FT General Election Poll 2019

[David Guiza]

Sky News Breaking

 

@SkyNewsBreak

 

IFS says neither Conservatives nor Labour have credible plans to manage public finances

[LiberalFox]

13 isn't what he hoped for but it's not the disaster it'll be made out to be. You can't underestimate the difficulty for a smaller party to make gains under FPTP. We are a Tory facing party and with Labour collapsing and the Tories doing well we would always struggle. All these defections in seats we would never hold are a double-edged sword. What looks good in the short term will make these election results appear worse than they are. Any increase in seats over 2017 is progress.

[Facecloth]

BBC Breakfast this morning ...

 

Reporter : So how are you going to vote?

 

Member of Public : I'm going to vote Conservative because I think we should stay with Europe

 

R : But the Conservatives are pressing to leave the EU

 

M : But I'm a Conservative who thinks we're NOT going to get Brexit done. 

 

[Jon the Hat]

25 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

BBC Breakfast this morning ...

 

Reporter : So how are you going to vote?

 

Member of Public : I'm going to vote Conservative because I think we should stay with Europe

 

R : But the Conservatives are pressing to leave the EU

 

M : But I'm a Conservative who thinks we're NOT going to get Brexit done. 

 

It almost like they deliberatley find the idiots.

[Alf Bentley]

10 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

13 isn't what he hoped for but it's not the disaster it'll be made out to be. You can't underestimate the difficulty for a smaller party to make gains under FPTP. We are a Tory facing party and with Labour collapsing and the Tories doing well we would always struggle. All these defections in seats we would never hold are a double-edged sword. What looks good in the short term will make these election results appear worse than they are. Any increase in seats over 2017 is progress.

 

I take your point about the defections in unwinnable seats. I also agree about. the difficulty for a smaller party under FPTP - particularly when there seems to be less media coverage of the LDs than usual (partly due to the prominence of the main 2 leaders & Johnson's apparent refusal to debate with anyone other than Corbyn). 

 

However, "any increase" on 2017 is a low benchmark to set your party, at a time when both main parties have alienated a lot of voters & have controversial leaders. Particularly when you're able, with some justification, to claim to be "the main Remain party" (a cause that possibly has the support of 50%+ of the electorate - though I think the "revoke" policy was a massive error).

 

For what it's worth, I suspect the LDs will end up with more than 13 seats (maybe 20+?), as tactical voting will become a factor to some extent, and the YouGov poll doesn't really allow for that.

 

But you won 57 seats as recently as 2010. In the 1990s, I briefly lived in North Cornwall and had a Lib Dem MP. I know it's only a poll, but look at the constituency data now: https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2019/

YouGov now have North Cornwall as a Tory safe seat, when it was high on the LD target list. Labour are closer to taking Truro & Falmouth and Camborne & Redruth off the Tories...

Even Cheltenham, which the Tories were assuming they'd lost, is down as a "tossup".

 

I'm not saying that to "rub it in". This poll looks bad for Labour, too....but is not unrecoverable for either party. I not only believe that the Lib Dems will win more than 13 seats, I hope they do. Anyone on the centre-left should hope they do.

It does look as if the LD Brexit policy has damaged them in their traditional SW heartland. But it could yet help them to take seats in the SE, particularly via tactical voting.  

[LiberalFox]

 Everyone's a bunch of lefty loons it seems.

[RoboFox]

"Johnson also lamented what he called “feckless” working class men and described the children of single mums as “ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate”

 

The gall and hypocrisy of the man beggars belief. Maybe you should help raise the child who you abandoned, then Alexander? She'd be about 10 now.

 

Nothing touches him, does it? Candidates this election cycle have been stood down for racist, homophobic, misogynist etc comments. He has professed these views for decades, literally profiting from them, and yet he's going to be Prime Minister.

 

And the fact that the opposition isn't wiping the floor with this fvcking amoeba speaks volumes about the state of British politics.

 

So depressing.

[LiberalFox]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I take your point about the defections in unwinnable seats. I also agree about. the difficulty for a smaller party under FPTP - particularly when there seems to be less media coverage of the LDs than usual (partly due to the prominence of the main 2 leaders & Johnson's apparent refusal to debate with anyone other than Corbyn). 

 

However, "any increase" on 2017 is a low benchmark to set your party, at a time when both main parties have alienated a lot of voters & have controversial leaders. Particularly when you're able, with some justification, to claim to be "the main Remain party" (a cause that possibly has the support of 50%+ of the electorate - though I think the "revoke" policy was a massive error).

 

For what it's worth, I suspect the LDs will end up with more than 13 seats (maybe 20+?), as tactical voting will become a factor to some extent, and the YouGov poll doesn't really allow for that.

 

But you won 57 seats as recently as 2010. In the 1990s, I briefly lived in North Cornwall and had a Lib Dem MP. I know it's only a poll, but look at the constituency data now: https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2019/

YouGov now have North Cornwall as a Tory safe seat, when it was high on the LD target list. Labour are closer to taking Truro & Falmouth and Camborne & Redruth off the Tories...

Even Cheltenham, which the Tories were assuming they'd lost, is down as a "tossup".

 

I'm not saying that to "rub it in". This poll looks bad for Labour, too....but is not unrecoverable for either party. I not only believe that the Lib Dems will win more than 13 seats, I hope they do. Anyone on the centre-left should hope they do.

It does look as if the LD Brexit policy has damaged them in their traditional SW heartland. But it could yet help them to take seats in the SE, particularly via tactical voting.  

Yeah I would hope for more than 13 but the problem is the damage done by the coalition. As you say many LD seats pre 2010 are unwinnable. We are likely to get some 2nd places back from Labour and that might pay dividends when the Tories finally lose power.

[jammie82uk]

2 hours ago, David Guiza said:

Sky News Breaking

 

@SkyNewsBreak

 

IFS says neither Conservatives nor Labour have credible plans to manage public finances

Not good all round but even more worrisome when labour plan to spend 28 times more then the tories 

[Desabafar]

I will vote Conservative as a least worst option. Labour has gone too far left for me so I hope if predictions are correct the lesson they take is that lurching to the left can't win elections but Blair could, if you want change and to stop the Tories then that's how you do it. I voted Remain but Swinson and the revoke policy turned me off the Liberals. I wish the Conservatives had more of a vision than just getting on with Brexit and I don't like the Brexit policy but I don't mind Boris so I will vote in the faint hope they do have more policies.

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

13 isn't what he hoped for but it's not the disaster it'll be made out to be. You can't underestimate the difficulty for a smaller party to make gains under FPTP. We are a Tory facing party and with Labour collapsing and the Tories doing well we would always struggle. All these defections in seats we would never hold are a double-edged sword. What looks good in the short term will make these election results appear worse than they are. Any increase in seats over 2017 is progress.

If you seriously only get 13 seats on a platform of reversing a democratic mandate it is a complete disaster. 

 

You've probably destroyed any trust is what is a half decent party and no leave voter can ever put a tick in the Lib Dems box again. 

[Guest MattP]

 

Just promise to cure cancer.

[The Guvnor]

1 hour ago, RoboFox said:

"Johnson also lamented what he called “feckless” working class men and described the children of single mums as “ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate”

 

The gall and hypocrisy of the man beggars belief. Maybe you should help raise the child who you abandoned, then Alexander? She'd be about 10 now.

 

Nothing touches him, does it? Candidates this election cycle have been stood down for racist, homophobic, misogynist etc comments. He has professed these views for decades, literally profiting from them, and yet he's going to be Prime Minister.

 

And the fact that the opposition isn't wiping the floor with this fvcking amoeba speaks volumes about the state of British politics.

 

So depressing.

That's because this election is a Brexit election. I am sure there are a lot of voters who will be voting Tory through gritted teeth, but there is no credible alternative for a leave voter.

Interestingly however the negative ratings for Boris is at around 6% but Corbyn is 69%. 

 

 

Edited 28 November 2019 by The Guvnor

[Guest MattP]

The lying and bullshit in this election is off the charts.

 

If he's having to resort to this though, Labour must be in seriously deep shit in the North.

[LiberalFox]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

If you seriously only get 13 seats on a platform of reversing a democratic mandate it is a complete disaster. 

 

You've probably destroyed any trust is what is a half decent party and no leave voter can ever put a tick in the Lib Dems box again. 

Or you could view it as getting twice the vote share we had last election. Not sure why leave voters have such a big issue over a party disagreeing with them.

[The Horse's Mouth]

Genuinely haven't got a clue who to vote for, always voted labour but alot of this nationalising everything is a bit mental, cant see myself ever voting Tory, if I could vote for a hung parliament I probably would 

[Alf Bentley]

26 minutes ago, MattP said:

The lying and bullshit in this election is off the charts.

 

If he's having to resort to this though, Labour must be in seriously deep shit in the North.

 

In general, the lying and bullshit certainly is off the charts.......but this is not an example of it.

 

I've no idea whether Miliband has voted for a Brexit deal 9 times, but the very article you quote points out that he has voted for it on several occasions - just for different versions of Brexit than those presented by May/Johnson.

The article states that he voted for a Norway-style Brexit and a Customs Union Brexit.

 

How many times does it have to be repeated that the referendum did not specify ANY particular form of Brexit.

What outrageous, anti-democratic arrogance it is for ANYONE to claim that theirs is the only valid form of Brexit!

 

As an equivalent, I'm sure you oppose Corbyn's policy on housing. Does that mean that you oppose all investment in housing, because there is only one true housing investment policy, namely Corbyn's?!

Of course not. You just prefer a different policy.

 

Sure, Miliband is expressing his message so as to maximise support among his Leave-voting constituents. MPs of all parties up and down the country will be doing the same with regard to Brexit and other issues.

Or are you expecting a Tory candidate in Cambridge to have an identical message to one in Rotherham? 

[Facecloth]

25 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Genuinely haven't got a clue who to vote for, always voted labour but alot of this nationalising everything is a bit mental, cant see myself ever voting Tory, if I could vote for a hung parliament I probably would 

I find myself halfway, in the sense I don't really like either. I edge towards labour slightly more, but it's not with any enthusiasm. 

[Alf Bentley]

24 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Genuinely haven't got a clue who to vote for, always voted labour but alot of this nationalising everything is a bit mental, cant see myself ever voting Tory, if I could vote for a hung parliament I probably would 

 

Unless the polls shift massively in Labour's favour, a vote for the main challenger to the Tories in your constituency is effectively a vote for a hung parliament.

 

As bookies' odds confirm, barring some massive, unexpected shift there are only 2 possible election outcomes: a Tory majority or a hung parliament.

[Guest MattP]

36 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Or you could view it as getting twice the vote share we had last election. Not sure why leave voters have such a big issue over a party disagreeing with them.

That's an interesting viewpoint.

 

You have a leader who two weeks ago said she was going to be the next Prime Minister of the country. I'm not sure you can spin winning <5% of the seats in the house as progress after that.

 

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

In general, the lying and bullshit certainly is off the charts.......but this is not an example of it.

 

I've no idea whether Miliband has voted for a Brexit deal 9 times, but the very article you quote points out that he has voted for it on several occasions - just for different versions of Brexit than those presented by May/Johnson.

The article states that he voted for a Norway-style Brexit and a Customs Union Brexit.

 

How many times does it have to be repeated that the referendum did not specify ANY particular form of Brexit.

What outrageous, anti-democratic arrogance it is for ANYONE to claim that theirs is the only valid form of Brexit!

 

As an equivalent, I'm sure you oppose Corbyn's policy on housing. Does that mean that you oppose all investment in housing, because there is only one true housing investment policy, namely Corbyn's?!

Of course not. You just prefer a different policy.

 

Sure, Miliband is expressing his message so as to maximise support among his Leave-voting constituents. MPs of all parties up and down the country will be doing the same with regard to Brexit and other issues.

Or are you expecting a Tory candidate in Cambridge to have an identical message to one in Rotherham? 

Sorry but this is a prime example. 

 

Ed Miliband has not voted for Brexit nine times. Nothing you can show me will say he has. It is a complete lie.

 

He has voted for a type of Brexit - so just put that on the bloody leaflet!!

 

As for those Tories in wherever, I hope they are being honest - if they areally going to vote for Brexit then tell us, if they aren't then also tell us. If necessary tell us what type of Brexit they will and what type they won't. 

 

This isn't that complicated. 

[Kopfkino]

22 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

In general, the lying and bullshit certainly is off the charts.......but this is not an example of it.

 

I've no idea whether Miliband has voted for a Brexit deal 9 times, but the very article you quote points out that he has voted for it on several occasions - just for different versions of Brexit than those presented by May/Johnson.

The article states that he voted for a Norway-style Brexit and a Customs Union Brexit.

 

How many times does it have to be repeated that the referendum did not specify ANY particular form of Brexit.

What outrageous, anti-democratic arrogance it is for ANYONE to claim that theirs is the only valid form of Brexit!

 

As an equivalent, I'm sure you oppose Corbyn's policy on housing. Does that mean that you oppose all investment in housing, because there is only one true housing investment policy, namely Corbyn's?!

Of course not. You just prefer a different policy.

 

Sure, Miliband is expressing his message so as to maximise support among his Leave-voting constituents. MPs of all parties up and down the country will be doing the same with regard to Brexit and other issues.

Or are you expecting a Tory candidate in Cambridge to have an identical message to one in Rotherham? 

 

So he didn't vote for a deal? Because to vote for a deal there kind of has to be a deal to vote for. Voting in favour for deals that didn't exist isn't voting for a Brexit deal. 

 

Ed Miliband has done the square root of **** all to try to get Brexit done, it's a lie. At least someone like Stephen Kinnock tried to work on a plan and develop a consensus. Ed Miliband cast an indicative vote for election optics. 

[Alf Bentley]

34 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

Sorry but this is a prime example. 

 

Ed Miliband has not voted for Brexit nine times. Nothing you can show me will say he has. It is a complete lie.

 

He has voted for a type of Brexit - so just put that on the bloody leaflet!!

 

As for those Tories in wherever, I hope they are being honest - if they areally going to vote for Brexit then tell us, if they aren't then also tell us. If necessary tell us what type of Brexit they will and what type they won't. 

 

This isn't that complicated. 

 

13 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

So he didn't vote for a deal? Because to vote for a deal there kind of has to be a deal to vote for. Voting in favour for deals that didn't exist isn't voting for a Brexit deal. 

 

Ed Miliband has done the square root of **** all to try to get Brexit done, it's a lie. At least someone like Stephen Kinnock tried to work on a plan and develop a consensus. Ed Miliband cast an indicative vote for election optics. 

 

Here are his precise words: "We need to sort Brexit. I've voted 9 times in Parliament for a deal to do that".

 

So, he didn't claim to have "voted for Brexit", Matt, and he didn't claim to have voted for a specific deal agreed by the EU, Kopf.

 

His words "to do that" clearly refer back to "sort Brexit". So he claimed to have "voted 9 times.....for a deal to [sort Brexit]" 

I'd also like to enthusiastically express my support for a deal to sort Brexit - preferably by burying it under 500m tons of landfill. 

 

Slippery expression by Miliband, I know, but not a lie (unless he didn't do it 9 times) - and if you're expecting politicians not to be slippery, you'll be disappointed.

I can't be arsed to search for leaflets of Tory candidates, but I bet that if I did, we'd find that some of those in Remain-voting constituencies would have a subtly different message from those in Leave seats.

 

 

[The Horse's Mouth]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Unless the polls shift massively in Labour's favour, a vote for the main challenger to the Tories in your constituency is effectively a vote for a hung parliament.

 

As bookies' odds confirm, barring some massive, unexpected shift there are only 2 possible election outcomes: a Tory majority or a hung parliament.

I'm in a tory stronghold anyway so i'm just contributing to a statistic, tactically it's always been lib dems here but labour trounced them last time. Don't think I could ever vote Lib Dems especially with Swinson, I'm more likely to vote green or just spoil the ballot 

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I'm in a tory stronghold anyway so i'm just contributing to a statistic, tactically it's always been lib dems here but labour trounced them last time. Don't think I could ever vote Lib Dems especially with Swinson, I'm more likely to vote green or just spoil the ballot 

 

I'm in a similar situation, but in a Labour safe seat (26,000 majority in 2017). If I was in a marginal seat, I'd vote Labour as I much prefer them of the main parties - though I'd prefer it if Corbyn didn't have the unrestrained power of a large majority (fat chance of that!). Where I am, I think that I'll vote Green to help bump their national vote tally up in an effort to get the main parties to address climate change with more urgency.

 

One of several reasons I support electoral reform is that, with the right system (Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies for me) everyone's vote would matter to a small degree: even those living in areas dominated by one party. Elections and party campaigns wouldn't have to focus so much on swing voters or marginal seats.

[Guest MattP]

18 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Here are his precise words: "We need to sort Brexit. I've voted 9 times in Parliament for a deal to do that".

 

So, he didn't claim to have "voted for Brexit", Matt, and he didn't claim to have voted for a specific deal agreed by the EU, Kopf.

 

His words "to do that" clearly refer back to "sort Brexit". So he claimed to have "voted 9 times.....for a deal to [sort Brexit]" 

I'd also like to enthusiastically express my support for a deal to sort Brexit - preferably by burying it under 500m tons of landfill. 

 

Slippery expression by Miliband, I know, but not a lie (unless he didn't do it 9 times) - and if you're expecting politicians not to be slippery, you'll be disappointed.

I can't be arsed to search for leaflets of Tory candidates, but I bet that if I did, we'd find that some of those in Remain-voting constituencies would have a subtly different message from those in Leave seats.

Oh come off it, this is absolutely ridiculous. If a Tory was engaging in this sort of misrepresentation you would (quite rightly as well) be calling them out for it.

 

He is trying to manipulate people in his own leave constituency to think he's tried to get Brexit done, the facts are that he simply hasn't. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest he has.