Polling: 2017 General Election, Council Elections and Independence

[Albus Bulbasaur]

1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said:

This poll would seem to suggest that a swing of just over 3% would result in an Indy majority. Albus's conclusion? There is no desire for independece

Current Electoral Calculus polling suggests that Labour would be 24 seats short of a majority. That's no mandate for stable government

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

 

To get an overall majority (of 2 seats), Labour currently require a direct swing of 2.7% from the Tories

 

Ca you explain,  Albus, why you are optomistic about a 2.7% swing to Labour, yet believe that a 3.1% swig to Idy won't happen?

I'm so utterly shocked to see you lying about my position unprovoked, who would have ever predicted such a thing. 

There isn't an overwhelming desire, of course I think some people desire it. Not near the majority of the population though. 

Well firstly, I'm not a massive statto nerd. Secondly there's no evidence Scotland ever wanted Indy but there's evidence the UK has previously supported Labour over the Tories. I believe Keir Starmer has a much better chance than Corbyn did. It's also quite silly to be comparing general elections and referendums generally speaking... 

[oneteaminglasgow]

 

19 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Are there any Unionists about on here who aren't Rangers supporters? 

 

17 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Count me in.

 

 

On 06/03/2021 at 22:51, Dawson Park Boy said:

Absolutely- always will be.

Second team is Rangers.

Just signed a Rangers player today.

Aye, very good. 

[lichtgilphead]

2 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

This poll would seem to suggest that a swing of just over 3% would result in an Indy majority. Albus's conclusion? There is no desire for independece

Current Electoral Calculus polling suggests that Labour would be 24 seats short of a majority. That's no mandate for stable government (1st table below)

To get an overall majority (of 2 seats), Labour currently require a direct swing of 2.7% from the Tories (2nd table below)

Can you explain,  Albus, why you are optomistic about a 2.7% swing to Labour, yet believe that a 3.1% swing to Indy won't happen?

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

I'm so utterly shocked to see you lying about my position unprovoked, who would have ever predicted such a thing. 

There isn't an overwhelming desire, of course I think some people desire it. Not near the majority of the population though. 

Apologies, Albus. You previously stated that there was no desire for a referendum, not that there was no desire for indepedence. On March 20th, at 11:21 in the "When will Indyref 2 happen" thread, you said "There isn't the appetite to have a referendum at all"

I must have confused you with one of your previous (or current) aliases.

So, can I take it as read that you believe that there is a desire for independence, but there is no appetite to establish the level of that desire? I find that view slightly odd. If you (and other unionists) are so confident that "no" will win, why do you appear to be unwilling to allow the Scottish electorate to confirm your view?

2 hours ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Well firstly, I'm not a massive statto nerd. Secondly there's no evidence Scotland ever wanted Indy but there's evidence the UK has previously supported Labour over the Tories. I believe Keir Starmer has a much better chance than Corbyn did. It's also quite silly to be comparing general elections and referendums generally speaking... 

So, your basis for stating that you are optimistic that Labour will win the next electionis that "they've done it before", but there's no evidence that Scotland ever wanted Independence?

If we are going to delve into history for examples, may I firstly refer you to the 13th & 14th century Wars of Independence. That's just about as relevent as Labour's UK electoral successes in the 20th Century/early 21st Century.

Secondly, there's evidence that the UK has previously supported the Whigs &/or Liberals over the Tories. Are they due a comeback too?

Finally, if the Tories proposed boundary reviews are in place by the time of the next GE, their gerrymandering will ensure that Labour's job is even more difficult. The estimated effect of the review will result in the Tories gaining 13 seats & Labour losing 8 (based on current constituencies).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies#Political_impact 

This means that the necessary swing required to give Labour a majority rises to approximately 4 or 5%

In conclusion, then, the consensus on this forum appears to be that we are doomed to Tory rule until independence. You claim to buck that trend. Your basis for that claim is "Labour has won before" & "Starmer is better than Corbyn". You'll have to do better than that to convince me or anyone else.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

24 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

 

Apologies, Albus. You previously stated that there was no desire for a referendum, not that there was no desire for indepedence. On March 20th, at 11:21 in the "When will Indyref 2 happen" thread, you said "There isn't the appetite to have a referendum at all"

I must have confused you with one of your previous (or current) aliases.

So, can I take it as read that you believe that there is a desire for independence, but there is no appetite to establish the level of that desire? I find that view slightly odd. If you (and other unionists) are so confident that "no" will win, why do you appear to be unwilling to allow the Scottish electorate to confirm your view?

So, your basis for stating that you are optimistic that Labour will win the next electionis that "they've done it before", but there's no evidence that Scotland ever wanted Independence?

If we are going to delve into history for examples, may I firstly refer you to the 13th & 14th century Wars of Independence. That's just about as relevent as Labour's UK electoral successes in the 20th Century/early 21st Century.

Secondly, there's evidence that the UK has previously supported the Whigs &/or Liberals over the Tories. Are they due a comeback too?

Finally, if the Tories proposed boundary reviews are in place by the time of the next GE, their gerrymandering will ensure that Labour's job is even more difficult. The estimated effect of the review will result in the Tories gaining 13 seats & Labour losing 8 (based on current constituencies).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies#Political_impact 

This means that the necessary swing required to give Labour a majority rises to approximately 4 or 5%

In conclusion, then, the consensus on this forum appears to be that we are doomed to Tory rule until independence. You claim to buck that trend. Your basis for that claim is "Labour has won before" & "Starmer is better than Corbyn". You'll have to do better than that to convince me or anyone else.

Why can't you just respond in a normal manner?

You make it very hard to want to have reasonable discourse, you effectively have conversations with yourself. Try speaking how you would offline and you might see more success. 

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Why can't you just respond in a normal manner?

You make it very hard to want to have reasonable discourse, you effectively have conversations with yourself. Try speaking how you would offline and you might see more success. 

This tone trolling is getting boring, your need to update your patter.

[lichtgilphead]

13 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Why can't you just respond in a normal manner?

You make it very hard to want to have reasonable discourse, you effectively have conversations with yourself. Try speaking how you would offline and you might see more success. 

Why can't you answer simple questions? Why do you believe that Labour can achieve a 5% swing at the next election (preferably with some supporting evidence)?

As Welshbairn suggests, your tone trolling is getting tiresome.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

14 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

This tone trolling is getting boring, your need to update your patter.

Yes you're a very exciting poster from what I've seen. Nobody could ever accuse you of being boring. Perhaps aim your criticism of people trying to troll me unprovoked. 

1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said:

Why can't you answer simple questions? Why do you believe that Labour can achieve a 5% swing at the next election (preferably with some supporting evidence)?

As Welshbairn suggests, your tone trolling is getting tiresome.

Why can't you post with sincerity and not constantly try to score points over petty pedantry? 

Your trolling is tiresome to me. As I've said if you speak to me like a normal person how you would in real life then I'll offer you the same courtesy. You've been hostile to me from the start for no reason and actively try and argue in bad faith with me. Why? 

[ICTChris]

What was the swing to Labour in Scotland in the 2017 election?

[lichtgilphead]

Just now, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Yes you're a very exciting poster from what I've seen. Nobody could ever accuse you of being boring. Perhaps aim your criticism of people trying to troll me unprovoked. 

Why can't you post with sincerity and not constantly try to score points over petty pedantry? 

Your trolling is tiresome to me. As I've said if you speak to me like a normal person how you would in real life then I'll offer you the same courtesy. You've been hostile to me from the start for no reason and actively try and argue in bad faith with me. Why? 

I've been hostile to you because I disagree with your professed views and because I believe that you are a previously banned poster, who continually spammed the board until the banhammer dropped.

Your usual modus operandi appears to be to avoid justifying your inane statements by changing this topic away from the subject under debate, just like you are doing at this exact moment. There's no need to continually criticise debating styles.

Back on topic - Why do you believe that Labour can achieve a 5% swing at the next election (preferably with some supporting evidence)?

[Antlion]

27 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

This tone trolling is getting boring, your need to update your patter.

Maybe it’s considered a signature at this point? It’s not enough to keep creating new accounts after every ban - we have to know it’s the same attention seeker.

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said:

I've been hostile to you because I disagree with your professed views and because I believe that you are a previously banned poster, who continually spammed the board until the banhammer dropped.

Your usual modus operandi appears to be to avoid justifying your inane statements by changing this topic away from the subject under debate, just like you are doing at this exact moment. There's no need to continually criticise debating styles.

Back on topic - Why do you believe that Labour can achieve a 5% swing at the next election (preferably with some supporting evidence)?

If you believe what you say about him why keep responding?

[lichtgilphead]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

If you believe what you say about him why keep responding?

Says the man with 38.8K posts

[williemillersmoustache]

Oh what a lofty and demonstrably unattainable ambition to be merely boring, as opposed to tedious. 

[Albus Bulbasaur]

4 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

I've been hostile to you because I disagree with your professed views and because I believe that you are a previously banned poster, who continually spammed the board until the banhammer dropped.

Your usual modus operandi appears to be to avoid justifying your inane statements by changing this topic away from the subject under debate, just like you are doing at this exact moment. There's no need to continually criticise debating styles.

Back on topic - Why do you believe that Labour can achieve a 5% swing at the next election (preferably with some supporting evidence)?

Touch some grass bud. 

[doulikefish]

Poor stormzy

[Granny Danger]

37 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Says the man with 38.8K posts

Maybe you could explain what the number of posts I have relates to your “you’re a boring troll but I’m going to encourage your boring trolling by responding to your posts” approach.

[ICTChris]

I just looked it up - in 2017 general election Labours vote share went up 2.8% and the Tories went up 13%, with the SNP share dipping 13%.

If there was a UK general election that Labour were leading in or looked likely to win I think they would see a boost in a lot of Scottish seats.  In 2017 you could see this with the Corbyn surge - I think a lot of people thought “hang on, they could do this” and switched to Labour at the last minute. Labour won six seats in that vote and came close to taking a few more. Part of that might be attributable to Corbyn being leader at the time but it wouldn’t surprise me to see something similar happen if Starmer was looking likely to beat Johnson.

In terms of the Tory vote I think quite a lot of that vote could be peeled off by Labour, there are elements of tactical voting in the Tory vote in parts of Scotland. I don’t think any collective  ‘votes’ is as solid as they used to be and the Tory vote in Scotland certainly isn’t.

The other big thing is SNP voters turning out and voting. That was a big factor in 2017 and it’s always a risk that they get lost in UK General elections. Also, a lot of the SNP core vote is highly motivated by indyref2 etc but among softer SNP voters that might not be so attractive. This poses and issue for the party, they have to play up independence and referendums to keep the core vote and activists happy but then this might put off softer swing voters. Overall, the SNP block is so large that they can probably afford some leeway but they did lose 20 seats a few years ago so it is possible they could experience a setback.

[DrewDon]

Some interesting numbers in this thread.

[Granny Danger]

35 minutes ago, DrewDon said:

Some interesting numbers in this thread.

F*ck bar charts, I want percentages.

 

 

 

Also ‘mon the immigrants.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

It's pretty incredible that , if we limited voting in Scottish elections to just those born in England, the SNP would still be the largest party.