am not voting for a whole bunch of people because of who they are or their party. I've only got the Greens left.

I'm in the fortunate position, for once, of voting for a candidate I know and like and actually think would be a good MP. It's highly unlikely he'll get in unfortunately but it does make a nice change.

Recently found out that one of my neighbours is going to be standing in the WA state election in 2025 as the Greens candidate. She's a lovely woman and I really get on well with her, her partner and kids, but she's not going to win.

The Labor candidate won last time with 63.5% of the vote, although the Greens came in 3rd and less than 500 votes behind the Liberals (Australian Tories). And this is only Labor's 13th safest seat in the state! (The 2021 election was a bit of a landslide - Labor hold 53 of 59 seats.)

monkey wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2024 11:24 pm So is anyone going to be voting for someone because they like them or their party?

I for one am not voting for a whole bunch of people because of who they are or their party. I've only got the Greens left.

The Greens are completely unacceptable to me, for their policy of increasing the deaths of women during childbirth.

dyqik wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2024 12:38 am

monkey wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2024 11:24 pm So is anyone going to be voting for someone because they like them or their party?

I for one am not voting for a whole bunch of people because of who they are or their party. I've only got the Greens left.

The Greens are completely unacceptable to me, for their policy of increasing the deaths of women during childbirth.

I thought they backtracked on that.

But, yeah, that sort of thing is why I've always thought their hearts are in the right place, but not always their heads. Their policies too often go with sounds nice, rather than sensible. But they often have stuff I do like with that.

Not looked at them in enough detail this time round though, so they haven't got my vote yet.

I can't seem to find out whether that policy was ever anything to do with the Scottish Greens. It doesn't seem to have been but as the page has been taken down it's hard to tell.

This isn't really the policy I want to be making this argument about and I'm very glad it's being reviewed. If it had been any other more successful party I think there would have been even more outrage as there should have been, Jesus. As if there isn't already enough of a history of women battling to have agency over our own health.

In more general terms, there is sometimes a part of me that feels that bad policies that are somewhat erm 'original' or go against the status quo attract more attention and become more of a point of principle than those that don't. Possibly something of a utilitarian perspective that and, as I say, I'm really not out to defend that particular policy (honestly come across enough situations where women have requested caesareans and been refused as it is, with potentially tragic results). Plus that particular policy is arguably an indicator of a more general position regarding science and healthcare. But it's something that plays on my mind a bit in terms of what people will accept, particularly when the consequences of some policies are less directly observable.

This isn't directed at anyone or anything in particular by the way.

Martin_B wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2024 12:19 am Recently found out that one of my neighbours is going to be standing in the WA state election in 2025 as the Greens candidate. She's a lovely woman and I really get on well with her, her partner and kids, but she's not going to win.

The Labor candidate won last time with 63.5% of the vote, although the Greens came in 3rd and less than 500 votes behind the Liberals (Australian Tories). And this is only Labor's 13th safest seat in the state! (The 2021 election was a bit of a landslide - Labor hold 53 of 59 seats.)

At least you have preferential voting, so you can put her first “to send a message” and Labor second and not have to deal with second guessing who to tactically vote for to keep the Liberals out.

Fishnut wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2024 7:54 pm I'm increasingly skeptical of these tactical voting sites. There's been a lot of boundary changes and the presence of Reform means that predicting the future on the basis of the past seems much trickier than normal elections. I don't know how they come up with their suggestions. For my area they're recommending Labour but they have parachuted in a candidate from another county and while they came second last time round, they lost vote share. It would take a miracle to kick out our MP but he's clearly running scared as I've seen more leaflets from him in the last few months than I have in the last 30 years (at least 6 vs 0). I just don't see disaffected Tories switching to Labour, which is what would be needed to end his reign.

Yup

From personal experience in Dad's old constituency, I know a fair number of fairly affluent retirees who have voted Tory all their lives and who are very annoyed at them - especially the sewage discharges as they are what I call the National Trust/David Attenborough Tories. I cannot imagine them voting Labour, but the Lib Dems are a lot less frightening, so I also think that in a lot of these models, the relative ease of moving from party to party (especially from Conservative to Labour) is overestimated.

It is an argument from personal incredulity, but it's something I have seen a lot.

The LibDems have sent a leaflet that is entirely* about water and sewage. In prospering areas it's the number one issue, amazingly.



* except for the obligatory Labour can't win here bar chart.

lpm wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2024 8:24 am The LibDems have sent a leaflet that is entirely* about water and sewage. In prospering areas it's the number one issue, amazingly.



* except for the obligatory Labour can't win here bar chart.

I've put my foot down (I'm currently Chair of our local LD party) and said we're not using them here as they are just the subject of understandable ridicule.

The Greens used one in a recent by-election and one of our exec was incensed but I just found it funny and that it served us right for making them a thing in the first place.

Some evidence coming forward about tactical voting intention. It's looking stronger this time than in 1997.

https://x.com/OwenWntr/status/1802726481610637358

Also worth noting that the Survation MRP which recently came out had implied average voting percentages of Labour 39.6%, Tories 23.5%, Libs 11.4%, Reform 12.3% and Greens 6.4%, so a 16-point lead for Labour. That lead is a lot lower in the MRPs than the general poll average, and yet the Tories were still limited to around 70-80 seats. 16 points is now the minimum any of the polls are showing.

And now, apparently, the Tories think reminding everyone about party-gate is a good idea !!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... is-johnson

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2024 10:09 am Some evidence coming forward about tactical voting intention. It's looking stronger this time than in 1997.

https://x.com/OwenWntr/status/1802726481610637358

Also worth noting that the Survation MRP which recently came out had implied average voting percentages of Labour 39.6%, Tories 23.5%, Libs 11.4%, Reform 12.3% and Greens 6.4%, so a 16-point lead for Labour. That lead is a lot lower in the MRPs than the general poll average, and yet the Tories were still limited to around 70-80 seats. 16 points is now the minimum any of the polls are showing.

The lower the Green national %, the higher the degree of tactical voting. Ideally they'll be squeezed to zero % in all but a handful of seats.

I think we're seeing that in the polling, they've drifted down from 6-7% to 5-6%.

Greens losing votes to LibDem in the blue wall is just as good as Labour votes shifting over.

Lew Dolby wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2024 12:03 pm And now, apparently, the Tories think reminding everyone about party-gate is a good idea !!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... is-johnson

So stupid. Many of those letters will serve to renew hatred of Johnson and the Conservatives. Motivate people to rant at friends, neighbours and colleagues about the need to give the Tories a punishment beating. That will cost more than the trivial gains from morons who thought 'Boris' was a laugh.

Meanwhile, The Economist's model is still predicting 187 for the Tories. Slightly better than the 165 of 1997.

Once we would have considered that a wipe-out. I wonder if we shall be disappointed if it turns out nearer that, than these total wipe-out forecasts others are making.

IvanV wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:40 pm Meanwhile, The Economist's model is still predicting 187 for the Tories. Slightly better than the 165 of 1997.

Once we would have considered that a wipe-out. I wonder if we shall be disappointed if it turns out nearer that, than these total wipe-out forecasts others are making.

However, Sunak is campaigning in top 100 seats, rather than 100-200 seats. Suggests they don't believe the Economist estimate.

Including campaigning in Grantham. Turn Maggie, turn.

IvanV wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:40 pm Meanwhile, The Economist's model is still predicting 187 for the Tories. Slightly better than the 165 of 1997.

Once we would have considered that a wipe-out. I wonder if we shall be disappointed if it turns out nearer that, than these total wipe-out forecasts others are making.

Yeah, that seems daft to me. The Tories are now polling a full ten points below where they were in 1997. I don't believe their model, sorry.

If I change my weighted average voting intention back to 14 days, the Tories have their lowest percentage in the Parliament, even lower than Liz Truss. Still slightly beating it - slightly - on a 10- or 7-day average (by half a point), but I'm sure if they try a bit harder they'll get there.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2024 2:11 pm

IvanV wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:40 pm Meanwhile, The Economist's model is still predicting 187 for the Tories. Slightly better than the 165 of 1997.

Once we would have considered that a wipe-out. I wonder if we shall be disappointed if it turns out nearer that, than these total wipe-out forecasts others are making.

Yeah, that seems daft to me. The Tories are now polling a full ten points below where they were in 1997. I don't believe their model, sorry.

But on the other hand I'd be surprised if they actually go below 100 seats.

If I was going to bet, I'd go with something like 130 seats, (at the moment).

I don't think it is possible to forecast. Inherently. The range of Tory seats is highly sensitive to changes in voting behaviour.

Usually most seats are at a stable or neutral equilibrium. The swingometer shifts seats left or right. But this year tactical voting plus Reform gives uneven shifts seat-by-seat.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2024 2:11 pm

IvanV wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:40 pm Meanwhile, The Economist's model is still predicting 187 for the Tories. Slightly better than the 165 of 1997.

Once we would have considered that a wipe-out. I wonder if we shall be disappointed if it turns out nearer that, than these total wipe-out forecasts others are making.

Yeah, that seems daft to me. The Tories are now polling a full ten points below where they were in 1997. I don't believe their model, sorry.

There is still a lot of uncertainty.

For example the new IPSOS MRP predicts 453 seats for Labour and 115 Conservative. But:

The model finds 117 seats, the majority of which were won by the Tories in 2019, are now considered “too close to call” as they have a winning margin of less than five percentage points. They include 56 where the Tories are marginally ahead and 48 where Labour is slightly in the lead.

It underlines the extent to which a relatively small number of undecided voters or switchers to smaller parties, or Labour, could alter the outcome for the Tories. With millions of voters still undecided, the party will be hoping to claw back some support by polling day.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... l-election

Change the assumptions in the model just a little and there might be a large effect upon a prediction.