Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[StigoftheDig]

I used to be on YouGov panels as it happens.

I signed up at a few companies who pay for polling. I don't think I've ever qualified for one of their big proper weighted politics ones (I haven't used the site in a while) but they used to do quick, general political polls all the time - I'm not sure if they were ever published though beyond being tickers on the site.

One of the pushes behind this new Centrist party - the Central Reservations? Armco? - is a decent chunk of the electorate who remain not sure about both the parties and the leaders.

I'm constantly gobsmacked that May can retain popularity, but there you go. In reading about Trump's polling a figure keeps coming up in relation to American politics of a base of around 28 - 30% who will pretty much never abandon their party and its leader no matter what they do or say.

 

[StigoftheDig]

At times in the "Best Prime Minster" polling, May has had a lead on Corbyn of 39% That was in April last year. Was there anything significant going on in Jez World then? Was that when he burned down that orphanage and announced the 100% beer tax?

 

[Vintage Paw]

At times in the "Best Prime Minster" polling, May has had a lead on Corbyn of 39% That was in April last year. Was there anything significant going on in Jez World then? Was that when he burned down that orphanage and announced the 100% beer tax?

Spring seems to be the popular time of year to go all-in on Corbyn attacks.

 

[Dogsauce]

At times in the "Best Prime Minster" polling, May has had a lead on Corbyn of 39% That was in April last year. Was there anything significant going on in Jez World then? Was that when he burned down that orphanage and announced the 100% beer tax?

A lot of that was solid Labour supporters thinking he would lose. In the end it was May who stumbled, who appeared as a cold automaton when put under pressure during the election. She lost that lead over him more than he gained it.

I think there will be less Tory complacency next time around, won’t be as easy a game for him.

 

[Dogsauce]

Also, I reckon the timing of attacks on him about anti-semitism may have been a useful distraction from the spy poisoning thing, which he appeared a bit cautious/muddled over and might have been more damaging to him with the wider public - they already perceive him to be a pacifist, a wobbler and not the strong resolute leader needed in these times of hostility (however overplayed they may be). The antisemitism thing has less traction, majority of people won’t think it affects them, won’t feel personally at risk.

 

[bemused]

In the end it was May who stumbled, who appeared as a cold automaton when put under pressure during the election. She lost that lead over him more than he gained it.

I think there will be less Tory complacency next time around, won’t be as easy a game for him.

I do think May run a god awful campaign. If they pick anyone with half a personality the next election may be entertaining at least - I've given up hoping for informative; I'll put up with just good telly now.

 

[kabbes]

At times in the "Best Prime Minster" polling, May has had a lead on Corbyn of 39% That was in April last year. Was there anything significant going on in Jez World then? Was that when he burned down that orphanage and announced the 100% beer tax?

Was it “best prime minister” polling or “who’s doing the best job?” polling?

 

[Cwmflame]

Is their money made by returning tory favourable poling results? I think being noted as a bent unreliable company might hurt their corporate profile.

I agree, was just answering the post I’d quoted.

 

[agricola]

I do think May run a god awful campaign. If they pick anyone with half a personality the next election may be entertaining at least - I've given up hoping for informative; I'll put up with just good telly now.

The campaign was awful, but there was no-one in the Tory Party that would have run that better than she did (which is not to complement how she ran it). They had somehow looked at the past two years of Labour politics - where Corbyn had been under attack for 90% of the time but came good when an election came around - and took from that the idea that it would be good to have an election.

 

[bemused]

The campaign was awful, but there was no-one in the Tory Party that would have run that better than she did (which is not to complement how she ran it). They had somehow looked at the past two years of Labour politics - where Corbyn had been under attack for 90% of the time but came good when an election came around - and took from that the idea that it would be good to have an election.

If they had someone faster on their feet on TV they would have done better. Elections aren't won by political nerds, they are won by folks watching the media and popping down the voting booth before work. I'm not entirely convinced Jeeza is going to run for the next election anyway, he'll be almost 70 poor guy deserves a break.

Although I do hope he smashes the locals because I love seeing all those Labour MPs who don't like him really pissed off.

 

[butchersapron]

If they had someone faster on their feet on TV they would have done better. Elections aren't won by political nerds, they are won by folks watching the media and popping down the voting booth before work. I'm not entirely convinced Jeeza is going to run for the next election anyway, he'll be almost 70 poor guy deserves a break.

Although I do hope he smashes the locals because I love seeing all those Labour MPs who don't like him really pissed off.

That's exactly not what they're won on.

 

[bemused]

That's exactly not what they're won on.

I think I'm becoming cynical in my old age

 

[butchersapron]

I think I'm becoming cynical in my old age

You're an idiot who donates money to all the parties. You just talk...shit. Why are you even in this conversation?

 

[Streathamite]

It is amazing they don't have a decent lead over the Tories,

It really isn't. Firstly, the polls are fallible.
Second, they are averaging around 42%. That, considering how far to the left of everything else in mainstream politics, is pretty damn good - poor old Foot ended up with 28%.
What IS surprising is how well the Tory vote is holding up, but there is a simple explanation for that, too. For the first time In four decades, people who vote against Labour, rather than for the Tories have no viable, credible third alternative. UKIP and the libs are both collapsed on the floor, and the greens don't really count.
Where else are those voters going to go?

 

[bemused]

For the first time In four decades, people who vote against Labour, rather than for the Tories have no viable, credible third alternative. UKIP and the libs are both collapsed on the floor, and the greens don't really count.
Where else are those voters going to go?

Excellent point.

 

[Streathamite]

Didn't YouGov also correctly call the 2017 election?

Nope:survation were the only ones who did that

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

Nope:survation were the only ones who did that

Yougov got it mostly right on a really huge sample they did on a new model, but they didn't have enough confidence in their results, and reverted back to their old model. Like, a couple of days before the election. Fwiw they got my constituency - long a Labour/SNP battleground - pretty much bang on. A Tory win...

 

[Streathamite]

interesting, that bit about YouGov - I didn't know the situation about their different models.
Ta for that, the claw!

 

[chilango]

A few years ago we ensured that fragmentation was here to stay.

I think it is.

I don't think that and polarization are incompatible.

The swing behind Labour /Corbyn last GE isn't "loyal" or united but a temporary coalescence ime.

Post Corbyn and post Brexit things would likely shift again I reckon and that's when spaces open up for fragmentation to show up in the vote again.

 

[killer b]

interesting, that bit about YouGov - I didn't know the situation about their different models.
Ta for that, the claw!

Their new model got almost everything right, including a load of very surprising results. It's going to be the only thing anyone watches next election.

 

[sleaterkinney]

how did your election predictions work out last year?

They were correct, how were yours?

 

[killer b]

You predicted the tories losing their majority and a humiliating lash up with the DUP? I hope you got a bet on that, it was 50/1 the day before the election.

I didn't predict anything this time, after getting it wrong for every other election back to 2010. The result we got was the highest point of the range I thought possible though. I think it's possible Labour might lose the next election too, but that isn't rationalising it.

 

[StigoftheDig]

Was it “best prime minister” polling or “who’s doing the best job?” polling?

It was "Who would make the best Prime Minister."

 

[belboid]

Their new model got almost everything right, including a load of very surprising results. It's going to be the only thing anyone watches next election.

It'll be wrong by next election tho. Same as the model made for 2015 didn't work for 2017.

 

[killer b]

It'll be wrong by next election tho. Same as the model made for 2015 didn't work for 2017.

I dunno, the methodology described on their website sounds like it'll still work next time.

 

[kabbes]

The old methodology basically meant pollster's were always fighting yesterday's battles. They would apply adjustments to a new poll based on their estimates of why polls at the last election were not the same as the last election result. As such, if the reasons for the difference between the polling and a true result shifted, their adjustments would become inappropriate. Since those reasons are multifaceted, self-contradictory, chaotic and highly prone to drift, it was very hard to get the adjustments right.

YouGov's new methodology does not work in the same way. It is more akin to pricing motor insurance. They identify all the independent factors they can that help define voting intention (e.g. age, sex, income). They then use current polling to calculate the effect of each of the independent factors. Finally, they split the demographics in each area by the independent factors and apply their modelled factor effects to estimate the vote.

This doesn't rely on crude adjustments, because it is directly modelling the effects that cause the need to make such adjustments. It's much more reliable. The downside is that it needs a lot of data to make it work. Motor insurers, who use similar models, typically have millions of data points. However, YouGov seem to be able to get reliable voting predictions based on "just" 50,000 data points. But this is still a big increase from the old methods of asking more like 1000 people.

On the plus side, however, they can use every single person who will answer questions, because corrections for biases are built into the modelling methodology. So they don't need to throw away data, like current methods need to.

 

[Mr Moose]

It really isn't. Firstly, the polls are fallible.
Second, they are averaging around 42%. That, considering how far to the left of everything else in mainstream politics, is pretty damn good - poor old Foot ended up with 28%.
What IS surprising is how well the Tory vote is holding up, but there is a simple explanation for that, too. For the first time In four decades, people who vote against Labour, rather than for the Tories have no viable, credible third alternative. UKIP and the libs are both collapsed on the floor, and the greens don't really count.
Where else are those voters going to go?

I think the pro-Brexit vote is very important to how well the Tory vote is holding up. I believe that voters for whom getting outside of all EU institutions is of primary importance mostly would not trust Labour not to row back on its position. Those who voted for Labour last time and for Brexit may be less likely to hold the most rigid red lines on it. Other things are more important.

 

[Duncan2]

I think the pro-Brexit vote is very important to how well the Tory vote is holding up. I believe that voters for whom getting outside of all EU institutions is of primary importance mostly would not trust Labour not to row back on its position. Those who voted for Labour last time and for Brexit may be less likely to hold the most rigid red lines on it. Other things are more important.

Indeed-the pro-Brexit vote is absolutely the only thing that is sustaining this excuse for a government.

 

[killer b]

I don't think that's true, there's loads of things sustaining them - one of which is clearly fear of a Corbyn government.

 

[bemused]

I don't think that's true, there's loads of things sustaining them - one of which is clearly fear of a Corbyn government.

I tend the think if the holdouts in the PLP decided to act as if a Labour government was a good thing the fear of the Corbyn government would lessen.