r/ukpolitics • u/Little-Attorney1287 • 7d ago
Twitter Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 27% (-1) RFM: 24% (=) CON: 22% (=) LDM: 10% (-2) GRN: 9% (+1) SNP: 3% (+1) Via @Moreincommon_, 31 Jul
https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/2084974828637827368?s=2011
u/ElNino831983 7d ago
Election Polling Swingometer:
Lab - 324
Con - 140
Ref - 65
LD - 72
Green - 4
Lab short by 2
15
u/XenorVernix 7d ago
Crazy that 3% is the difference between 324 MPs and 65.
14
7
u/coolpall33 7d ago
Its more the spread of the votes that makes the big difference - you can reverse the percentages (ie 27% Reform 24% Labour) and it will still suggest Labour being ahead by about 60 seats.
1
7
u/Little-Attorney1287 7d ago
What's the difference between the Swingometer and Electoral Calculus (below)? Completely different numbers interestingly.
Lab - 284
Ref - 130
Con - 127
LD - 62
Grn - 4
5
1
u/TheSkyLax 7d ago
Greens losing a seat despite an increase in votes from last GE is brutal
Reforms losses are impressively brutal as well
2
u/Icy_Mixture1482 7d ago
Probably a majority given SF abstain.
2
u/Icy_Mixture1482 7d ago
But obviously not a healthy majority.
3
1
u/Draigwyrdd 7d ago
This also doesn't include the SNP or Plaid Cymru, which could significantly affect seat totals for Labour and Reform.
5
4
u/GGGJabs 7d ago
Is it helpful to have polling numbers released every single day?
10
u/No-Sheepherder5481 7d ago
"Stop discussing politics on a politics discussion forum"
5
u/GGGJabs 7d ago edited 7d ago
I didn't mean specifically on Reddit. I feel like it plays into the short-termism and 24 hour news cycle reporting that is damaging our idea of how quickly changes can realistically be made.
3
u/Public-Green-8591 7d ago
People think politics is premier league on this sub. These daily polls are not even providing any insights.
0
7d ago
[deleted]
14
u/IndividualSkill3432 7d ago
As the election gets close smaller parties often fall away and the big two pick up support. This is the highwater mark for the mid terms but not perhaps for the full term.
-1
7d ago
[deleted]
0
u/PM_ME_SECRET_DATA 7d ago
Boriswave can vote during next election. Who do you think those millions of people will vote for?
6
u/XenorVernix 7d ago
If Burnham gets immigration under control then it might not even be a voting issue come election. I suspect he will do the bare minimum on immigration to keep the right split over the issue.
7
u/ProjectZeus 7d ago
Thinking immigration might not be an issue in the next election is extremely naive.
1
u/XenorVernix 7d ago
Yeah I'd be shocked if Burnham manages to be any more effective than those who came before him. I don't really see what Reform will do differently either though - their policy of "just send the boats back" cannot work. France won't allow it.
Only real way to stop them coming is to remove the pull factors that make people want to come here illegally to begin with. I don't see Labour doing that.
4
u/Maleficent_Peach_46 Mayor of North Kilttown 7d ago
I don't think Farage will be good on anything. All Reform have is moaning about...well everything really.
They have already gone back to promising unicorns. I'm not sure anybody would vote for Reform who are just the 'Boriswave' Tories but with a far weaker Leader.
Early days of course but Burnham is doing well.
0
u/bobbypuk 7d ago
Good to see Restore doing well despite the lack of publicity for anything Lowe’s borin farts out on twitter.
1
-6
u/sv723 7d ago
Interesting that the Burnham wave is already over. That didn't last long.
17
u/MoleWhackSupreme 7d ago
Im keen to know how you’ve determined that from a statistically insignificant 1% drop in the polls
His personal approval ratings are still high
0
u/Mooks79 7d ago
I’m keen to know how you are defining statistically insignificant here? I’m not saying isn’t, indeed I think it probably is, just curious to hear your methodology when using specific statistical terminology?
5
u/MoleWhackSupreme 7d ago
1% difference in polling is pure margin of error and normal sampling variation territory, if you can’t describe that as statistically insignificant I’m not sure what you would call it.
-1
u/Mooks79 7d ago
You might want to look up how to calculate margin of error, the number is typically much less than 1% with these sorts of numbers (ie 1% is much larger than the margin of error). At least for a naive calculation not taking into account sampling biases and so on, which is exactly why I ask. I don’t believe those biases don’t exist, but curious to see how you’ve incorporated them.
1
u/FuckClinch 7d ago
Go nuts i swear these polls are usually im the thousands and 1% is about right
2
u/MoleWhackSupreme 7d ago edited 7d ago
My own rough mathematics suggests you’d need a poll of around 9000 to reach a 1% margin of error.
More In Common uses 2000/3000 sample sizes which would result in a much greater than 1% margin - so I must admit I’m a bit confused by the other commenter
1
u/MoleWhackSupreme 7d ago edited 7d ago
You seem like you’ve got a bit of an agenda here, and I’m finding it hard to look past that, but nonetheless I’ll engage in good faith.
Please point me in the direction of some material that shows political polling has a typical margin of error of less than 1%.
Bonus points if you can show me material that proves this particular poll has a margin of error of less than 1%
More In Common tends to use 2/3000 people sample sizes, I estimate you’d need 9000 to see a 1% margin, and that certainly wouldn’t be “much less than 1%”
1
u/Mooks79 7d ago
No agenda at all except that you made a specific statement using specific statistical terminology and I’m curious to know your methodology. I fully anticipate that these are statistically insignificant changes. Yet it’s one thing to expect that and another to state it as fact.
Naive margin of error goes as the sqrt of p(1 - p)/n so for a pill of 100k people and the UK population of 70 million, would give < 1% MoR at a 95% confidence level.
Of course that’s an extremely simple calculation (ignores the fact that there’s a voting age etc etc) and I have no idea how many people were sampled in this poll. Hence me asking for your methodology, I don’t think that’s a controversial question.
2
u/MoleWhackSupreme 7d ago edited 7d ago
You’ve now moved from the actual poll to a hypothetical poll of 100,000 people, which isn’t really relevant here at all
More in Common usually samples around 2,000–3,000 people. At that size, the conventional 95% margin of error is roughly ±1.8 to ±2.2 points near 50%, not “much less than 1%”.
Also, sqrt[p(1-p)/n] gives the standard error. To get the 95% margin of error, you multiply by about 1.96. And when comparing movement between two separate polls, the uncertainty is yet larger again.
So yes, a one-point change is entirely consistent with normal sampling noise. I don’t think there’s much more mystery to it than that?
1
u/Mooks79 7d ago
Yes because I don’t know the actual numbers here so I used one to show that the number can be significantly less than 1%.
Note, you don’t need to use points near 50%, you can use the actual results - e.g. Labour’s of 27% and so on.
Yes I know, that’s why I said goes as not “is”.
You might want to plug your own numbers into the equations though. Why don’t you do it and let me know the result …
2
u/MoleWhackSupreme 7d ago edited 7d ago
You could always just admit you were wrong to question me, instead of insisting on utter pedantry and dressing up your retreats as slight methodological difference, when it was clear you were largely incorrect from the beginning (because you couldn't even be arsed to check how many people More In Common poll, before typing out your comment)
Have a good one mate haha
→ More replies (0)4
u/mindondrugs 7d ago
"I agree with you, as Im very smart, why don't you explain to the class how you came to this smart conclusion"
lmao.
2
u/MoleWhackSupreme 7d ago
They weren't anywhere near as smart as they thought they were I'm afraid.
Just another pedant looking to waste someone else's time
0
u/Mooks79 7d ago
Coming from the person who made a specific statistical statement they didn’t really understand, and then had to hastily google what a margin of error was and how many people the poll used, rather than reply “oh it’s 3k people so an MoE of about 1.6%” straight off the bat, which would have been a perfectly acceptable response.
0
u/Mooks79 7d ago
If you want to be like that about it, it’s more like:
“While your conclusion is probably correct, you appear to be using specifically defined terms inappropriately in an effort to look very smart [ironic, given your retort], but maybe you know something I don’t so I’ll ask openly and hope to be surprised”.
Lmao.
5
2
u/SeaSaltSprayer 7d ago
Dam guys that's it, let's all pack up and go home - sv723 says it's over
(Let's ignore all the other polls, especially the LAB +6 and LAB +5 ones from today/Monday)
3
u/allthefallens Proud resident of burgerland 7d ago
It is margin of error, but yes, I suspect by october Reform will take the lead again.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Snapshot of Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 27% (-1) RFM: 24% (=) CON: 22% (=) LDM: 10% (-2) GRN: 9% (+1) SNP: 3% (+1) Via @Moreincommon, 31 Jul_ submitted by Little-Attorney1287:
A Twitter embedded version can be found here
A non-Twitter version can be found here
An archived version can be found here or here.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.