Looking at some of the seats and the error margins... There are so many extremely close seats. Kensington for instance is a 3 way race between Con/Lab/Lib. Stoke-on-Trent Central is a two way tie between Lab/Con, as is Stoke-on-trent north and Dagenham and Rainham.

 

I've noticed a lot of seats whereby Labour/Lib dems are quite close, with conservatives winning. If Labour/Lib dems were to enter a pact, there are potentially a lot of seats that could turn to them. Of course we'll likely see tactical voting happening in some of these seats.

 

There are so many seats where it could go either way that even though it gives the conservatives a majority, it could quite easily be erased with just a swing of 2-3% to Labour or Lib Dems.

Edited November 27, 20195 yr by Envoirment

The figure for the majority is the lead over all other seats combined (which does check out - 359 Tories, 291 non-Tories). Although their effective majority would actually be slightly higher than that due to Sinn Féin not actually taking their seats (plus the non-Tory count includes the speaker and the DUP (and all Northern Irish parties for that matter)).

 

Reading more about this poll it does indeed seem that it's much closer than the raw number indicates and a small percentage swing could still lead to a hung parliament. I'm not allowing myself to have hope here though.

 

Tories only losing 2 seats in Scotland, where is the promised wipeout? :( Labour have lost more Scottish seats than them! (Not too surprising considering Scottish Labour almost has no reason to exist when they have the SNP, but they started from a lower number than the Tories).

 

Sorry I just realised that when I did the math. :lol: But when you think about it, they're only 33 seats above the 326/650 needed for a working majority (lower in relaity with Sinn Fein not taking their seats). All it'll take is for ~35 seats to go to different parties and we'll be at a hung parliament again. I don't know who the conservatives will be able to go into a coalition with, as I highly doubt the DUP will again. The other parties are a clear no to that too.

Edited November 27, 20195 yr by Envoirment

359 seats gives a majority of 34, not 68? (52 if you exclude NI seats).

 

It's honestly not as big of a majority as I thought would be projected. All it'll take is 2-3% swing to make a hung parliament. Given that momentum is currently on Labour's side, I feel that's where we're headed.

 

At least 30 Tory seats are under a 5% margin of victory too!

Another poll showing the slimming lead of the Conservatives. There's a real possibility of a 2017 repeat given we have a couple weeks left to go and the potential upheaval from the NHS documents.

 

There is expectation management by the tories and wariness of the shock 2017 result which will lead to people talking up a hung parliament.

There is expectation management by the tories and wariness of the shock 2017 result which will lead to people talking up a hung parliament.

 

But it's also a very real possibility given the margin of errors in polls. Positive error for Labour and negative error for Conservatives brings it a lot closer.

 

There's also the talking point of younger voters and how polls may be underestimating the turnout of those under 35. Not to mention the registration of hundreds of thousands of people under the age of 35 over the last couple weeks or so.

 

I'm expecting a small conservative majority myself, but things could change quite easily given the current political climate of the UK and two weeks left to go until the election itself.

I hope to God your right mate, the % of young voters who registered yesterday will hopefully affect polls going forward.

Reading West is being projected as merely 'likely Conservative' rather than 'safe Conservative', with a projected 9 point lead for the Tories. Not as bad as I expected.

 

Meanwhile the Lib Dems are on 10%. One of I'm presuming many, many seats that the Lib Dems have no realistic chance of winning, but if they had stood aside then a remain-supporting Labour candidate (as mine is) would have a much better chance of winning (by no means would it suddenly become a safe seat for Labour but I'd certainly have a lot more hope). I understand that the Lib Dems don't want to stand down candidates because it's theoretically possible they could win a majority themselves if there was somehow a huge national swing in their favour but the reality of our shitty FPTP system is that they should have 'known their place' so to speak and stood aside for these kind of seats at least for this election where they're supposed to be laser focused on stopping Brexit and, realistically, a Labour government is the only way that's going to be achieved. Frustrating.

 

(and yes there are some seats where Labour could have done with not standing because the Lib Dems have a better chance of beating the Tories)

That would be really poor for the Lib Dems but not surprising. Their campaign has unravelled pretty quickly.

 

It's depressing seeing such a big Tory lead but I'm still sceptical. We're still a couple of weeks away and with the current trends Labour could easily close the gap and take a lot of those swing seats and those currently marginally being called for the Tories. Also, it's worth pointing out the 2017 hung Parliament prediction came 1 week before Election Day so it was at least a little closer to the event.

What a dystopian nightmare. Goodness.

Yes, those who want a different outcome should not be too despondent. Whilst its equivalent was a very successful poll for GE2017 and the methodology is really impressive, it is merely a snapshot of where we are currently at. A small (3-4pt) swing could reduce the majority to zero, and there does appear to be a small Labour bounce in the polls of maybe 1 or 2 points already priced in, possibly the sign of a trend that could change things significantly.

 

YouGov cautions that a fall from the present Tory national poll lead of 11 points to <7 points could yet deny Mr Johnson a majority.

 

Don't give up hope, but be realistic that at the moment a Conservative majority is the most likely outcome.

If Raab doesn't lose his seat I'll be v disappointed

If Raab doesn't lose his seat I'll be v disappointed

 

Hopefully Labour voters do the right thing in Esher and Walton and lend their votes to the Lib Dems!

Hopefully Labour voters do the right thing in Esher and Walton and lend their votes to the Lib Dems!

 

Situations like Raab potentially losing his seat make it all the more frustrating that the Lib Dems and Labour haven't done the sensible thing and stood aside where it really matters or would really help unseat a Tory.

If Raab doesn't lose his seat I'll be v disappointed

 

 

What has the Foreign Secretary ever done to you?

Reading West is being projected as merely 'likely Conservative' rather than 'safe Conservative', with a projected 9 point lead for the Tories. Not as bad as I expected.

 

Meanwhile the Lib Dems are on 10%. One of I'm presuming many, many seats that the Lib Dems have no realistic chance of winning, but if they had stood aside then a remain-supporting Labour candidate (as mine is) would have a much better chance of winning (by no means would it suddenly become a safe seat for Labour but I'd certainly have a lot more hope). I understand that the Lib Dems don't want to stand down candidates because it's theoretically possible they could win a majority themselves if there was somehow a huge national swing in their favour but the reality of our shitty FPTP system is that they should have 'known their place' so to speak and stood aside for these kind of seats at least for this election where they're supposed to be laser focused on stopping Brexit and, realistically, a Labour government is the only way that's going to be achieved. Frustrating.

 

(and yes there are some seats where Labour could have done with not standing because the Lib Dems have a better chance of beating the Tories)

So here's why the Lib Dems aren't standing down, and why standing down might not be beneficial for anyone anti-Tory anyway:

 

The Lib Dems's targets are almost entirely Tory-held seats. These are either wealthy, commuter-belt seats (Esher and Walton) without as many younger or ethnic minority voters than in seats that Labour are targeting nearby (Uxbridge).

 

They're trying to get Labour voters in their targets to tactically vote Lib Dem in unwinnable seats (would you do that, Michael?) while also winning over wealthy, Tory Remainers who don't like Boris Johnson. That's really tricky to manage because it's a massive coalition of economic views.

 

Note that Tory Remainers aren't necessarily hardcore FPBE and the threat of No Deal being seen as not immediately possible has made them a lot more comfortable moving back to the Tories. They're often older, female and middle class. Here's one of them. They're more concerned about economic security and the integrity of Boris Johnson over stopping Brexit as such. Tory Remainers are in fact more anti-Corbyn than they are anti-Brexit.

 

This latter point is crucial because if they're seen to be collaborating with Corbyn in any way, Tory Remainers will stick with Johnson. The 'coalition of chaos' attack line that Cameron used was really effective against those who ended up deserting the Lib Dems in 2015 (others, more left-leaning, deserted them because of tuition fees, austerity etc.). Standing down for Labour in other areas presents a really effective attack line for the Tories to take in Surrey: 'the Lib Dems have effectively endorsed Corbyn.'

 

This is also relevant in Tory-Labour contests. Lib Dem switchers tend to come from Labour voters, especially in the 2019 election where they did really, really well, but conversely their squeeze (i.e. left-leaning Lib Dem voters, often #FPBE types disappointed in Corbyn, moving back to Labour in Lab-Tory marginals due to fear of Brexit/the Tories) means that as the rump of Lib Dem voters becomes smaller, the proportion becomes increasingly ex-Tory. These are the right-leaning Lib Dem voters who refuse to move to Labour, even as it becomes clear that they're wasting their vote.

 

So come 13th December, it would be erroneous to add the 4-5% Lib Dem votes onto the Labour vote in, say, Bassetlaw, and assume they would have gone to Labour, helping beat the Tories if only the Lib Dems had stood aside. These voters normally know full well that their vote was useless, but if forced to make a choice between the two main parties, it's not necessarily to the party that's traditionally closest to their voter coalition.

 

(we see the exact same happening with the Brexit Party, who were overwhelmingly made up of wealthy ex-Tory voters and thus hurt the Tories when they do stand, but if their percentages are really low, such as now, their base becomes increasingly made up of angry ex-Labour Leavers who could never bring themselves to vote for Tories)

Edited November 28, 20195 yr by Harve

Jo Swinson has had a few disaster moments (and also faced unfair personal criticism on her personality, accent, relative youth etc. that borderlines on misogyny in the focus groups that I've listened to) but I genuinely don't see how they could have avoided falling in the polls when they were always going to be faced with this dilemma. People look at Johnson's Brexit deal, which isn't being scrutinised, and see certainty. They're of course fatally mistaken but security is exactly what their target voters want. Meanwhilem, Labour have finally fully endorsed a second referendum, which is what the Lib Dems have been shouting about for years.

 

Let's hope they manage to make up ground locally in the ~30 seats where they have a chance.

I would tactically vote Lib Dem if it were NECESSARY to get the evil, evil, eeeevil rich tories out, but I would hate every moment of it.

I would tactically vote Lib Dem if it were NECESSARY, but I would hate every moment of it.

See, interestingly, the argument for an electoral pact is actually clearer the other way round: Labour standing down in Wells (12% in 2017), Richmond Park (9%) or St Albans (23%) would almost definitely benefit the Lib Dems because there are very, very few 2019 Labour voters who would rather vote Tory than Lib Dem. Like, sure, many would just not vote at all, but it would certainly be a net gain of votes for the opposition party.

 

But I don't see Labour supporters asking their party to do that.

Edited November 28, 20195 yr by Harve

I'd be fine with them doing that and, in fact, they should. The fewer evil tories in parliament, the better it is for everyone. The Lib Dems will never be a threat, and so giving them more chances in Tory Lib contests is just common sense. See, conmoan sense and vidcapper? This is called not being a blinkered boomer with blind loyalty x

Oh, and it wasn't a democratic decision. It was an advisory referendum. That message still doesn't seem to have got through yet. Don't bother quoting Cameron's leaflet. We are governed parliament, not leaflets.

 

A referendum *isn't* democratic? :blink:

 

 

Situations like Raab potentially losing his seat make it all the more frustrating that the Lib Dems and Labour haven't done the sensible thing and stood aside where it really matters or would really help unseat a Tory.

 

When the LD's stand aside, they don't necessarily switch tactically to Labour - but when Lab step aside, they're more likely to switch to LD.

 

 

I would tactically vote Lib Dem if it were NECESSARY to get the evil, evil, eeeevil rich tories out, but I would hate every moment of it.

 

I wouldn't vote LD at gunpoint, tactically or otherwise!