C69 wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 9:07 pm
_Os_ wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:45 pm
I watched Channel 4 News and Sky News this evening. All the journalists were saying this indicates a hung parliament, then they put their numbers up, and they've taken the percentage of the vote this local election and mapped it onto all 650 Westminster seats. But the Lib Dems are polling at 10%-ish UK wide and not 18%, and obviously independents aren't going to be getting 20%+. It seems like the media have forgotten this is only most of England outside London. Wales/Scotland/London are going to be adding a lot to Labour and very little to the Tories. This result indicates a Labour majority more than any other outcome imo.
Indeed such a strange conflation. Very poor political science indeed.
At risk of replying to myself (no one on the thread has really said much on the topic or seems to disagree), I've looked into the numbers a bit more over the last few days.
I looked at four constituencies (all in southern England) I know well enough to describe the type of people/economy/housing they have, taking 3 or 4 wards from each which again I know the demographics well enough to not need Google. 14 wards across 4 Westminster constituencies. I then compiled the results for each ward in the 2023/2022/2019 council election, the overall council result in each of those elections, and also the constituency result in the 2019/2017 general election. 8 pieces of data for each ward.
From looking at all that the one liner for this election is really simple, "people voted for whoever was most likely to remove the Tories". Not the convoluted mess the media have come up with of a hung parliament based on the Lib Dems/Greens/Others taking 40% of the vote in a GE, which is not likely at all. But instead simply "people voted for whoever was most likely to remove the Tories".
Sometimes this wasn't precise, a Lib Dem may have been second in a ward previously and the Lib Dems may have been doing okay-ish on the council (but not first or second), but Labour were second in the council and second in the constituency seat so Labour came from third in the ward to win. But the pattern remained whoever was second somewhere (and mostly the same party was second across different elections, so whatever imperfect information the voter had was correct anyway) behind the Tory, suddenly got half the votes from those placed 3rd and 4th and it looks like a portion of the previously Tory votes too. Sometimes this was very clear where the turnout was the same as 2019 (as in almost the exact same amount of votes), and the votes lost from the previously first placed Tory and the 3rd and 4th placed parties exactly matches the gain for the previously 2nd placed party who won. If any model isn't outputting something basic like "it's FPTP, people voted for whoever was second previously to remove the Tories", then it is over complicating things.
One interesting thing which I've not seen mentioned anywhere. Working class areas that previously had some UKIP footprint, have disappeared into the Labour vote on an almost 1:1 basis. The middle/upper class areas I looked at all had a past UKIP footprint that was tiny or didn't exist, so I'm less sure where those votes went to. Nowhere I looked at had Reform UK candidates (they fielded 500 candidates and got 6 councillors). It seems possible the Tory attempt to eat UKIP, meant they took all its headbanging membership and its policies, but many of UKIP's voters may have just never been prepared to vote Tory (even if they agree with Tory policies) because they're never going to trust them. Reform UK at the moment is incapable of filling the same space UKIP did at its peak (mostly because the Tories themselves now dominate that space, but also because Labour hasn't taken the bait and given people a reason to not vote Labour). In other words the Tory stuff on Rwanda and small boats, may be a total waste of time if the point is winning votes.
This election was heavily tilted in favour of the Tories. Council elections favour Tory voters because they're older and turn out more. It was held in England but not London or Birmingham and tilted towards shires, the Tory heartland. The Tories got 26% of the popular vote. If this is all repeated (not the literal results as the media are spinning it, but the clear intention that "people voted for whoever was most likely to remove the Tories") at a GE, then the Tories will be at risk of a really incredible defeat.
Tory MPs now talk about "18 months until the next election", meaning the general election. But the next set of elections are in May 2024, in London/Manchester/West Midlands, these are more favourable to Labour than this election was. Not only do they now need to turn this around (step one should be send loony Tory MPs to the backbenches, and prevent them talking non-stop on loony far right TV "news" channels), they also look committed to sacrificing momentum for a winter 2024 election. They're just kicking the can and hoping.