General Election 2017

[Nick Burrows]

is what campaigners are finding on the doorsteps.

Campaigners for who in which areas?

The vote seems very polarised with wildly different priorities in different parts of the country. Labours vote is a coalition of youth, major cities, Wales (according to latest polls), workers from all professions affected by cuts - eg nhs, education and Social care.

Judging from the 10,000+ crowd to see Corbyn in Gateshead last night, its possible that support in former heartlands may be more robust than is being assumed..

Another x-factor is the progressive alliance that is targeting key swing seats like the one Phil mentions above where the greens have stood down to concentrate the anti-tory vote. This is not accounted for in the polls, just a handful of swings could play a big role.

[Jonathan Rogers]

is what campaigners are finding on the doorsteps.

Campaigners for who in which areas?

apparently labour activists in many of the critical constituencies. At the end of the day, it is "We hear you. But Corbyn, Diane Abbott? Seriously, though?"

[Michael Farthing]

A bigger difference might be made by whether it keeps on raining till Thursday.

[Jonathan Rogers]

A bigger difference might be made by whether it keeps on raining till Thursday.

only forecast to rain during lunchtime in my constituency - unfortunately, exactly when my son's school sports day is scheduled!

[Phil Neatherway]

One of the many imponderables is people who voted for UKIP in 2015 and cannot do so this time. In many constituencies, UKIP has effectively stood aside to allow the Tories a better shot at capturing the seat from Labour. Will the former UKIP voters go with the Tories or will they return to Labour? Key seats which will demonstrate the answer include Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stoke South and Stoke Central.

[Nick Burrows]

And will the more racist element of the ukip vote stay with them now they have moved further to the right to distinguish themselves from the tories? (who have become ukip)

I read a spectator blog that suggested ukip voters will vote tory in the south where they dont need them, but remain ukip in the north, where they do.

[Phil Neatherway]

The point about the seats that I mentioned is that UKIP is not putting up a candidate, in an attempt to give the Tories a better chance of winning.. It's a sort of Tory/UKIP electoral pact.

[NickFaulks]

It's a sort of Tory/UKIP electoral pact.

Not really. UKIP's hope is that they can stay out of the way of pro-Brexit Conservative MPs, while obstructing potential fifth columnists. I imagine that Tory HQ would prefer that they weren't doing it.

[Nick Burrows]

The point about the seats that I mentioned is that UKIP is not putting up a candidate, in an attempt to give the Tories a better chance of winning.. It's a sort of Tory/UKIP electoral pact.

I just checked, in 2015 they stood in 624 seats, in 2017 they are standing in just 377. So yes, that is quite scary! Although part of that is explained in not being able to find enough candidates. They are not fielding candidates in 33 of 72 north west seats - http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2017-05 ... or-labour/

[Nick Burrows]

A good article about voting turnout https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... duced-lead

[David Robertson]

Before analysing who's standing by seat count, factor in cost to minor parties - those parties will.

For example, the Greens will lose pretty much all of their c. 600 x £500 deposits = £300,000. That's a hefty slab of Green income - though merely a bar bill to a Tory hedge fund donor. Not quite the same for UKIP - though bankrolls there will be tight post-Brexit

[NickFaulks]

though merely a bar bill to a Tory hedge fund donor.

or to a Green Party hedge fund donor - fashionable nowadays.

[Alistair Campbell]

Some random thoughts on this topic.

I read somewhere that it was thought UKIP’s rise in 2015 basically came pretty equally from Con and Lab, and that by the start of the campaign the Con half had returned. Now it may be that much of the Labour proportion is also returning, so that could have a relatively neutral effect on its own (although of course you rarely get one effect in isolation).

Some seat predictions seem to be very simplistic in form – basically applying a uniform swing across the nation (or possibly 4 swings across 4 nations). Others will take into account things like incumbency and local factors. The pundits’ view pre-campaign was that the effect of Corbyn might be to pile on votes in traditional Labour areas, yet have a negative impact on the marginals – the overall effect being a loss of seats despite a stable vote-share. Similarly, the Lib Dem vote is likely to be concentrated in previous areas of strength.

One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is the effect a large Tory lead in the polls has had. For some it has meant that Labour can be voted safe in the knowledge that they won’t win. With the gap narrowing, that may no longer be the case, so people may switch back. I think there are two or three phenomena at play here –

If one’s preferred option is a balanced parliament, or one party having a small majority, how does one achieve that?
A second (related) is the “accidental” defeat of a likely winner, as it is assumed that the winner is safe and dry and one’s vote can be used for another purpose.
A third is the way that opinion can appear to sway backwards and forwards – one might think that there is a dampening effect on the swings of the pendulum, and people will come to a settled opinion. It must be possible that in a relatively short campaign this process is incomplete.

As I’ve said before, the increasing propensity to cast votes by post means people make up their minds earlier – presumably reducing the effect of any late swing.

Finally, for the record, Alan Reid is standing again in Argyll (and Bute).

[Angus French]

FWIW, spread betting sites are currently suggesting an overall Tory majority of 70+ seats.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Here's Nate Silver's take on the subject: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ar ... ls-skewed/