Westminster projection - 27.08.2018 update

Wot's…. uh the deal?

Recent polling is quite surprising with all the twists and turns. Here is the sequence since late June (only three main parties included on purpose) and trendlines since last GE.

It's not just a case of Labour being shot down by MSM's smear-lie-slander-repeat tactics. After all the SNP are the target of even worse abuse and they still get 40% of Scottish voting intentions and a solid majority of Scottish seats. Labour should sit back and take a deep breath and then admit that a lot of the damage was self-inflicted: ambiguity on Brexit, willing abettors or abstainers on Tory austerity plans, rumours of a possible SDP-like scenario in the near future,....

Then you have the 'Corbyn Factor'. At some point politics always get personal and Corbyn steadily loses the 'Preferred Prime Minister' competition. Of course polls mostly say that the people's choice would be 'None of the above'. But once you factor that out May wins hands down like 6-to-4. Corbyn is not only unpopular he's also considered unfit for the position. And that's a hard one to overcome especially when a lot of the seeds of doubt have been planted by your own camp.

An interesting feature of the latest batch of polls is that they predict anything from a 3% Labour lead to a 3% Conservative lead. A 6% spread in polls fielded in quick succession is beyond MOE. But it doesn't means the polls are unreliable. Only that we should be really careful in interpreting them.

Let there be more light

Let's see now what the most recent polls tell us. Today's super-sample is based on six polls fielded between 9 August and 21 August. Super-sample size is 10,404 with a 0.93% MOE.

Labour and Conservatives are statistically tied, which means Labour would fail to gain a truly significant number of marginals and Conservatives would still come out as the first party thanks to voting patterns on current boundaries. 

I also had a quick look at the Scottish subsamples. I don't use them in my Scottish projections but it's still worth checking them once in a while to know whether or not they follow the trend of full Scottish polls. In this case they do with the SNP on 37-42%. With all the usual caveats about the large MOE this would deliver, give or take a few, SNP 41-48, Conservatives 8-12, LibDems 2-4, Labour 1-3.

The narrow way

The seat projection based on my current super-sample would again deliver a rather awkward situation. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives would get a majority and any 'coalition combination' would be risky. On the other hand such a Parliament could possibly trigger a 1974ish scenario rather than a 1910ish scenario.

Based on this projection a hypothetical snap election would deliver 308 seats to the Con-DUP coalition and 268 to Labour. Even though the number of seats differ this could very well open the door for a 1974ish scenario. Like Labour giving Tories a free pass on a minimalist Queen's Speech dealing only with Brexit and Tories agreeing to another snap election within a year.

Which sounds far fetched but might actually not be. Odds are that in such a context Labour wouldn't even have to strongarm the Conservatives into a post-Brexit snap election. Mogglodytes would force Theresa May to call it. And probably will anyway sooner than later during current Parliament.

Us and them

As in any very close election only a small number of seats would change hands. Only 26 on current numbers with 11 in Scotland only, due to the SNP gaining back enough votes from Labour to kick them out of all their six 2017 gains and gaining back some Con-SNP marginals too.

Under current polling damage would be actually minimal for the Conservatives. Most of the defeated MPs would be backbenchers or past big names no longer holding Cabinet posts. Only 'mini Balls moments' would be two third-tier Ministers (Smith and Doyle-Price) and two Assistant Whips (Whittaker and Andrew) losing their seats. Nothing to write home about.

But there would be a truckload of irony in these results for Labour. Jeremy Corbyn would have to reinstate Ian Murray as Shadow Scottish Secretary despite there being little love lost between them. Just because Murray would be Labour's last man standing anywhere in Scotland. Too good not to wish for.

If

Right now even my alternate scenarios would not be really satisfying as none would deliver anything like a stable government. Even 'Labour minimum' would see the current Con-DUP alliance down to a majority of just two seats. The kind of fringe situation that would make them even more vulnerable than they are right now to any sort of Mogglodyte offensive or Remainer defection or possibly a combination of both.

While the Conservatives staying in power would require them squaring the circle, current House of Commons projections are even worse for Labour. Even on 'Labour maximum' Conservatives would still be the first party and have the first shot at delivering a Queen's Speech. Which would not pass unless Labour choose the 1974ish approach I described earlier. 

Unless of course Labour take a giant leap of faith into the unknown (aye ah ken, mixed metaphor). When Asquith and Redmond struck a deal in 1910 the Liberals were committed to delivering Irish Home Rule against vociferous Conservative opposition. Today, with English parties joined at the hip by blind Unionism, any deal with the SNP would be a gamble. But it might have some upsides too if played well.

Corbyn agreeing to grant a Section 30 order would be like Cameron agreeing to the AV referendum of 2011. Allow it then actively campaign against it to deflect criticism. But realistically odds are he wouldn't dare it as too risky. After all he has recently made it a habit of backpedalling when facing criticism and is targeted by a rebellion that would destroy Labour as we know it. So self-preservation is bound to win the day. Also of course Yes might win.

When the tigers broke free

There has been a lot of speculation lately about an 'inevitable' Labour split. Most of it is based on rumours and circumstantial evidence which makes the split possible or even plausible rather than outright inevitable. Let's just assume for now that it does indeed happen and that the 'Jeremy Corbyn Party' and the 'Chuka Umunna Party' compete for the center-left vote at the next GE.

There is obviously no way to predict the exact outcome of such a competition. That would require knowing which MPs would choose which side, whether or not the two parties would stand against each other in every constituency, what kind of alliances could possibly emerge from the split, etc etc. With all these caveats duly accounted for, Electoral Calculus includes a 'Labour split' simulation in the advanced options on his prediction page. 

To be on more solid ground I started from the 2017 results and simulated what might happen with NewLab (the 'Chuka Umunna Party') on 10, 15 and 20%. This is obviously just a very rough approximation but still an insight into how major a disaster the split would be for Labour.

Another option is to test what could possibly happen if NewLab went straight into an alliance or merger with the Liberal Democrats. In this case I added the possible NewLab vote to the 2017 LibDem vote. The results are less spectacular because of the way the prediction algorithm works but the number of projected 'New Alliance' MPs is nevertheless strikingly close to the actual 1983 and 1987 results. A hint that this Alliance would be just as 'successful' as the first one proving history can only repeat itself. But in this case the second time would be the tragedy as in 'three more shambolic Tory terms after Brexit disaster'.

I guess the Umunnistas can do the math as well as me and know what their best option is. Bagging up to 80 seats as a standalone party is obviously better than a meagre 12-15 as part of a wobbly coalition. Downsides of course are that this would crash-land Labour for good and relegate the Corbynista brand of 'class politics' to fringe status up to the seventh generation. But wait…. naw. For them both of these would actually be upsides.

In any case the Labour split would offer the Conservatives a Thatcher-like or even Blair-like majority on a silver platter. One that would extremely difficult to overturn in any future GE. But I don't think Labour rebels think things out that far ahead. I guess they're only concentrated on kicking out Corbyn whatever the consequences and don't have any credible long-term plans. Resurrecting the Blairite Party is certainly not one anyway.

One of these days

UK and the EU will agree on some Brexit 'no-deal' deal. It now seems that the 'when' is not even set in stone while the 'what and how' have already been a matter of conjecture for quite a while now. The English government are obviously playing for time, which sounds odd as last month they seemed eager to reach a quick conclusion. Obviously Brexit is once again used to try and solve issues that concern only the Conservative Party, not to take care of the UK's best interests.

Pushing the 'meaningful vote' until after the Conference Recess is an obvious way to avoid any leadership challenge at the Conference. Which in turn means that the Surprise Snap Election Of 2018 will never happen and Theresa May gets away with it for a few more months. If the Mogglodytes are ready to wait until November or December to stage their coup, then they must also be ready to wait until 29 March. Then the floodgates will open and the walls will come tumbling down. Aye mixed metaphor again.

Conservative spads must also be counting on the 'NewLab' scenario actually happening. Then even a divided and directionless Conservative Party would cruise to a massive victory (see above). All things considered my best educated guess is that we might get a Surprise Snap Election Of 2019 some time in May or June. Which would have the additional 'upside' of jeopardizing any plans for an early Second Scottish Independence Referendum, if there ever were any.

Until then…. the show must go on….

Cha togar m' fhearg gun dìoladh

Westminster projection - 17.08.2018 update

I've seen that movie too

Polls come and polls go. At the peak of the (smallish) Labour surge about a month ago Labour led by 3%. Then the momentum kind of died down for various reasons and now we're back to a tie. Current super-sample is based on six polls fielded between 20 July and 13 August with 8,982 respondents and 1% MOE.

Note that these polls were in the field before the wreath controversy and the Westminster attack so the impact of both will be seen only in the next batch. Right now I just wonder what the polls would say if MSM devoted as much space to Tory islamophobia and dark money as they do to alleged Labour antisemitism. Ironically Labour are just getting a taste of their own medicine after years of using similar methods against the SNP. One can only hope that someday political debate will veer away from the smear-lie-slander-repeat cycle. Juist sayin. 

A House Divided

On current polling we find ourselves once more with a hung Parliament and both major parties far from a majority. 1910 all over again. Again. But it might very well end up being 1974 all over again.

If the actual result were to reflect this projection, the outcome would be a complete deadlock. Conservatives, though the first party, wouldn't pass their Queen's Speech as the SNP would vote against it. Bur Labour wouldn't pass theirs either as the SNP would not vote for it. But there's always the possibility that Labour would allow a Conservative minority government as interim caretakers for a few months until another snap election is called. Weirdest things have happened.

Changing of the guards

In this projection only 34 seats would change hands including a net gain of 12 seats for Labour. Far short of the 60+ needed for a majority. This is due in part to differential turnout on current boundaries giving Conservatives an in-built bonus of about 20 seats.

The complete list of seats changing hands is not much different from what we had the last time, give or take a few. Only noticeable new item is LibDems gaining back Sheffield Hallam from Labour. This is just a statistical result, but I guess Jared O'Mara's shenanigans make that a distinct possibility even if Labour were doing better overall.

For the record Electoral Calculus have 43 seats changing hands and a slightly different projection than mine. Main reason is that they apply the UK-wide swing also to Wales and London while I process both separately. Thus their results in both cases are better for Labour because recent polling in Wales and London is less than stellar for Labour who might even lose a seat each in both areas. They also use a different set of polls going further back in the past so the July Labour surge is still factored in in their sample.

Land of confusion

The alternate scenarios based on current polling are not really more satisfying than the median projection as neither would deliver an outright majority for either major party. Labour and Conservatives tied on the popular vote means that only part of the marginals switch to Labour in the median projection. A 1% swing would then displace about 20 seats but the geography of the marginals implies it would be more complex than just Con-Lab/Lab-Con switches and anyway not enough to deliver anything but a hung Parliament.

But both Conservatives and Labour could try some risky minority coalition based on the seat projections of my two extreme scenarios. On the 'Lab minimum' scenario the Conservatives could get away with a DUP deal again, which would probably cost another £1bn bribe. Being only four seats short of a majority all they would need to go through a full term would be a handful of Labstainers on key legislation, which they would certainly get. It would be trickier for Labour on the 'Lab maximum' scenario as the only option would be a Rainbow coalition which is unlikely to succeed unless they do a full U-turn on Brexit combined with a stronger commitment to tackle climate change. Both unlikely to happen.

Who knows what tomorrow may bring

The next batch of polls will show the fallout of the wreath controversy and this will likely be bad for Labour. A recent BMG poll shows that 60% of respondents feel Labour handled the situation badly or vey badly. Some on Twitter even believe and spread that Corbyn actually admitted to laying a wreath on the Münich terrorists' graves. Can't get worse than that. Or can it?

Of course Labour's problems go deeper than MSM's made-up controversies. They gave Theresa May a free pass on Brexit and there are no electoral dividends in this. They appear directionless and unconvincing even to life-long supporters like Patrick Stewart. It's unlikely they can recover in time for a snap election if there ever is one.

Stay tuned for further updates

Saor Alba gu bràth

Any appetite for a second EU referendum?

Earlier this week Iain Macwhirter published a piece in the Herald which starts with some not-so-convincing ramblings about a second Independence referendum. In the final section a somewhat clumsily worded sentence sounds like he's appealing to the SNP to come out in support of People's Vote, though he doesn't exactly say it explicitely in so many words. Part of his demonstration is self-contradictory but never mind. 

Besides there seems to be some confusion in his mind between People's Vote (which would be a referendum on the final Brexit deal only) and the so-called 'BrexitRef2' or 'think twice referendum' (which would be a rematch of the 2016 EU referendum in the same spirit as IndyRef2). Let's assume for now it's the first option, as I think there are some good reasons why the SNP, as an organisation, should never touch People's Vote with a sixty-foot barge pole, even if some members including MPs seem inclined to support it.

First Mcwhirter advising you to do it is reason enough to not do it. More seriously an obvious reason is that BrexitRef2 will never happen. Conservative and Labour united frontbenches will make sure of that. No matter how many signatures People's Vote get on their petition the only outcome will be Parliament voting on the final deal under the somewhat fuzzy provisions of 'meaningful vote'. So the SNP throwing its full weight behind People's Vote would just waste energy, resources and political capital to achieve fuck all.

Second reason is that right now People's Vote looks like an haphazard combination of some Liberal Democrats, a few Conservative strays and a handful of Labour backbenchers whose motivation might just be to piss off Corbyn (aye that's ye Chuka and Ian). No political parties officially support them, not even the LibDems or the Greens so it looks somewhat like some scaled-down Better Together. Brexiteers probably think of them as only a minor nuisance or else the Tory-owned MSM would already have blown them out of the water.

The third and probably most important reason for the SNP to stay out of it is that standing up for BrexitRef2 in whatever incarnation would be an unnecessary distraction from the real goal: holding IndyRef2 within a year and winning it. Independence is the first and foremost priority, I will even say the only priority. All other issues can be discussed and sorted out afterwards.

Let's assume now that Macwhirter is actually talking about a full Monty rematch of the 2016 EU referendum. For once I think the SNP should be extremely cautious before taking a stand on that. Because this option would be extremely hazardous, even more than the first one. To support this just factor in the demographics of the IndyRef and EURef votes. I don't have any crosstabs based on the actual votes but pollsters do crosstab current Indy voting intentions with 2014 and 2016 votes. Simply because 'recall questions' are an easy way to check the reliability of the current sample. Here is what we get from this year's IndyRef2 polls:

The reconstructed results of IndyRef and EURef based on the 'recall questions' from these polls fit with the actual results, meaning both are within MOE. Of course the most important part is that 30% of Yes voters also voted Leave. Which means that the SNP throwing massive support behind BrexitRef2 would be a huge strategic blunder with IndyRef2 within months of happening. I think even Nicola Sturgeon's pro-EU spads (those reportedly urging her to come out in favour of BrexitRef2 at the October Conference) can understand it would be adventurous at best, suicidal at worst to alienate even part of the Yes-Leave voters when Independence could be at stake in the foreseeable future.

At this point I would like to remind you of what I tweeted back then, some days before the EU referendum. Those who already followed me in 2016 might remember it. I don't remember the exact wording but the idea was 'vote Remain because it's the right thing to do NOW then get Indy and ask again'. Simply because Independence will open a lot of previously unexplored options. EU with or without Eurozone being just one choice and possibly not be the best one.

Fun (or sadly sloppy) part in Mcwhirter's article is when he urges Nicola Sturgeon to support BrexitRef2 because it would be 'seizing the political initiative and giving her party something concrete to do'. Which, apart from the patronizing tone, is utter cooshite. Not least because McWhirter starts his piece arguing that Sturgeon would shatter party unity if she doesn't launch the IndyRef2 campaign at the October Conference and goes on advising her to do the exact opposite. 

Obviously there is no better way to strengthen party unity, seize the initiative and give the party something concrete to do than starting the Move To IndyRef2 at the October Conference. I hope the prepared statement will not refer to 'lack of clarity on Brexit' as an excuse to procrastinate on Independence (again). The grassroots would hate it. But I trust we can rely on Keith Brown to inject some welcome boldness into the whole thing (and there is absolutely not the weest smitch of irony in this sentence).

Besides Dominic Raab and Michel Barnier can be of some help here. In his latest press statement Barnier mentioned that 'we both (EU and UK) want to conclude in October with a deal'. We can just hope that means early October as Raab will probably want the deal sealed before Commons return. So there is a reasonable chance the gory details will be revealed in time for the SNP Conference which happens to be the very last of this year's season. Then all excuses to hide behind Brexit would vanish and SNP leadership could only blame themselves for 'lack of clarity on Independence', if any.

As a conclusion I will borrow some lines from the great Paul Kavanagh. He nails it and says it all better than I could (full brilliant piece here). "The SNP needs to harness the energy and enthusiasm that is growing in the grassroots Indy movement. They need to get the Indy vote out, and that means giving it a reason, giving it a vision, giving it hope".

Stay tuned for further broadcasts

Nemo me impune lacessit

© Lord Louis Freedman @shedboy23

Westminster projection - 09.08.2018 update

The big picture

Only three more polls since my last projection and all have Labour and the Conservatives nose to nose on 38%. These results are quite disappointing for Labour after the surge we saw in the aftermath of the Tory Brexit debacle but I think there is a pattern here. As soon as Labour do better in opinion polls Tory cronies in the MSM come back with some 'new' stories about Labour's alleged antisemitism and infighting, plus some personal attacks aimed at Jeremy Corbyn.

In a ironic twist of fate Tories use the same tactics against Corbyn as Scottish Labour against the SNP: smear, lie, slander, repeat. Some may think there's a kind of immanent justice at work here but I don't. Actually I feel sorry for Jeremy Corbyn. The man has a lot of political faults from blind support of Unionism to ambiguity on Brexit. But I do believe he is a decent man deep down and certainly does not deserve the thrashing he gets from MSM and sometimes from within his own party.

Just between you and me if I was English (and blissfully clueless about Scottish matters as most of them are) I would most certainly have joined Labour and Momentum. And also been part of the recent #WeAreCorbyn twitterstorm. But now let's forget this (and I will deny having ever said it anyway 😁) and go back to the matter at hand: what do polls say? Super-sample size is 9,726 with 0.96% MOE.

Labour's projected lead is down to just over 1% from 3% ten days ago. But Conservatives still appear to lose votes on both sides to UKIP and LibDems. The SNP is still doing well as full Scottish polls already told us, as are the LibDems thanks to some Tory Remainers switching sides.

Faced with such numbers you have to try and find why Labour fails to get any momentum (wretched pun fully intended). So I dug out the voting intentions / social grade crosstabs from 20+ polls going back to June. Average voting intentions are of course different than the current super-sample as I covered a longer period. The results are enlightening.

Voting intentions broken down by social grade groupings are pretty close to the average. In fact the differences are statistically barely significant as the crosstabs produce smaller subsamples with higher MOEs. The conclusion is that 'class identity' is not a discriminating variable to predict which way people will vote. Which will come out as no surprise as you could argue that class identity in the classic sense no longer exists in the UK. After all both Tory and New Labour ideologies have been based on the denial or destruction of class identity for ages. And Labour's recent return to some brand of 'class politics' has not altered the big picture. Yet.

Of course as a socialist I beg to differ. I do believe classes (not the neutered statistical concept of 'social grades') still exist and probably today more than ever over the last 30 years. If you don't believe classes exist just listen to Jacob Rees-Mogg for a reminder that they actually do.  And there is definitely a class war going on. The working class may not always be totally aware of it but the ruling class are. Because they started it. And are winning it. So far.

The real thing, not Billy Bragg's 'revision'

And where does this take us?

The projected result would be one of most awkward and potentially unmanageable in UK electoral history. Both major parties some 40 seats short of a majority and no credible government coalition in sight either. Even with Labour slightly ahead on the popular vote the Conservatives would bag the most seats by a nose. Thanks in part to both differential turnout and the high number of Labour sinkholes which automatically generate a higher number of wasted votes. 

Only the two 1910 elections show a similar pattern with both main parties on 40-41% of the seats, while 1929 and February 1974 come close with the first party winning only 46% of the seats. It's also worth remembering that in 1910 H.H. Asquith sought an received support from the Irish Parliamentary Party which in today's context would be quite similar to Labour seeking SNP support. Juist sayin.

On these numbers only 38 seats would change hands including 18 from Conservatives to Labour. While Labour need 60+ to be on the safe side.

The smaller number of changes also greatly reduces the number of potential Balls moments. And I also have a hunch that Labour might find it convenient to spare a couple of the names on that list because they would be more useful as rebel Tory backbenchers. As to which ones, your guess is as good as mine. 

The alternate scenarios

As usual about 20 seats would move one way or the other as we go from one scenario to the next. But on current polling even the 'Labour maximum' scenario is not that good for them. Being 25 seats ahead of the second party and still 25 seats short of a majority is not what anyone would call a 'best case scenario'. Yet it is the best Labour can hope for under current polling.

The summary of all possible coalitions or combinations shows it. It would be fairly easy to keep the Tories out but far more difficult to get Labour in.

Even on their best projected result Labour would have to risk a minority coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Which would be hard to swallow for many on both sides and is probably not the likeliest outcome. But you never know. To make it safer some form of confidence and supply deal with the Greens and Plaid Cymru would be a bonus but is also quite unlikely to happen. And I won't even mention the SNP deal. All considered if current polling became reality that would be the recipe for yet another snap election within months if not weeks.

What would happen if there was no Scotland?

For some time many have wondered aloud what would happen to the House of Commons if Scotland was already an independent nation by the time of the next GE. To answer this we first need a 'point zero' which would be the 2017 election. Here is the breakdown of seats by nation with and without Scotland. Remember that without Scotland Commons have only 591 seats. So 293 seats is the de facto majority as long as Sinn Féin won't take their seats.

At face value this looks good for the Conservatives who would have achieved a 12-seat majority and could have done away with the DUP deal. But don't jump to the conclusion that Scotland not being there would always benefit the Tories.

Let's see now what we get on the projected results of the next GE. I picked up my 'Labour maximum' scenario as it is the one that best supports my point. Here is what we have on current polling. First with Scotland in and then with Scotland out.

The projection has Labour on 298 seats, far from a majority and bound to deliver at best a weak minority government. But with Scotland out Labour gets a two-seat majority. Just because right now Labour are doing very poorly in Scotland and so would lose only a few seats.

The final word is that the party who wins the election will benefit from Scotland being out only if they also do poorly in Scotland. Otherwise a Scotland-less Commons will help the opposition. See the sequence from 1997 to a projected 2022 to see how it works.

Labour win three elections while doing extremely well in Scotland, so losing the Scottish seats lowers their simulated share of seats. It works exactly the other way round with the Conservatives winning the other three elections while doing badly in Scotland. They get a higher share of seats but the impact is less visible in 2017 when they did better than usual in Scotland.

Of course Labour were the dominant party in Scotland for the best part of the last 60 years so it was easy to conclude that a Scotland-less Commons would always benefit the Tories. But this was just a confusion between the result and the way by which it is achieved. Now that Labour have become something of a fringe party in Scotland, Scottish independence is bound to benefit them in any future GE. Could even help them get a majority in a close election that would deliver only a plurality in the current Commons.

One more Scottish paradox.

And then what next?

There will probably be fewer polls in August except the usual weekly YouGov for The Times. Next batch of polls will show the impact of Boris Johnson's islamophobia scandal. Possibly Bojo has now lost the Conservative leadership contest before it even began. So public opinion will have to get used to the idea that Jacob Rees-Mogg will be the next PM once the 1922 Committee is done with Theresa May.

When and how it will happen is widely open to conjecture as this is part of an uncertain future. A no-confidence vote between the Summer Recess and the Conference Recess would not necessarily be the most convenient option for JRM, especially as Commons will sit for only eight days and whatever could be done would have to be rushed. A leadership contest during the recess is another option, with the Conference having the final say.

Stay tuned for further developments.

Wha daur meddle wi' me