Polling: 2017 General Election, Council Elections and Independence

[dorlomin]

Quote

 

Stephen Fisher, a politics researcher at Oxford University, analysed 15 years of elections up to 2002 and found there was no obvious correlation between turnout and the weather. (There is a caveat to this: if severe transport issues come into play—and there are reports of disruptions Thursday—or polling stations close, people could struggle to get to the polls.)

Shorter days, too, seem not to have much impact, with the University of Strathclyde’s John Curtice recently citing the two post-war February elections—both of which had high turnout—as evidence that a bit of gloom won’t stop voters exercising their democratic rights.

There is, however, another caveat to the above: and it’s related to something that does affect whether or not someone is likely to get out and go to the polls.

Although the weather doesn’t have an impact, Fisher suggests, there is a variable that measurably does: “Having been contacted by a party worker makes a difference to turnout,” he says.

Conventional wisdom has it that this is particularly important for the Labour party, with activists often citing a strong ground game, fuelled by Momentum volunteers, in helping to narrow the polls in the final weeks of the 2017 general election campaign.

A 2010 study found that the “more people canvassing for a party in a constituency … the better its performance there.” With the Conservatives spending more money but less time on the doors during recent campaigns, Labour, in particular, has focussed efforts along exactly these lines.

Analysis of 2015, for instance, showed a correlation between Labour door-knocking and Labour votes, with the top ten best-performing seats in terms of voter contact showing an average 5.1 per cent increase in Labour’s vote.

 

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/general-election-weather-forecast-snow-rain-2019-uk-labour

 

[Bishop Briggs]

Just now, SweeperDee said:

 

Labour have neglected Wales for years tbf.

 

But not to that extent!

It's an anomaly.

[johnnydun]

Just now, alta-pete said:

Have a think about how that might affect the behaviour of various demographics. Once you’ve done that, do you draw any conclusions?

This 'Raining in Scotland' thing hardly ever happens. I for one am shocked.

[Bedford White]

21 minutes ago, G-MAN said:

**Survation Final Call**
GB VOTING INTENTION

CON 44.5
LAB 33.7
LD 9.3
GRE 3.2
SNP 4.0
PC 1.4
AP 0.9

Looks a pile of crap that. No Brexit Party vote share.

[alta-pete]

 
Stephen Fisher, a politics researcher at Oxford University, analysed 15 years of elections up to 2002 and found there was no obvious correlation between turnout and the weather. (There is a caveat to this: if severe transport issues come into play—and there are reports of disruptions Thursday—or polling stations close, people could struggle to get to the polls.)
Shorter days, too, seem not to have much impact, with the University of Strathclyde’s John Curtice recently citing the two post-war February elections—both of which had high turnout—as evidence that a bit of gloom won’t stop voters exercising their democratic rights.
There is, however, another caveat to the above: and it’s related to something that does affect whether or not someone is likely to get out and go to the polls.
Although the weather doesn’t have an impact, Fisher suggests, there is a variable that measurably does: “Having been contacted by a party worker makes a difference to turnout,” he says.
Conventional wisdom has it that this is particularly important for the Labour party, with activists often citing a strong ground game, fuelled by Momentum volunteers, in helping to narrow the polls in the final weeks of the 2017 general election campaign.
A 2010 study found that the “more people canvassing for a party in a constituency … the better its performance there.” With the Conservatives spending more money but less time on the doors during recent campaigns, Labour, in particular, has focussed efforts along exactly these lines.
Analysis of 2015, for instance, showed a correlation between Labour door-knocking and Labour votes, with the top ten best-performing seats in terms of voter contact showing an average 5.1 per cent increase in Labour’s vote.
 

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/general-election-weather-forecast-snow-rain-2019-uk-labour
 

A 2002 study? There’s now voters that were in nappies then. FFS chief, at least try and keep it relevant.

[alta-pete]

This 'Raining in Scotland' thing hardly ever happens. I for one am shocked.

Aye but rain in May is just a wee tad different from freezing rain in December. Just sayin’..

[G-MAN]

.@Survation final #GE2019  poll (fully weighted Scotland subsample n=910)

 

SNP 45.6%

CON 27.4%

LAB 14.8%

LD 9.6%

BXP 1.4%

GRN 1.1%

 

Surely Not..........

[johnnydun]

4 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

Aye but rain in May is just a wee tad different from freezing rain in December. Just sayin’..

That would be hail. Hail is something you don't like.

Big team found and all that...

Shite weather is something we are all used to and matters not a jot.

Edited December 12, 2019 by johnnydun

[Kyle]

the Scottish poll looks  positive for the SNP And the tories based on this. No figures but tories to ‘defy expectations but the SNP to ‘dominate’ the ballot. 

[Kyle]

James Kelly on twitter saying poll result is ‘amazing’. No actual numbers yet though. 

[SweeperDee]

James Kelly on twitter saying poll result is ‘amazing’. No actual numbers yet though. 

Labour and Lib wipe out?

[alta-pete]

That would be hail. Hail is something you don't like.
Big team found and all that...
Shite weather is something we are all used to and matters not a jot.

I’ve got a big team A8 but thanks for the menshie. And I admire your resilience; I don’t however share your optimism across a large proportion of the voters.

[Kyle]

That would be a sensational result for the SNP. 

[Kyle]

Seems to be true. The UK poll has the Scottish poll results in amongst its methodology. 46% is insanely good. Too good, unless the labour dip and SNP increase is down to tactical voters trying to keep out tories? Maybe explains the SNP’s change of tact over the last couple of weeks. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Kyle

[Kejan]

4 minutes ago, Kyle said:

That would be a sensational result for the SNP. 

Would be some result, although it would mean Ruth being mistaken for Nessy or dangerously close to it. 

[G-MAN]

New Scottish Westminster poll, Survation 10-11 Dec (changes vs 18-23 Apr / vs 2017);

SNP - 46% (+5 / +9)
Con - 27% (+5 / -2)
Lab - 15% (-9 / -12)
LD - 10% (+2 / +3)
Grn - 1% (+1 / +1)
Brex - 1% (+1 / +1)

[johnnydun]

9 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

I’ve got a big team A8 but thanks for the menshie. And I admire your resilience; I don’t however share your optimism across a large proportion of the voters.

I was meaning me... nevermind.

[Donathan]

Electoral calculus makes that:

 

SNP: 48

Tories: 5 (Moray, AWK and the 3 border seats)

Lib Dems: 4 (The same 4 that they currently hold)

Labour: 2 (Edinburgh South and Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath)

[G-MAN]

Projection via Electoral Calculus

SNP: 47(+12)
CON: 6 (-7)
LD: 4(-)
LAB: 2 (-5)

[DC92]

It would be nice if that comes to pass but those numbers seem wild.