Political polling

[Rimbaud]

Anecdotally, speaking as a 20 something, there is a huge surge of enthusiasm for Corbyn amongst my peer group - something that is also backed up by opinion polls and voter registration. It is not difficult to see why - in my case, I am preparing to do a PGCE in September and a Corbyn victory would instantly save me £9,000 in debt. (well, including interest, probably more like £13,000 or something) I also trust him to do something about the housing market which means if I become a teacher in future I may actually be able to live a decent life, rather than spending all my money on student loan repayments (which already total £40,000, but will be £50,000 if Corbyn doesn't win - and that's not including interest) and rent. Corbyn is offering very practical direct benefit to people who are not home owners with long established careers or retired, which is the vast majority of people under 35 - lower rents, secure tenancies, affordable housing, no tuition fees, better wages. The youth turnout in this election is going to be huge, and because of this the polls are badly underestimating Labour's vote. Labour will win, I feel almost sure of it.

 

[Rimbaud]

My sister managed to get a cushy job with Siemens and is making £35,000 a year or something like that. Still stuck living in shitty rented accommodation though because of her student debt - she has already spent thousands of pounds repaying it but hardly made a dent in it because of the interest, and the cost of rent keeps going up. Even on an above average wage, living in Newcastle which has a relatively low cost of living she cannot save because of debt payments which don't seem to go down and constantly increasing rents, a situation she cannot escape because she can't save for a deposit on a house. This same story is repeated millions of times over across the country, and Corbyn has offered a ray of hope to get out of this quandary. I think the psychological effect this has is being severely underestimated by people who aren't in that situation, and it will be enough to win Labour the election.

 

[magneze]

I hope you're right.

 

[redsquirrel]

I can see turnout being higher than 2015 but 80%, no fucking way. You do realise that there's only been two post-war elections with that level of turnout? (1950 and 1951)

 

[JTG]

I can see turnout being higher than 2015 but 80%, no fucking way. You do realise that there's only been two post-war elections with that level of turnout? (1950 and 1951)

Yeah and voter rolls were more reliable then - more static population etc

It's a fairly low bar anyway - highest in the last 40 years was 1992 when 77.7% showed up to the polls and saved John Major's backside. I believe that was numerically the highest Labour vote ever and it was still seen as a failure.

1997-2005 Labour victories were all achieved on the back of plunging turnouts - Labour's w/c base disappearing along with demotivated Tory supporters.

If Labour manage to score in the high 30s this time around then I suspect it would outweigh all of Blair's victories in terms of numbers of votes. And could end up being seen by some as a failure in the Kinnock range.

 

[newbie]

Anecdotally, speaking as a 20 something, there is a huge surge of enthusiasm for Corbyn amongst my peer group - something that is also backed up by opinion polls and voter registration.

so now your peers need to be harassing their parents and grandparents, the age-groups most likely to vote tory, to stop being so selfish and think about what they (we) are leaving for your generation.

I had a street argument with some tory canvassers the other day in which someone in their 60s claimed they're the party of intergenerational fairness, as justification for the dementia tax. The effrontery, not to mention dishonesty, of that is staggering. If this election really is going to revolve around age then (imo) there are plenty of fairness arguments that favour the young. My generation has been selfishly voting tory since 1979 and it's about time they stopped and started thinking about someone other than themselves. Their children and grandchildren can personalise this election in a way no politician can.

 

[Rimbaud]

I can see turnout being higher than 2015 but 80%, no fucking way. You do realise that there's only been two post-war elections with that level of turnout? (1950 and 1951)

Just because it hasn't happened recently doesn't mean it won't happen, and a turnout similar to 1992 doesn't seem far-fetched. Maybe I'm getting carried away by optimism and wishful thinking, part of my reason for thinking Labour can win is an intuitive sense of a huge gulf which has been stretched open to breaking point - it seems nobody in the media has been talking about dealing with landlords, rents, debts, and low wages but Corbyn. Toryland still even celebrates increasing house prices. I just have a gut feeling that a tipping point has been reached, and the growing generational and social gulf has led to an increasingly out of touch establishment who aren't able to see the monumental upset which is coming.

This is just my gut feeling though, I'm not going to bet a large amount of money on it or anything.

 

[kabbes]

I'm not sure that 8/10 respondants saying 10/10 chance of voting does correspond to an 80% turnout. I suspect that the electoral roll includes a certain proportion that won't be able to vote because they are ill or dead or have moved or should have been taken off the list but weren't due to an oversight. If somebody asked my chance of voting, I would say 10/10, but that chance implicitly recognises it it is conditional on my having the capability on the day of doing so. My wild-ass guess is that the absolutely maximum possible on the day is more in the range of 90-95% and that an 80% intention to vote thus translates into more like a 75% actual turnout.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Open question - of the 50+ age group - baby boomers and earlier - have they always been as vocal/politicised in an election ? I cannot recall earlier ones having the same volume of older voters opinions being displayed ...........

 

[not-bono-ever]

My sister managed to get a cushy job with Siemens and is making £35,000 a year or something like that. Still stuck living in shitty rented accommodation though because of her student debt - she has already spent thousands of pounds repaying it but hardly made a dent in it because of the interest, and the cost of rent keeps going up. Even on an above average wage, living in Newcastle which has a relatively low cost of living she cannot save because of debt payments which don't seem to go down and constantly increasing rents, a situation she cannot escape because she can't save for a deposit on a house. This same story is repeated millions of times over across the country, and Corbyn has offered a ray of hope to get out of this quandary. I think the psychological effect this has is being severely underestimated by people who aren't in that situation, and it will be enough to win Labour the election.

If she cannot get an OK place in newcastle on £35K a year, then the country is fucked

 

[newbie]

Open question - of the 50+ age group - baby boomers and earlier - have they always been as vocal/politicised in an election ? I cannot recall earlier ones having the same volume of older voters opinions being displayed ...........

Just the opposite, I don't ever remember young people being so engaged on their own behalf, as a cohort.

Pensions/pensioners have always been a big factor, hence triple lock, TV licenses, winterfuel allowances, bus passes etc: bribes at election time. It's the concept "intergenerational fairness" that's new and potentially disruptive.

 

[gawkrodger]

If she cannot get an OK place in newcastle on £35K a year, then the country is fucked

I've previously earned a couple of grand less than this is in the Brum/Black Country - I could rent a nice place but fucked if I could buy somewhere. Of all my mates same age/younger who live here I can think of two who have mortgages - one down to bank of mum and dad and the other from a parental death

 

[newbie]

I've previously earned a couple of grand less than this is in the Brum/Black Country - I could rent a nice place but fucked if I could buy somewhere. Of all my mates same age/younger who live here I can think of two who have mortgages - one down to bank of mum and dad and the other from a parental death

illustrates how my generation have stolen all the pies and need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that as well as individual or family responses to the crisis- that's what the bank of m & d is all about- there also has to be a political response.

 

[JTG]

I'm not sure that 8/10 respondants saying 10/10 chance of voting does correspond to an 80% turnout. I suspect that the electoral roll includes a certain proportion that won't be able to vote because they are ill or dead or have moved or should have been taken off the list but weren't due to an oversight. If somebody asked my chance of voting, I would say 10/10, but that chance implicitly recognises it it is conditional on my having the capability on the day of doing so. My wild-ass guess is that the absolutely maximum possible on the day is more in the range of 90-95% and that an 80% intention to vote thus translates into more like a 75% actual turnout.

I'd consider myself certain to vote. Just discovered today that the council never received my postal vote application so am running around trying to sort a proxy vote before tomorrow's deadline. This kind of thing affects stuff as well: unforeseen circs, thinking you're registered when you're not etc etc

 

[redsquirrel]

Just because it hasn't happened recently doesn't mean it won't happen, and a turnout similar to 1992 doesn't seem far-fetched. Maybe I'm getting carried away by optimism and wishful thinking, part of my reason for thinking Labour can win is an intuitive sense of a huge gulf which has been stretched open to breaking point - it seems nobody in the media has been talking about dealing with landlords, rents, debts, and low wages but Corbyn. Toryland still even celebrates increasing house prices. I just have a gut feeling that a tipping point has been reached, and the growing generational and social gulf has led to an increasingly out of touch establishment who aren't able to see the monumental upset which is coming.

This is just my gut feeling though, I'm not going to bet a large amount of money on it or anything.

I'm sorry but it is totally fantasy land. The fact that it hasn't happened for 60+ years doesn't mean that it can't happen in 2017 but it damn well supports the idea that it is exceptionally unlikely. A turnout of 70+%, not unrealistic, but 80+% no way.

 

[killer b]

thinking you're registered when you're not

This won't have an impact on turnout though, will it?

 

[kabbes]

This won't have an impact on turnout though, will it?

It will have an impact on whether 80% at 10/10 translates to 80% on the day, if somebody in that boat is one of the 10/10s.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm sorry but it is totally fantasy land. The fact that it hasn't happened for 60+ years doesn't mean that it can't happen in 2017 but it damn well supports the idea that it is exceptionally unlikely. A turnout of 70+%, not unrealistic, but 80+% no way.

It all but happened as recently as 1992, though. 77.7 is 80 rounded to the nearest 5.

 

[redsquirrel]

But why would you round to the nearest 5? That's just daft, there's a significant difference between 78 and 80%.

If we round it to the nearest five then the Tories would be talking 50% of the vote share a couple of weeks ago.

 

[bi0boy]

But why would you round to the nearest 5? That's just daft, there's a significant difference between 78 and 80%.

A million people.

 

[not-bono-ever]

fuckin hell. I am probably a decade out of touch with prices then

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But why would you round to the nearest 5? That's just daft, there's a significant difference between 78 and 80%.

If we round it to the nearest five then the Tories would be talking 50% of the vote share a couple of weeks ago.

A jump back to high 70s from the mid-60s of recent years would be very significant, so we would be talking about whether or not the jump is 12 percentage points or 14. 14 is of course significantly bigger than 12, but not such a huge amount more.

 

[JTG]

It will have an impact on whether 80% at 10/10 translates to 80% on the day, if somebody in that boat is one of the 10/10s.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. Obv doesn't affect the turnout figure itself

 

[JTG]

It all but happened as recently as 1992, though. 77.7 is 80 rounded to the nearest 5.

First 1974 election was 78/79% as well I believe

 

[brogdale]

I wouldn't put any £ on a record turnout what with a campaign so uninspiring for the tory core and elderly concerns over their estates.

 

[butchersapron]

This may be of some interest:

Fact Check: if 30% more people under 25 vote, could the Conservatives lose the election?

But the impact of increasing turnout for those under 25 depends on what proportion of the electorate they make up – my final question. According to the 2011 census, 18 to 24-year-olds make up less than 12% of the electorate.

Imagine that turnout did increase for this group by 30 percentage points, and imagine that only 16% of those previous non-voters voted as they said they would after 2015 and opted for the Conservatives. The Conservatives would get a lower share of the vote, but this effect would be fairly small: the party’s overall share of the vote would fall by slightly over one per cent. This is because anything that affects only 3.6% of the electorate (30% of the 12% of the electorate under 25) can never lead to large shifts in aggregate vote shares.

I've just finished the author's joint work The New Politics of Class: The political exclusion of the British working class - very useful and full of classic old school sociological class analysis rather than the wafty crap from mike savage and the like.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I wouldn't put any £ on a record turnout what with a campaign so uninspiring for the tory core and elderly concerns over their estates.

Interesting looking at historical turnouts that there is no correlation between high turnouts and Labour winning.

 

[JTG]

I wouldn't put any £ on a record turnout what with a campaign so uninspiring for the tory core and elderly concerns over their estates.

Well yes, I'm hoping for an underenthused Tory base

 

[JTG]

Interesting looking at historical turnouts that there is no correlation between high turnouts and Labour winning.

Indeed. Try telling a Blairite that TB's historic hat-trick was because loads of Tories couldn't be arsed to show up

 

[free spirit]

That just shows how much people lie or how unrepresentative the sample is. The 10/10 certainty to vote numbers imply turnout will be greater than 80%, which it won't be.

turnout was 84.6% in the scottish referendum. It's possible for it to be that high if people really think the stakes are big enough.

I suspect it will end up a bit lower because of the constituencies where it's perceived as making little difference, but there's so much churn going on in the electorate this time around and so many new voters on the register that I couldn't say that even seats with pretty high majorities are definitely safe - the Lib Dems showed what is possible in Richmond Park albeit at a byelection.