Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[killer b]

they kept a lid on it from June until a month ago... nothing changed.

 

[Streathamite]

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.

ah, now THAT is fascinating - I always knew there would - some day - be a real dividend from having a statistician in the house!
But do YouGov only conduct Internet polls, or do they do telephone and face to face?

 

[killer b]

Yougov are 100% online.

 

[Streathamite]

yes I thought so. won't that give their polls an anti - wrinkly bias?

 

[Streathamite]

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

agreed. plus, the only thing that is stopping them from Dumping May is that she is being fingered to fully cop the blame when Brexit goes massively tits up.
And, if a mole of mine is on the button, the 'stop Boris' campaign isn't quite ready yet.

 

[killer b]

yes I thought so. won't that give their polls an anti - wrinkly bias?

I don't think so. They all struggle to reach non-voters and young people more.

 

[Streathamite]

ahhh...

 

[kabbes]

yes I thought so. won't that give their polls an anti - wrinkly bias?

If th bye got their new method right, it won’t matter, because data will only be used to parameterise the parts of the model it is relevant for, not as surrogate data for the parts it is not.

 

[Pickman's model]

 

[nuffsaid]

Have to say I was quite surprised at the extent of anti-Corbyn comments over on the 'Corbyn's anti-war position' thread.

If he's poorly thought of on these boards surely his time is up....

 

[killer b]

erm you're posting on a 724 page thread full of anti-corbyn comments.

 

[Pickman's model]

word reaches me that the bbc have commissioned a drama based on jeremy corbyn's life

 

[Supine]

And the old bugger is still in charge

 

[nuffsaid]

erm you're posting on a 724 page thread full of anti-corbyn comments.

I posted on here way back when Corbyn was going for the leadership and all this thread was back then was pro - you turncoats.

 

[killer b]

Oh, I don't think his time is up. It clearly isn't, whatever I think of his approach to Syria.

 

[butchersapron]

Have to say I was quite surprised at the extent of anti-Corbyn comments over on the 'Corbyn's anti-war position' thread.

If he's poorly thought of on these boards surely his time is up....

Oh, I don't think his time is up. It clearly isn't, whatever I think of his approach to Syria.

He's never been more secure. Most of the criticisms of his approach to foreign policy in that and this thread are coming from outside the party. People like me who have no say or effect on his position in the party.

 

[nuffsaid]

But if the perception within the party is that he is out of step with the broader public opinion then they'd start stoking the fires of discontent again....wouldn't they.

 

[Pickman's model]

But if the perception within the party is that he is out of step with the broader public opinion then they'd start stoking the fires of discontent again....wouldn't they.

they'll do that whatever because they don't like him, the red tories. there's a whiff of smoke even if his position's secure. because they're getting ready for the next time he seems vulnerable.

 

[agricola]

they'll do that whatever because they don't like him, the red tories. there's a whiff of smoke even if his position's secure. because they're getting ready for the next time he seems vulnerable.

how very 1915 of them

 

[redsquirrel]

But if the perception within the party is that he is out of step with the broader public opinion then they'd start stoking the fires of discontent again....wouldn't they.

Is that the perception within the party? If so that perception is wrong, support for action against Syria varys with the the of action proposed and the wording of the question but there's a pretty solid block of the public that are opposed to action of any sort.

Looking at the situation overall, headline voting intention polls continue to show Labour and Conservative neck-and-neck on average. On Syria, differently worded questions produced results that vary from clear opposition to just slightly more opposition than support, but it’s clear the public did not whole-heartedly support military action in Syria.

While there's no breakdown of the vote by party support I'd be surprised it wasn't a very strong correlation between Lab voters and opposition to action.

 

[nardy]

Surely what the general public think of Corbyn is far more important than what Labour members and MPs think about the man, in terms of election victory (or otherwise)?

 

[NoXion]

By two to one, the public oppose missile strikes on Syria - "Even though most Britons believe a chemical attack has been perpetrated, only 22% of Britons would support a cruise missile attack against the Syrian military"

 

[Mr Moose]

Anti-Semitism debate in the Commons, with Corbyn coming under fire from all sides. Heavily noted by observers that he did not stay to hear it all, though to be fair it would be truly shocking if he hadn't heard it all by now.

The social media aspect is very frustrating. I have not seen any analysis of the anti-Semitic tweets and posts that indicates how many are directly attributable to individuals who can therefore be identified as members or not and dealt with. Equally much of it must be impossible to trace to individuals but nevertheless a research company could have something to say about its origins. I don't know how well this was covered by Shami in her report though.

 

[nuffsaid]

By two to one, the public oppose missile strikes on Syria - "Even though most Britons believe a chemical attack has been perpetrated, only 22% of Britons would support a cruise missile attack against the Syrian military"

So does that mean most Britons are happy normalising chemical warfare?

 

[kabbes]

So does that mean most Britons are happy normalising chemical warfare?

I really doubt it means that.

 

[killer b]

I think a hesitance to go to war against one of the world's superpowers does not suggest happiness about the things that superpower gets up to.

 

[nuffsaid]

I think a hesitance to go to war against one of the world's superpowers does not suggest happiness about the things that superpower gets up to.

I didn't think Syria was a world superpower.

 

[nuffsaid]

I really doubt it means that.

So I wonder why are they not supportive of strikes against a crime against humanity. Would that majority be ok with biological weapons being used, or a tactical nuke?

 

[kabbes]

So I wonder why are they not supportive of strikes against a crime against humanity.

Yes, it's a real mystery why people who prefer peaceful solutions wouldn't endorse the use of weapons as a solution.

Would that majority be ok with biological weapons being used, or a tactical nuke?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest... no?

 

[killer b]

I didn't think Syria was a world superpower.

I wonder why you're bothering with this line. You know what I meant.