the snap general election thread

antrobus

nic_c wrote: »

It does look like May will win with somewhere between a slightly increased majority or a landslide, unless there is a key swing event. In 1992 Kinnocks pre-election day victory rally in Sheffield meant a combination of people feeling they didn't need to vote or disdain for his presumptuousness gave enough of a swing to defy the polls. ...

But it was the Sun 'wot won it'.

The more prosaic truth was that;

Our research, however, confirms that the pollsters had it wrong all along: they consistently underestimated the Tory vote...Like most of its predecessors, the 1992 election was won and lost before the official campaign began.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/exclusive-how-did-labour-lose-in-92-the-most-authoritative-study-of-the-last-general-election-is-1439286.html

sevenhills

antrobus wrote: »

Those figures are not the "local election share of the vote" they are the Projected National Vote Share. Calculated for the BBC by John Curtice, I believe.

Why do you not believe my post? It includes a link giving proof.

It is not an opinion poll, it is how people voted.

mrginge

sevenhills wrote: »

Why do you not believe my post? It includes a link giving proof.

It is not an opinion poll, it is how people voted.

Did you read the citation?

sevenhills

mrginge wrote: »

Did you read the citation?

I have never heard of electoralcalculus, I would not trust a site that I have never hear of, and antrobus did not seem too sure.

mrginge

sevenhills wrote: »

I have never heard of electoralcalculus, I would not trust a site that I have never hear of, and antrobus did not seem too sure.

No. Did you read the citation on your Wikipedia link.

AnotherJoe

BobQ wrote: »

She could just as easily have chosen a middle way that was more consistent with a narrowly divided nation.

You are Tim Farron and I claim my £5. Stay in the single market, the customs union, in the Euro courts, essentially just the same as if we didn't leave.

The vote was to get out, not to change the labels.

antrobus

sevenhills wrote: »

Why do you not believe my post? It includes a link giving proof.

It is not an opinion poll, it is how people voted.

Read your own source.:)

As elections were not held throughout the country, the BBC calculated a Projected National Vote Share (PNV), which aims to assess what the council results indicate the UK-wide vote would be "if the results were repeated at a general election". The BBC's preliminary Projected National Vote Share was 38% for the Conservatives, 27% for Labour, 18% for the Liberal Democrats and 5% for UKIP, with others on around 12%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2017

sevenhills

mrginge wrote: »

No. Did you read the citation on your Wikipedia link.

I have read both; it does seem to be some sort of projection of the 2017 local election polls, but no where does it state what the real percentage of the 2017 local election result.

I assume people accept the 18% as a unbiased and credible prediction?

antrobus

sevenhills wrote: »

I have never heard of electoralcalculus, I would not trust a site that I have never hear of, and antrobus did not seem too sure.

I trust Electoral Calculus a lot more than I trust Wikipedia.:)

In any event, I am just trying to explain to you what the PNVS means.

You can read this article by Anthony Wells on YouGov.

Why local elections are not useful indicators of national votes
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/01/why-local-elections-are-not-useful-indicators-nati/

Note what YouGov have to say about Welsh voting intentions;

in our last Welsh poll we asked both Westminster voting intention and local council voting intention. As the chart below shows, people gave very different answers for the two ballots: 14% more people said they would vote Conservative in the Westminster election than in the local elections.

A 2% Labour lead in the locals, becomes a 10% Conservative lead in the General.

Also note what YouGov have to say about the 1983 and 1987 elections.

A PNSV showing an 11% CON lead is consistent with opinions polls showing a larger CON lead. That does not mean to say that is exactly what is going to happen, but it does mean that the PNVS doesn't show that the polls are wrong.

antrobus

sevenhills wrote: »

I have read both; it does seem to be some sort of projection of the 2017 local election polls, but no where does it state what the real percentage of the 2017 local election result.

I assume people accept the 18% as a unbiased and credible prediction?

Yes, the clue would in the use of the word 'projected'.

It it is the work of John Curtice on behalf of the BBC.