|
|
Post by andrewbrown on May 29, 2023 18:34:59 GMT
I'm not one to usually quote the Daily Mail (I feel soiled), but I do think that this was an interesting and somewhat surprising poll. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12133253/New-poll-finds-surge-support-Labour-rural-areas-Tories-risk.htmlI don't think that the fact that Tory support is dropping is too much of a surprise. In addition to the planning and housing issues raised in the article, I'll also add rural transport and agriculture as reasons for the drop in support. For me the surprise is that these disenchanted voters are not turning towards LibDems or even Green, but to Labour. I'm not sure I understand why, as that doesn't seem natural to me? In the constituencies highlighted Labour were already the Second Party. In areas where the LibDems are second I doubt very much that Labour will leapfrog them. You could well be right, I'm not familiar with them, but it does surprise me a little. I do wonder if we will see the sort of "informal" deals between LibDems and Labour where Labour didn't campaign too hard in Tiverton, North Shropshire and Amersham, and the LibDems didn't campaign too hard in Bradford come the general election. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on May 29, 2023 18:35:15 GMT
Well, i read the article and it didn’t seem that huge a move to anyone. True the tory vote has taken a dive but the toty party is hardly tory yhese days and hadn’t been since 2010 at leadt. About a third of a thousand people questioned thought the tories wrre the party for rural areas. About a third disagreed and another third didn’t have a clue Asked for their views about labour. A third said they were, a third said they weren’t and a third said they didn’t have a clue Given labour’s hatred of all things rural i’m surprised a third said they favoured labour but maybe they were pretending to live in tbe countryside. Frankly, i think this is the daily mail making headlines up and hoping no one reads the detail. Probably, but an interesting poll to choose, which was why I started the thread. You are right that there seems little difference between the polling here between the parties, but if these are normally very safe Tory seats, even if they drop a handful that would be alarming. The poll is total bullshit sun shine. How many rural residents did they ask? What questions did they ask? How was the question put to those who were asked? |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 29, 2023 18:47:47 GMT
Probably, but an interesting poll to choose, which was why I started the thread. You are right that there seems little difference between the polling here between the parties, but if these are normally very safe Tory seats, even if they drop a handful that would be alarming. The poll is total bullshit sun shine. How many rural residents did they ask? What questions did they ask? How was the question put to those who were asked?
The survey of over 1,000 people in England’s 100 most-rural constituencies also revealed a surge in support of 16% for the Labour Party.
The CLA said these changes leave the Conservative Party (41%) and Labour Party (36%) almost neck and neck for the next General Election.
www.agriland.co.uk/farming-news/rural-support-for-conservative-party-drops-by-18-survey/
Whatever. But it currently looks serious for the Tories, and hopeful for the rest… |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 29, 2023 21:37:59 GMT
In the constituencies highlighted Labour were already the Second Party. In areas where the LibDems are second I doubt very much that Labour will leapfrog them. You could well be right, I'm not familiar with them, but it does surprise me a little. I do wonder if we will see the sort of "informal" deals between LibDems and Labour where Labour didn't campaign too hard in Tiverton, North Shropshire and Amersham, and the LibDems didn't campaign too hard in Bradford come the general election. Maybe - but remember that the LibDems do not want a Labour majority just as much as the Tories. The LibDems want to be the kingmakers again which precludes allowing Labour a free hand. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on May 29, 2023 22:06:33 GMT
You could well be right, I'm not familiar with them, but it does surprise me a little. I do wonder if we will see the sort of "informal" deals between LibDems and Labour where Labour didn't campaign too hard in Tiverton, North Shropshire and Amersham, and the LibDems didn't campaign too hard in Bradford come the general election. Maybe - but remember that the LibDems do not want a Labour majority just as much as the Tories. The LibDems want to be the kingmakers again which precludes allowing Labour a free hand. Oh, defo, but I think that the alliance will be in seats where know they are not competitive. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on May 30, 2023 0:04:02 GMT
The poll is total bullshit sun shine. How many rural residents did they ask? What questions did they ask? How was the question put to those who were asked?
The survey of over 1,000 people in England’s 100 most-rural constituencies also revealed a surge in support of 16% for the Labour Party.
The CLA said these changes leave the Conservative Party (41%) and Labour Party (36%) almost neck and neck for the next General Election.
www.agriland.co.uk/farming-news/rural-support-for-conservative-party-drops-by-18-survey/
Whatever. But it currently looks serious for the Tories, and hopeful for the rest… Wow 1000 people. WOW no wonder it aint worth the paperit is printed on. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on May 30, 2023 0:16:19 GMT
A new survey released by the Country Land & Business Association (CLA) and Survation has revealed an 18% fall in rural support for the Conservative Party.
The survey of over 1,000 people in England’s 100 most-rural constituencies also revealed a surge in support of 16% for the Labour Party.
The CLA said these changes leave the Conservative Party (41%) and Labour Party (36%) almost neck and neck for the next General Election.
www.agriland.co.uk/farming-news/rural-support-for-conservative-party-drops-by-18-survey/
Whatever. But it currently looks serious for the Tories, and hopeful for the rest… Wow 1000 people. WOW no wonder it aint worth the paperit is printed on. Actually 1000 people is about the norm for opinion polls. When i was an undergraduate i had to do a lot of stats stuff which you might be able to peruse yourself, if you can find a two volume textbook maths for scientists and engineers by bajpai, calus and fairley. With the ink drying on my degree and me earning money measuring solar energy at earth at sea level a chap who was in the dept of applied maths and energy studies and who had shall we say explored the world of politics, explained to me how that sample size of 1000 was the min acceptable for certain zoological taxonomy measurements and other standard deviation related stuff. As this was a good 45 years ago i cant remember a word of why now, but i’m pretty certain it made sense to me them. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on May 30, 2023 6:14:45 GMT
To my mind the number of people who are used is not a fair representation of the voting public and the questions can be put in a manipulative manner.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on May 30, 2023 8:54:48 GMT
Do you have an expertise in stats?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on May 30, 2023 13:03:19 GMT
Do you have an expertise in stats? Do you sunshine? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on May 30, 2023 16:42:53 GMT
No, my degree was in materials science rather than stats, but then I wasn't questioning the experts with my "opinion", thicko.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on May 30, 2023 17:04:11 GMT
No, my degree was in materials science rather than stats, but then I wasn't questioning the experts with my "opinion", thicko. How can even less than 0.1% represent the total of those eleigible to vote? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on May 30, 2023 17:15:05 GMT
No, my degree was in materials science rather than stats, but then I wasn't questioning the experts with my "opinion", thicko. How can even less than 0.1% represent the total of those eleigible to vote? It's a sample. As long as you have a representative cross section, you can extrapolate. Otherwise you would have to poll everyone everytime. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on May 30, 2023 17:16:33 GMT
How can even less than 0.1% represent the total of those eleigible to vote? It's a sample. As long as you have a representative cross section, you can extrapolate. Otherwise you would have to poll everyone everytime. Only a simpleton would beleive it sunshine. The only thing labour support are their rotten to the core selves. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on May 30, 2023 17:42:42 GMT
It's now a proven fact that when Labour lurches more towards the moderate side, call it what you want ... Centre Left or Social Democratic, the party becomes an attractive proposition for a wide cross section of the electorate, including so called "Middle England", the middle class and for some who normally vote Tory. We saw this in the record breaking 3 terms of office from 1997, and the record majority achieved. Here in the North, constituencies which had never elected a Labour MP did so for the first time in history, and that included constituencies with large rural populations. I am half expecting some Tory MPs to announce their retirement before the next general election in the areas close to where I live. Sid, in 1997 Labour got 13,518,167 votes, that's not as many as Margaret Thatcher got in 1987, it's only a peculliarity of the First Past The Post system that Blair did so well. In 2001 Labour got 10,724,953 votes. In 2005 Labour got 9,552,436 votes. Blair's momentus results don't look so good if you look at the bigger picture. Whilst he was in power public apathy grew especially amongst core Labour voters. In 2010, whilst still trying to continue with the New Labour project, Gordon Brown got a dismal 8,609,527 votes. Even Miliband did better on the vote count than Brown. 9,347,273 Corbyn in 2017. 12,877,918 Corbyn in 2019. 10,269,051 2017 was the only General Election since 1997 in which Labour made net gains in seat numbers instead of net losses. And they made gains on a pro Brexit manifesto only to throw it all away for Keir Starmer and other remoaners in the party. |
|
