politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Another day of the polls tightening but only YouGov has TMay n

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Another day of the polls tightening but only YouGov has TMay not securing a majority

Wikipedia

Read the full story here

Pulpstar

RobD

Second

kle4

Another day of the polls tightening but only YouGov has TMay not securing a majority

Madness or triumph awaits YouGov.

kle4

RochdalePioneers said:

The election is Labour's to lose. May has already lost. Even if re-elected she is politically finished.

Er, no - not if she does get that landslide after all. You're right there is momentum behind Corbyn (and no, not just Momentum, obvious joke), but while it won't be forgotten, if it turns out a landslide is the outcome as expected from many at the start, she clearly won't be politically finished - her dull inaction will once more be hailed as genius, at least initially.

spudgfsh

FPT

I just did a quick check and with a bit of a search I found that

IPSOS estimated that 43% of 18-24 actually voted in 2015

if you compare that to some of the recent surveys

Kantar (25th to 30th giving 43con to 33lab) had for the same group 23% would definately vote and 13% would probably vote

ICM (26th to 29th giving 45con to 33lab) had for the same group 44% would definately vote (10/10)

YouGov (30th/31st giving 42con to 39lab) had for the same group 62% certain to vote (10/10)

Survation (26th/27th giving 43con to 37lab) had for the same group 81.2% certain to vote (10/10)

are yougov and others really saying that the 18-24s are going to vote in significantly higher numbers than they have before when ICM and others are not?

kle4

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/stephentall/status/870326419867533312

https://twitter.com/stephentall/status/870326519243173891

That does seem to be the key here - it'd be incredible if there was such massive shift over the campaign itself (we know from the locals and other examples that Labour were in the doldrums, it was not nonsense), and it comes down to whether things really are different this time or not. It's hard to see it being so different, even if it is a little.

Pulpstar

Having a think about Wales compared to the rest of the UK - Labour there in 2015 had 37%, but the total vote for left of centre parties was ~ 60% so there was always more squeeze potential there for Labour compared to everywhere else - essentially because Plaid is alot stronger than the greens in say the Midlands.

isam

Look at the range of Conservative leads in the far column of the graphic, tells you all you need to know about the religion of Opinion polls.

One will be right-ish and the disciples will throw that at anyone who tells the truth about them

The_Taxman

Good article. There is a problem:

"For me what’s been significant is that Theresa May now making visits not just to targets which they hope to gain to but seats they already hold. That reflects a certain loss of confidence."

She was visiting Tory held west country seats in the first week of the campaign. The Tories were at 50% in the polls IIRC. I think Cameron went with her and you (Or one of the other comment writers) did an article about how the resurgent Lib Dems were going to take back the south west.....

spudgfsh

isam said:

Look at the range of Conservative leads in the far column of the graphic, tells you all you need to know about the religion of Opinion polls.

One will be right-ish and the disciples will throw that at anyone who tells the truth about them

someone is going to be monumentally wrong though no matter if someone is spot on. basically there is too much variation in the labour vote shares for it to be otherwise

personally I expect the Tories to get between 43 and 45% and labour to get between 31 and 34%

Danny565

spudgfsh said:

FPT

I just did a quick check and with a bit of a search I found that

IPSOS estimated that 43% of 18-24 actually voted in 2015

if you compare that to some of the recent surveys

Kantar (25th to 30th giving 43con to 33lab) had for the same group 23% would definately vote and 13% would probably vote

ICM (26th to 29th giving 45con to 33lab) had for the same group 44% would definately vote (10/10)

YouGov (30th/31st giving 42con to 39lab) had for the same group 62% certain to vote (10/10)

Survation (26th/27th giving 43con to 37lab) had for the same group 81.2% certain to vote (10/10)

are yougov and others really saying that the 18-24s are going to vote in significantly higher numbers than they have before when ICM and others are not?

YouGov's adjusted headline numbers are weighted to an assumption that only 51% of 18-24-year-olds will turn out.

That is not that big a jump from 2015, and in fact it's only back to levels of youth turnout, relative to elderly turnout, that were last seen in 2010. Hardly outlandish.

From one of YouGov's analysts:

Take our most recent poll. After we had weighted our sample, taken account of how likely people say they are to vote, and weighted down the answers of those people who didn’t vote last time, we were left with a sample that implies turnout of 51% among people under 25 and 75% among people aged 65+; a turnout gap of 24 points between young and old.

Looking at estimates from past elections from the House of Commons library, in 2015 the turnout gap between young and old was 35 points, in 2010 it was 23 points, in 2005 it was 36 points. In other words, we’re showing a smaller gap than in 2015, but similar to 2010 and not one that we think is totally unrealistic if Jeremy Corbyn has enthused younger people.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/01/pollsters-experimental-election/

Danny565

If only 2015 voters had voted in the EU Referendum, would Remain have won?

AndyJS

Pulpstar said:

Having a think about Wales compared to the rest of the UK - Labour there in 2015 had 37%, but the total vote for left of centre parties was ~ 60% so there was always more squeeze potential there for Labour compared to everywhere else - essentially because Plaid is alot stronger than the greens in say the Midlands.

Today's poll had both Con and Lab up 9% in Wales.

NickPalmer

kle4 said:

That does seem to be the key here - it'd be incredible if there was such massive shift over the campaign itself (we know from the locals and other examples that Labour were in the doldrums, it was not nonsense), and it comes down to whether things really are different this time or not. It's hard to see it being so different, even if it is a little.



It's certainly unusual for a campaign to matter much but it does seem to have happened, since the local elections largely bore out what the polls were showing at the time, and the polls are now very different.

I was out on a WWC estate this afternoon, and got told off three times by Labour voters for not coming round sooner - "We've got to win this one", "I can't stand that Theresa May" and, interestingly for what feels a safe Labour seat, "I'm fed up with Tory phone calls". So even if Mrs May is shifting her focus, the phone canvassers are still trying in the distant prospects (though if she told them to get lost the first time it's odd that they called back).

AlastairMeeks

Pulpstar said:

Having a think about Wales compared to the rest of the UK - Labour there in 2015 had 37%, but the total vote for left of centre parties was ~ 60% so there was always more squeeze potential there for Labour compared to everywhere else - essentially because Plaid is alot stronger than the greens in say the Midlands.

If Plaid Cymru are losing vote share, are they retaining it in their heartlands? The answer seems to be no. The regional sub-samples show them getting as high as 10% only in Cardiff and South Central.

RobD

The_Taxman said:

Good article. There is a problem:

"For me what’s been significant is that Theresa May now making visits not just to targets which they hope to gain to but seats they already hold. That reflects a certain loss of confidence."

She was visiting Tory held west country seats in the first week of the campaign. The Tories were at 50% in the polls IIRC. I think Cameron went with her and you (Or one of the other comment writers) did an article about how the resurgent Lib Dems were going to take back the south west.....

We'll only know if it was genius or madness after the fact!

spudgfsh

Danny565 said:

spudgfsh said:

FPT

I just did a quick check and with a bit of a search I found that

IPSOS estimated that 43% of 18-24 actually voted in 2015

if you compare that to some of the recent surveys

Kantar (25th to 30th giving 43con to 33lab) had for the same group 23% would definately vote and 13% would probably vote

ICM (26th to 29th giving 45con to 33lab) had for the same group 44% would definately vote (10/10)

YouGov (30th/31st giving 42con to 39lab) had for the same group 62% certain to vote (10/10)

Survation (26th/27th giving 43con to 37lab) had for the same group 81.2% certain to vote (10/10)

are yougov and others really saying that the 18-24s are going to vote in significantly higher numbers than they have before when ICM and others are not?

YouGov's adjusted headline numbers are weighted to an assumption that only 51% of 18-24-year-olds will turn out.

That is not that big a jump from 2015, and in fact it's only back to levels of youth turnout, relative to elderly turnout, that were last seen in 2010. Hardly outlandish.

From one of YouGov's analysts:

Take our most recent poll. After we had weighted our sample, taken account of how likely people say they are to vote, and weighted down the answers of those people who didn’t vote last time, we were left with a sample that implies turnout of 51% among people under 25 and 75% among people aged 65+; a turnout gap of 24 points between young and old.

Looking at estimates from past elections from the House of Commons library, in 2015 the turnout gap between young and old was 35 points, in 2010 it was 23 points, in 2005 it was 36 points. In other words, we’re showing a smaller gap than in 2015, but similar to 2010 and not one that we think is totally unrealistic if Jeremy Corbyn has enthused younger people.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/01/pollsters-experimental-election/

I didn't look at many samples TBH but in the one I did look at it was 62% for 10/10 with a further 10% at 9/10 (this was the one with 42 to 39)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/imdk9bjaff/TimesResults_170531_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

if you go back to the beginning of the campaign they were getting 44% for 10/10 and 4% for 9/10

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/04xxn42p3e/TimesResults_170419_VI_Trackers_GE_W.pdf

this is a major change. Yes the JC campaign has energised the 18-24 but the question I'm asking is why have ICM not seen the same change in engagement from the same group of people?

AndyJS

East Lothian odds:

SNP 1.8
Lab 2.5
Con 6.5

www.betfair.com/sport/politics

TheScreamingEagles

RobD said:

The_Taxman said:

Good article. There is a problem:

"For me what’s been significant is that Theresa May now making visits not just to targets which they hope to gain to but seats they already hold. That reflects a certain loss of confidence."

She was visiting Tory held west country seats in the first week of the campaign. The Tories were at 50% in the polls IIRC. I think Cameron went with her and you (Or one of the other comment writers) did an article about how the resurgent Lib Dems were going to take back the south west.....

We'll only know if it was genius or madness after the fact!

We've only been spooked by Hillary and her visits.

As has been noted before at the 2015 GE David Cameron campaigning in Yeovil, 200 yards from Paddy Ashdown's house was confirmation for the Lib Dems that Cameron and Crosby didn't have a clue about targeting and the Tories were mad to focus on these seats.

Danny565

YouGov is only assuming Corbyn will enthuse as many young people to the polls as Clegg did in 2010 (the ones who actually showed up on election day). Is that really so implausible?

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

The_Taxman said:

Good article. There is a problem:

"For me what’s been significant is that Theresa May now making visits not just to targets which they hope to gain to but seats they already hold. That reflects a certain loss of confidence."

She was visiting Tory held west country seats in the first week of the campaign. The Tories were at 50% in the polls IIRC. I think Cameron went with her and you (Or one of the other comment writers) did an article about how the resurgent Lib Dems were going to take back the south west.....

We'll only know if it was genius or madness after the fact!

We've only been spooked by Hillary and her visits.

As has been noted before at the 2015 GE David Cameron campaigning in Yeovil, 200 yards from Paddy Ashdown's house was confirmation for the Lib Dems that Cameron and Crosby didn't have a clue about targeting and the Tories were mad to focus on these seats.

But 2017 is different. Knowing that they know that we know and all that...

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

The_Taxman said:

Good article. There is a problem:

"For me what’s been significant is that Theresa May now making visits not just to targets which they hope to gain to but seats they already hold. That reflects a certain loss of confidence."

She was visiting Tory held west country seats in the first week of the campaign. The Tories were at 50% in the polls IIRC. I think Cameron went with her and you (Or one of the other comment writers) did an article about how the resurgent Lib Dems were going to take back the south west.....

We'll only know if it was genius or madness after the fact!

We've only been spooked by Hillary and her visits.

As has been noted before at the 2015 GE David Cameron campaigning in Yeovil, 200 yards from Paddy Ashdown's house was confirmation for the Lib Dems that Cameron and Crosby didn't have a clue about targeting and the Tories were mad to focus on these seats.

Doesn't mean they didn't overreach this time when trying for places like Bolsover and Don Valley!

TheScreamingEagles

Danny565 said:

YouGov is only assuming Corbyn will enthuse as many young people to the polls as Clegg did in 2010 (the ones who actually showed up on election day). Is that really so implausible?

Well the Lib Dems did increase their vote share in 2010 but lost 5 seats, net.

KentRising

Every time I refresh this the Tories shed gains:

http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/

nichomar

I actually think that the explanation to the way the polls are going is quite obvious, the panels are self selecting and unlikely to attract a voter who is genuinely undecided. The anectdotal evidence of the lack of posters and leaflets in marginal constituenc being far less than before implies that he campaign is "under the radar" . The big question is will the 18-35 age group turn out? Having watched the effectiveness of Tory targeting in lib dem seats in 2015 being so successful I seriously doubt if a lot of the polls reflect the true position. Whilst there are not many hats left to eat I think there may be excessive sheet changing in some quarters. Now this is from someone who's hope and expectations on ED is Lib Dems in double figures and not caring what else happens is neither ramping or hot air

kle4

Danny565 said:

YouGov is only assuming Corbyn will enthuse as many young people to the polls as Clegg did in 2010 (the ones who actually showed up on election day). Is that really so implausible?

Put like that, no - young people love Corbyn, I don't remember anything like as much fervour around Clegg, and I was in that age bracket then.

Jonathan

KentRising said:

Every time I refresh this the Tories shed gains:

http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/

Better perhaps than gaining sheds. That would be weird.

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

The_Taxman said:

Good article. There is a problem:

"For me what’s been significant is that Theresa May now making visits not just to targets which they hope to gain to but seats they already hold. That reflects a certain loss of confidence."

She was visiting Tory held west country seats in the first week of the campaign. The Tories were at 50% in the polls IIRC. I think Cameron went with her and you (Or one of the other comment writers) did an article about how the resurgent Lib Dems were going to take back the south west.....

We'll only know if it was genius or madness after the fact!

We've only been spooked by Hillary and her visits.

As has been noted before at the 2015 GE David Cameron campaigning in Yeovil, 200 yards from Paddy Ashdown's house was confirmation for the Lib Dems that Cameron and Crosby didn't have a clue about targeting and the Tories were mad to focus on these seats.

Doesn't mean they didn't overreach this time when trying for places like Bolsover and Don Valley!

Indeed. It was Leeds East that set off alarm bells for me, that and publicly announcing they were going for Tom Watson.

Danny565

spudgfsh said:

I didn't look at many samples TBH but in the one I did look at it was 62% for 10/10 with a further 10% at 9/10 (this was the one with 42 to 39)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/imdk9bjaff/TimesResults_170531_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

if you go back to the beginning of the campaign they were getting 44% for 10/10 and 4% for 9/10

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/04xxn42p3e/TimesResults_170419_VI_Trackers_GE_W.pdf

this is a major change. Yes the JC campaign has energised the 18-24 but the question I'm asking is why have ICM not seen the same change in engagement from the same group of people?

But regardless of how certain 18-24-year-olds are telling YouGov they are to vote, YouGov are still (probably rightly) assuming quite a few of those who claim to be "certain" won't actually turn out on the day. Their headline figures in that poll have youth turnout downweighted to 51%.

spudgfsh

Danny565 said:

YouGov is only assuming Corbyn will enthuse as many young people to the polls as Clegg did in 2010 (the ones who actually showed up on election day). Is that really so implausible?

if it was really happening wouldn't it be picked up by all of the pollsters rather than just some. either ICM has missed a surge in youth voting intention or YouGov is oversampling the really energised youth over the more apathetic youth voters

RobD

KentRising said:

Every time I refresh this the Tories shed gains:

http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/

You aren't refreshing it often enough then

kle4

Danny565 said:

spudgfsh said:

I didn't look at many samples TBH but in the one I did look at it was 62% for 10/10 with a further 10% at 9/10 (this was the one with 42 to 39)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/imdk9bjaff/TimesResults_170531_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

if you go back to the beginning of the campaign they were getting 44% for 10/10 and 4% for 9/10

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/04xxn42p3e/TimesResults_170419_VI_Trackers_GE_W.pdf

this is a major change. Yes the JC campaign has energised the 18-24 but the question I'm asking is why have ICM not seen the same change in engagement from the same group of people?

But regardless of how certain 18-24-year-olds are telling YouGov they are to vote, YouGov are still (probably rightly) assuming quite a few of those who claim to be "certain" won't actually turn out on the day. Their headline figures in that poll have youth turnout downweighted to 51%.

2010 levels? Plausible.

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

The_Taxman said:

Good article. There is a problem:

"For me what’s been significant is that Theresa May now making visits not just to targets which they hope to gain to but seats they already hold. That reflects a certain loss of confidence."

She was visiting Tory held west country seats in the first week of the campaign. The Tories were at 50% in the polls IIRC. I think Cameron went with her and you (Or one of the other comment writers) did an article about how the resurgent Lib Dems were going to take back the south west.....

We'll only know if it was genius or madness after the fact!

We've only been spooked by Hillary and her visits.

As has been noted before at the 2015 GE David Cameron campaigning in Yeovil, 200 yards from Paddy Ashdown's house was confirmation for the Lib Dems that Cameron and Crosby didn't have a clue about targeting and the Tories were mad to focus on these seats.

Doesn't mean they didn't overreach this time when trying for places like Bolsover and Don Valley!

Indeed. It was Leeds East that set off alarm bells for me, that and publicly announcing they were going for Tom Watson.

They forgot the first rule of decapitations; not to announce it.

kle4

KentRising said:

Every time I refresh this the Tories shed gains:

http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/

Hell of a range on SNP seats there. 34? Don't make me laugh.

Danny565

spudgfsh said:

Danny565 said:

YouGov is only assuming Corbyn will enthuse as many young people to the polls as Clegg did in 2010 (the ones who actually showed up on election day). Is that really so implausible?

if it was really happening wouldn't it be picked up by all of the pollsters rather than just some. either ICM has missed a surge in youth voting intention or YouGov is oversampling the really energised youth over the more apathetic youth voters

ICM isn't missing the surge though - their unadjusted data has Labour and the Tories closer together. The gap only widens when they apply turnout filters which assume youth turnout is the same as in 2015, and that it won't reach levels that even Clegg managed in 2010. Time will tell who's right.

Nemtynakht

Danny565 said:

spudgfsh said:

FPT

I just did a quick check and with a bit of a search I found that

IPSOS estimated that 43% of 18-24 actually voted in 2015

if you compare that to some of the recent surveys

Kantar (25th to 30th giving 43con to 33lab) had for the same group 23% would definately vote and 13% would probably vote

ICM (26th to 29th giving 45con to 33lab) had for the same group 44% would definately vote (10/10)

YouGov (30th/31st giving 42con to 39lab) had for the same group 62% certain to vote (10/10)

Survation (26th/27th giving 43con to 37lab) had for the same group 81.2% certain to vote (10/10)

are yougov and others really saying that the 18-24s are going to vote in significantly higher numbers than they have before when ICM and others are not?

YouGov's adjusted headline numbers are weighted to an assumption that only 51% of 18-24-year-olds will turn out.

That is not that big a jump from 2015, and in fact it's only back to levels of youth turnout, relative to elderly turnout, that were last seen in 2010. Hardly outlandish.

From one of YouGov's analysts:

Take our most recent poll. After we had weighted our sample, taken account of how likely people say they are to vote, and weighted down the answers of those people who didn’t vote last time, we were left with a sample that implies turnout of 51% among people under 25 and 75% among people aged 65+; a turnout gap of 24 points between young and old.

Looking at estimates from past elections from the House of Commons library, in 2015 the turnout gap between young and old was 35 points, in 2010 it was 23 points, in 2005 it was 36 points. In other words, we’re showing a smaller gap than in 2015, but similar to 2010 and not one that we think is totally unrealistic if Jeremy Corbyn has enthused younger people.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/01/pollsters-experimental-election/

Whilst I agree Corbyn has enthused younger voters it is very difficult to know where this may make a difference as the universities will have broken up so they will be dispersed across probably mainly middle class seats across the country. Are they registered to vote in the right place? Are the very and enthusiastic minority representative of all 18 - 24 year olds. My tip would be to look at places where there are lots of young professionals, nurses etc. Somewhere like Birmingham Edgbaston where you have young professionals in Harborne, its close to University for the people staying around over the summer, and also you have Queen Elizabeth Hospital so nurses etc in training, and large public sector employment.

spudgfsh

Danny565 said:

spudgfsh said:

I didn't look at many samples TBH but in the one I did look at it was 62% for 10/10 with a further 10% at 9/10 (this was the one with 42 to 39)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/imdk9bjaff/TimesResults_170531_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

if you go back to the beginning of the campaign they were getting 44% for 10/10 and 4% for 9/10

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/04xxn42p3e/TimesResults_170419_VI_Trackers_GE_W.pdf

this is a major change. Yes the JC campaign has energised the 18-24 but the question I'm asking is why have ICM not seen the same change in engagement from the same group of people?

But regardless of how certain 18-24-year-olds are telling YouGov they are to vote, YouGov are still (probably rightly) assuming quite a few of those who claim to be "certain" won't actually turn out on the day. Their headline figures in that poll have youth turnout downweighted to 51%.

but if they have X slots for youth voters and they oversample the very enthusiastic section of that group then they are having to compensate at the end of the polling rather than getting the sample right in the first place.

are Yougov rushing (they mostly take 2 days) and having a more difficult task of correcting data after the fact rather than ICM (who normally take 3 days) who may not need to compensate for the data as much after the fact?

kle4

kle4 said:

KentRising said:

Every time I refresh this the Tories shed gains:

http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/

Hell of a range on SNP seats there. 34? Don't make me laugh.

LDs on a low of 2 (high of 13)! 2015 is calling, but I find that hard to see.

Essexit

kle4 said:

KentRising said:

Every time I refresh this the Tories shed gains:

http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/

Hell of a range on SNP seats there. 34? Don't make me laugh.

Also, UKIP high of 5...what? Clacton and Thurrock seem like the only possibilities, and both are remote.

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/870336669525868544

Jonathan

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/870336669525868544

Well that's fun isn't it.

JackW

Despite all the p*ss and wind of the campaign and the p*ss filled undergarments of various Conservative nervous nellies, the only election related "tightening" I've seen recently is the grip of Mrs JackW on my profits !!

Undeserved Con Landslide A Week Away ....

kle4

Jonathan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/870336669525868544

Well that's fun isn't it.

1987 would be fine, if unlike then the leader left afterwards.

kle4

JackW said:

Despite all the p*ss and wind of the campaign and the p*ss filled undergarments of various Conservative nervous nellies, the only election related "tightening" I've seen recently is the grip of Mrs JackW on my profits !!

Undeserved Con Landslide A Week Away ....

How do you define landslide?

David_Evershed

kle4 said:

Danny565 said:

YouGov is only assuming Corbyn will enthuse as many young people to the polls as Clegg did in 2010 (the ones who actually showed up on election day). Is that really so implausible?

Put like that, no - young people love Corbyn, I don't remember anything like as much fervour around Clegg, and I was in that age bracket then.

They both promised to stop tuition fees.

TheScreamingEagles

Jonathan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/870336669525868544

Well that's fun isn't it.

Perhaps he's meaning we're getting a 1931 result?

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

JackW said:

Despite all the p*ss and wind of the campaign and the p*ss filled undergarments of various Conservative nervous nellies, the only election related "tightening" I've seen recently is the grip of Mrs JackW on my profits !!

Undeserved Con Landslide A Week Away ....

How do you define landslide?

Majority of 100 seats plus

Danny565

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/870336669525868544

From his polling earlier -- "concern" about the NHS is at 15-year high:

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/ipsos-mori-may-issues-index-sharp-rises-concern-about-nhs-and-education

nichomar

Would leavers have respected the referendum result if it was 52-48 the other way. Hell not even before the votes were counted farage
Was calling for a re run. They only had to win once and have suddenly decided that the believe in democracy

Alistair

kle4 said:

KentRising said:

Every time I refresh this the Tories shed gains:

http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/

Hell of a range on SNP seats there. 34? Don't make me laugh.

If the SNP are on 41 and SCon are on 30 then that is a giant swing of gigantic proportions. SNP down 9 and SCon up 16. That would easily put 19 seats in reach for the Tories.

Bufton_Tufton

Oh look. Sir Michael Fallon in Plymouth today - day after Theresa. The Plymouth seats seem to be very much in play for Labour.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/defence-secretary-says-plymouth-will-play-major-part-in-the-future-of-the-royal-navy/story-30366674-detail/story.html

paulyork64

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Having a think about Wales compared to the rest of the UK - Labour there in 2015 had 37%, but the total vote for left of centre parties was ~ 60% so there was always more squeeze potential there for Labour compared to everywhere else - essentially because Plaid is alot stronger than the greens in say the Midlands.

If Plaid Cymru are losing vote share, are they retaining it in their heartlands? The answer seems to be no. The regional sub-samples show them getting as high as 10% only in Cardiff and South Central.

labour now 11/10 joint favs with PC for Ynys Mon with Paddy's. 4/1 still available at several bookies. PC were odds on to get over 3.5 seats and I think this was the gain the market makers had in mind.

Pulpstar

Labour fundraising update:

"In 8 hours you've already raised £244,000."

rcs1000

spudgfsh said:

Danny565 said:

spudgfsh said:

FPT

I just did a quick check and with a bit of a search I found that

IPSOS estimated that 43% of 18-24 actually voted in 2015

if you compare that to some of the recent surveys

Kantar (25th to 30th giving 43con to 33lab) had for the same group 23% would definately vote and 13% would probably vote

ICM (26th to 29th giving 45con to 33lab) had for the same group 44% would definately vote (10/10)

YouGov (30th/31st giving 42con to 39lab) had for the same group 62% certain to vote (10/10)

Survation (26th/27th giving 43con to 37lab) had for the same group 81.2% certain to vote (10/10)

are yougov and others really saying that the 18-24s are going to vote in significantly higher numbers than they have before when ICM and others are not?

YouGov's adjusted headline numbers are weighted to an assumption that only 51% of 18-24-year-olds will turn out.

That is not that big a jump from 2015, and in fact it's only back to levels of youth turnout, relative to elderly turnout, that were last seen in 2010. Hardly outlandish.

From one of YouGov's analysts:

Take our most recent poll. After we had weighted our sample, taken account of how likely people say they are to vote, and weighted down the answers of those people who didn’t vote last time, we were left with a sample that implies turnout of 51% among people under 25 and 75% among people aged 65+; a turnout gap of 24 points between young and old.

Looking at estimates from past elections from the House of Commons library, in 2015 the turnout gap between young and old was 35 points, in 2010 it was 23 points, in 2005 it was 36 points. In other words, we’re showing a smaller gap than in 2015, but similar to 2010 and not one that we think is totally unrealistic if Jeremy Corbyn has enthused younger people.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/01/pollsters-experimental-election/

I didn't look at many samples TBH but in the one I did look at it was 62% for 10/10 with a further 10% at 9/10 (this was the one with 42 to 39)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/imdk9bjaff/TimesResults_170531_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

if you go back to the beginning of the campaign they were getting 44% for 10/10 and 4% for 9/10

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/04xxn42p3e/TimesResults_170419_VI_Trackers_GE_W.pdf

this is a major change. Yes the JC campaign has energised the 18-24 but the question I'm asking is why have ICM not seen the same change in engagement from the same group of people?

That is what people say. YouGov weights it down somewhat. It probably needs further down weighting, but the effect will be very minor as 18-24 year old are about 10% of the electorate, and they're not all Corbyn fans.

isam

nichomar said:

Would leavers have respected the referendum result if it was 52-48 the other way. Hell not even before the votes were counted farage
Was calling for a re run. They only had to win once and have suddenly decided that the believe in democracy

Yes

People are allowed to campaign to take us back in, who said they couldn't?

bigjohnowls

Jonathan said:

KentRising said:

Every time I refresh this the Tories shed gains:

http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/

Better perhaps than gaining sheds. That would be weird.

Are the Tories not repossessing sheds to pay for SC yet?

TheScreamingEagles

Bufton_Tufton said:

Oh look. Sir Michael Fallon in Plymouth today - day after Theresa. The Plymouth seats seem to be very much in play for Labour.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/defence-secretary-says-plymouth-will-play-major-part-in-the-future-of-the-royal-navy/story-30366674-detail/story.html

If Mrs May is responsible for Johnny Mercer losing his seat then I'll be crying like a disgraced televangelist on June 9th

Jonathan

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jonathan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/870336669525868544

Well that's fun isn't it.

Perhaps he's meaning we're getting a 1931 result?

Chances of getting a result at half past seven on Friday not impossible.

MikeL

Danny565 said:

spudgfsh said:

I didn't look at many samples TBH but in the one I did look at it was 62% for 10/10 with a further 10% at 9/10 (this was the one with 42 to 39)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/imdk9bjaff/TimesResults_170531_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

if you go back to the beginning of the campaign they were getting 44% for 10/10 and 4% for 9/10

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/04xxn42p3e/TimesResults_170419_VI_Trackers_GE_W.pdf

this is a major change. Yes the JC campaign has energised the 18-24 but the question I'm asking is why have ICM not seen the same change in engagement from the same group of people?

But regardless of how certain 18-24-year-olds are telling YouGov they are to vote, YouGov are still (probably rightly) assuming quite a few of those who claim to be "certain" won't actually turn out on the day. Their headline figures in that poll have youth turnout downweighted to 51%.

Hanretty says YouGov has Con +8 if only 2015 voters vote, when youth turnout was 43%.

Raising youth turnout to 51% isn't much but YouGov has Con +4.

Going from 43% to 51% can't move the overall headline lead by 4 points when young people are only a small proportion of total electorate anyway.

This implies there are other changes going on - ie is YouGov boosting 25 to 44 turnout as well above the 2015 level? And any other changes?

Cyan

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jonathan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/870336669525868544

Well that's fun isn't it.

Perhaps he's meaning we're getting a 1931 result?

Or 1951 but with colours reversed?

RochdalePioneers

I go back to my "Russian Front" negotiation strategy. Presented with two options where one is being sent to fight on the russian front, the other remaining option - however unpalatable - is the better one. In a general election the choice is always a Labour government or a Tory government.

Whats mind-blowing is the level of hubris in that Tory manifesto that literally punches their own supporters in the stomach and says "there is no alternative". And to those people who aren't hardened supporters but have swayed Tory as recently as 2015 its "we literally take you for granted because you have no choice".

So regardless of the collected wisdom of views on Jezbollah, when he is left as the least worst option by the PM herself thats when "bollocks to TINA!" comes into play and people vote Brexit/Trump/Corbyn. Up here on Teesside the Tory-leaning paper is reporting her visit to Guisborough with a sarcastic portrait of being refused proper access to her and "on a knife-edge" polls for MSEC and my own Stockton South.

So bring it on. She's Frit. She's being routed. And next week she'll be gone.

AndyJS

Interesting that the Tories are either flatlining or down slightly in London while going up by around 6% overall. Suggests they're up by more than 6% excluding London.

nichomar

isam said:

nichomar said:

Would leavers have respected the referendum result if it was 52-48 the other way. Hell not even before the votes were counted farage
Was calling for a re run. They only had to win once and have suddenly decided that the believe in democracy

Yes

People are allowed to campaign to take us back in, who said they couldn't?

If we had voted remain then the Tories would have had to offer another at this election and subsequent elections
A referendum to stop the kippers stealing their votes.

Scrapheap_as_was

RochdalePioneers said:

I go back to my "Russian Front" negotiation strategy. Presented with two options where one is being sent to fight on the russian front, the other remaining option - however unpalatable - is the better one. In a general election the choice is always a Labour government or a Tory government.

Whats mind-blowing is the level of hubris in that Tory manifesto that literally punches their own supporters in the stomach and says "there is no alternative". And to those people who aren't hardened supporters but have swayed Tory as recently as 2015 its "we literally take you for granted because you have no choice".

So regardless of the collected wisdom of views on Jezbollah, when he is left as the least worst option by the PM herself thats when "bollocks to TINA!" comes into play and people vote Brexit/Trump/Corbyn. Up here on Teesside the Tory-leaning paper is reporting her visit to Guisborough with a sarcastic portrait of being refused proper access to her and "on a knife-edge" polls for MSEC and my own Stockton South.

So bring it on. She's Frit. She's being routed. And next week she'll be gone.

Filed for future reference.

spudgfsh

rcs1000 said:

spudgfsh said:

I didn't look at many samples TBH but in the one I did look at it was 62% for 10/10 with a further 10% at 9/10 (this was the one with 42 to 39)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/imdk9bjaff/TimesResults_170531_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

if you go back to the beginning of the campaign they were getting 44% for 10/10 and 4% for 9/10

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/04xxn42p3e/TimesResults_170419_VI_Trackers_GE_W.pdf

this is a major change. Yes the JC campaign has energised the 18-24 but the question I'm asking is why have ICM not seen the same change in engagement from the same group of people?

That is what people say. YouGov weights it down somewhat. It probably needs further down weighting, but the effect will be very minor as 18-24 year old are about 10% of the electorate, and they're not all Corbyn fans.

You get a set of data (some of which is published) and then some magic happens to get the final numbers. Some of that is to correct the data and as I've said elsewhere. it's more difficult to fix the numbers after the fact than to get a representative sample in the first place.

Richard_Tyndall

RochdalePioneers said:

I go back to my "Russian Front" negotiation strategy. Presented with two options where one is being sent to fight on the russian front, the other remaining option - however unpalatable - is the better one. In a general election the choice is always a Labour government or a Tory government.

Whats mind-blowing is the level of hubris in that Tory manifesto that literally punches their own supporters in the stomach and says "there is no alternative". And to those people who aren't hardened supporters but have swayed Tory as recently as 2015 its "we literally take you for granted because you have no choice".

So regardless of the collected wisdom of views on Jezbollah, when he is left as the least worst option by the PM herself thats when "bollocks to TINA!" comes into play and people vote Brexit/Trump/Corbyn. Up here on Teesside the Tory-leaning paper is reporting her visit to Guisborough with a sarcastic portrait of being refused proper access to her and "on a knife-edge" polls for MSEC and my own Stockton South.

So bring it on. She's Frit. She's being routed. And next week she'll be gone.

You know we will quote you on that. A lot.

isam

nichomar said:

isam said:

nichomar said:

Would leavers have respected the referendum result if it was 52-48 the other way. Hell not even before the votes were counted farage
Was calling for a re run. They only had to win once and have suddenly decided that the believe in democracy

Yes

People are allowed to campaign to take us back in, who said they couldn't?

If we had voted remain then the Tories would have had to offer another at this election and subsequent elections
A referendum to stop the kippers stealing their votes.

I think they'd have been well within their rights to say the matter was closed. It would have been for Ukip to win seats then

Jonathan

Wondering if Gordon Brown is going to come out and do a barnstorming speech for Theresa. When things are not going well at the last week of a campaign that's usually what happens.

JackW

kle4 said:

JackW said:

Despite all the p*ss and wind of the campaign and the p*ss filled undergarments of various Conservative nervous nellies, the only election related "tightening" I've seen recently is the grip of Mrs JackW on my profits !!

Undeserved Con Landslide A Week Away ....

How do you define landslide?

Con Maj 100+

FF43

I have to say based on the polls in the Wikipedia article that the Conservatives are at real risk of losing their majority. The trend has continued to go against the Tories since Manchester. It's not just the Dementia Tax. If the decline continues next week we'll see a consensus of polls in the middle single digits, ie the same as last time.

spudgfsh

MikeL said:

Hanretty says YouGov has Con +8 if only 2015 voters vote, when youth turnout was 43%.

Raising youth turnout to 51% isn't much but YouGov has Con +4.

Going from 43% to 51% can't move the overall headline lead by 4 points when young people are only a small proportion of total electorate anyway.

This implies there are other changes going on - ie is YouGov boosting 25 to 44 turnout as well above the 2015 level? And any other changes?

you could probably get that from the data but it was easier to stick to 18-24 as it's a category that most pollsters use

isam

spudgfsh said:

rcs1000 said:

spudgfsh said:

I didn't look at many samples TBH but in the one I did look at it was 62% for 10/10 with a further 10% at 9/10 (this was the one with 42 to 39)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/imdk9bjaff/TimesResults_170531_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

if you go back to the beginning of the campaign they were getting 44% for 10/10 and 4% for 9/10

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/04xxn42p3e/TimesResults_170419_VI_Trackers_GE_W.pdf

this is a major change. Yes the JC campaign has energised the 18-24 but the question I'm asking is why have ICM not seen the same change in engagement from the same group of people?

That is what people say. YouGov weights it down somewhat. It probably needs further down weighting, but the effect will be very minor as 18-24 year old are about 10% of the electorate, and they're not all Corbyn fans.

You get a set of data (some of which is published) and then some magic happens to get the final numbers. Some of that is to correct the data and as I've said elsewhere. it's more difficult to fix the numbers after the fact than to get a representative sample in the first place.

"How can pollsters improve their results? One possibility could be to ask each respondent how politically engaged they are, how often they watch QT, Newsnight, News at Ten etc and weight their responses accordingly, skewed heavily towards the politically disinterested. Maybe they should exclude the politically engaged from political opinion polls altogether.

It may not be popular with the chatterati, but their considered view is considerably less important than that of the bloke down the pub."

http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-problem-with-opinion-polls-polls.html?m=1

MarqueeMark

Nemtynakht said:

Whilst I agree Corbyn has enthused younger voters it is very difficult to know where this may make a difference as the universities will have broken up so they will be dispersed across probably mainly middle class seats across the country. Are they registered to vote in the right place? Are the very and enthusiastic minority representative of all 18 - 24 year olds. My tip would be to look at places where there are lots of young professionals, nurses etc. Somewhere like Birmingham Edgbaston where you have young professionals in Harborne, its close to University for the people staying around over the summer, and also you have Queen Elizabeth Hospital so nurses etc in training, and large public sector employment.

Many of the students will be registered to vote at Uni as a result of the recent registration drives. A chunk of them will not be there on the day - and I suspect the bulk will not have a postal vote.

I expect the under 25s to disappoint on the downside yet again. Knock a point off Labour, but perhaps not much more. But their not being there will push up the proportion of voters going Tory as a result. Stick another point on the blues.

bigjohnowls

Danny565 said:

spudgfsh said:

Danny565 said:

YouGov is only assuming Corbyn will enthuse as many young people to the polls as Clegg did in 2010 (the ones who actually showed up on election day). Is that really so implausible?

if it was really happening wouldn't it be picked up by all of the pollsters rather than just some. either ICM has missed a surge in youth voting intention or YouGov is oversampling the really energised youth over the more apathetic youth voters

ICM isn't missing the surge though - their unadjusted data has Labour and the Tories closer together. The gap only widens when they apply turnout filters which assume youth turnout is the same as in 2015, and that it won't reach levels that even Clegg managed in 2010. Time will tell who's right.

If the next ICM isnt in single figures

TMICIPM with a big increase in majority in their eyes.

YG will surely not remain poised to be the only pollster predicting hung Parliament for long.

I think the result will be closer to ICM than YG at current levels.

Unfortunately.

kle4

FF43 said:

I have to say based on the polls in the Wikipedia article that the Conservatives are at real risk of losing their majority. The trend has continued to go against the Tories since Manchester. It's not just the Dementia Tax. If the decline continues next week we'll see a consensus of polls in the middle single digits, ie the same as last time.

If it is the same why would you assume they'd do even worse? Expecting Lab to outperform in the marginals?

Also, weren't the polls much closer than 'mid single digit leads' for Con, or am I remembering wrong?

Danny565

isam said:

spudgfsh said:

rcs1000 said:

spudgfsh said:

I didn't look at many samples TBH but in the one I did look at it was 62% for 10/10 with a further 10% at 9/10 (this was the one with 42 to 39)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/imdk9bjaff/TimesResults_170531_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

if you go back to the beginning of the campaign they were getting 44% for 10/10 and 4% for 9/10

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/04xxn42p3e/TimesResults_170419_VI_Trackers_GE_W.pdf

this is a major change. Yes the JC campaign has energised the 18-24 but the question I'm asking is why have ICM not seen the same change in engagement from the same group of people?

That is what people say. YouGov weights it down somewhat. It probably needs further down weighting, but the effect will be very minor as 18-24 year old are about 10% of the electorate, and they're not all Corbyn fans.

You get a set of data (some of which is published) and then some magic happens to get the final numbers. Some of that is to correct the data and as I've said elsewhere. it's more difficult to fix the numbers after the fact than to get a representative sample in the first place.

"How can pollsters improve their results? One possibility could be to ask each respondent how politically engaged they are, how often they watch QT, Newsnight, News at Ten etc and weight their responses accordingly, skewed heavily towards the politically disinterested. Maybe they should exclude the politically engaged from political opinion polls altogether.

It may not be popular with the chatterati, but their considered view is considerably less important than that of the bloke down the pub."

http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-problem-with-opinion-polls-polls.html?m=1

YouGov claims that they have tried to go to special lengths since the last election to include more people who aren't politically-engaged (though they're a bit vague on the ways in which they've actually done this):

In the case of YouGov we have mostly concentrated on improving our sample – recruiting more people who are less interested in politics and weighting by political interest and education. However, we no longer take people’s self-reported likelihood to vote as being entirely reliable. As past voting behaviour is a useful guide to whether people will vote this time, we weight down people who didn’t vote in 2015.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/01/pollsters-experimental-election/

spudgfsh

isam said:

spudgfsh said:

rcs1000 said:

spudgfsh said:

I didn't look at many samples TBH but in the one I did look at it was 62% for 10/10 with a further 10% at 9/10 (this was the one with 42 to 39)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/imdk9bjaff/TimesResults_170531_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

if you go back to the beginning of the campaign they were getting 44% for 10/10 and 4% for 9/10

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/04xxn42p3e/TimesResults_170419_VI_Trackers_GE_W.pdf

this is a major change. Yes the JC campaign has energised the 18-24 but the question I'm asking is why have ICM not seen the same change in engagement from the same group of people?

That is what people say. YouGov weights it down somewhat. It probably needs further down weighting, but the effect will be very minor as 18-24 year old are about 10% of the electorate, and they're not all Corbyn fans.

You get a set of data (some of which is published) and then some magic happens to get the final numbers. Some of that is to correct the data and as I've said elsewhere. it's more difficult to fix the numbers after the fact than to get a representative sample in the first place.

"How can pollsters improve their results? One possibility could be to ask each respondent how politically engaged they are, how often they watch QT, Newsnight, News at Ten etc and weight their responses accordingly, skewed heavily towards the politically disinterested. Maybe they should exclude the politically engaged from political opinion polls altogether.

It may not be popular with the chatterati, but their considered view is considerably less important than that of the bloke down the pub."

http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-problem-with-opinion-polls-polls.html?m=1

It may take more time to get it right but you may get better results than if you don't

Monksfield

Received wisdom got both POTUS and Brexit wrong by failing to understand how a sector of infrequent voters were hopping mad. Could it be the young this time, in which case YouGov may be closer if they're turnout model reflects this better.

AndyJS

isam said:

spudgfsh said:

rcs1000 said:

spudgfsh said:

I didn't look at many samples TBH but in the one I did look at it was 62% for 10/10 with a further 10% at 9/10 (this was the one with 42 to 39)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/imdk9bjaff/TimesResults_170531_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

if you go back to the beginning of the campaign they were getting 44% for 10/10 and 4% for 9/10

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/04xxn42p3e/TimesResults_170419_VI_Trackers_GE_W.pdf

this is a major change. Yes the JC campaign has energised the 18-24 but the question I'm asking is why have ICM not seen the same change in engagement from the same group of people?

That is what people say. YouGov weights it down somewhat. It probably needs further down weighting, but the effect will be very minor as 18-24 year old are about 10% of the electorate, and they're not all Corbyn fans.

You get a set of data (some of which is published) and then some magic happens to get the final numbers. Some of that is to correct the data and as I've said elsewhere. it's more difficult to fix the numbers after the fact than to get a representative sample in the first place.

"How can pollsters improve their results? One possibility could be to ask each respondent how politically engaged they are, how often they watch QT, Newsnight, News at Ten etc and weight their responses accordingly, skewed heavily towards the politically disinterested. Maybe they should exclude the politically engaged from political opinion polls altogether.

It may not be popular with the chatterati, but their considered view is considerably less important than that of the bloke down the pub."

http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-problem-with-opinion-polls-polls.html?m=1

The interesting thing is the polls were pretty much spot on in 1979 and 1983 without most of the adjustments they do today.

jayfdee

JackW said:

Despite all the p*ss and wind of the campaign and the p*ss filled undergarments of various Conservative nervous nellies, the only election related "tightening" I've seen recently is the grip of Mrs JackW on my profits !!

Undeserved Con Landslide A Week Away ....

Well Jack, you were right last time when all about were panicking about Ed Mili becoming PM, I hope you are right this time. I have faith in your judgement, and yes it will be an undeserved victory, but the thought of Corbyn in charge.....

Pulpstar

AndyJS said:

isam said:

spudgfsh said:

rcs1000 said:

spudgfsh said:

I didn't look at many samples TBH but in the one I did look at it was 62% for 10/10 with a further 10% at 9/10 (this was the one with 42 to 39)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/imdk9bjaff/TimesResults_170531_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

if you go back to the beginning of the campaign they were getting 44% for 10/10 and 4% for 9/10

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/04xxn42p3e/TimesResults_170419_VI_Trackers_GE_W.pdf

this is a major change. Yes the JC campaign has energised the 18-24 but the question I'm asking is why have ICM not seen the same change in engagement from the same group of people?

That is what people say. YouGov weights it down somewhat. It probably needs further down weighting, but the effect will be very minor as 18-24 year old are about 10% of the electorate, and they're not all Corbyn fans.

You get a set of data (some of which is published) and then some magic happens to get the final numbers. Some of that is to correct the data and as I've said elsewhere. it's more difficult to fix the numbers after the fact than to get a representative sample in the first place.

"How can pollsters improve their results? One possibility could be to ask each respondent how politically engaged they are, how often they watch QT, Newsnight, News at Ten etc and weight their responses accordingly, skewed heavily towards the politically disinterested. Maybe they should exclude the politically engaged from political opinion polls altogether.

It may not be popular with the chatterati, but their considered view is considerably less important than that of the bloke down the pub."

http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-problem-with-opinion-polls-polls.html?m=1

The interesting thing is the polls were pretty much spot on in 1979 and 1983 without most of the adjustments they do today.

Labour might be ahead then !

JackW

RochdalePioneers said:

I go back to my "Russian Front" negotiation strategy. Presented with two options where one is being sent to fight on the russian front, the other remaining option - however unpalatable - is the better one. In a general election the choice is always a Labour government or a Tory government.

Whats mind-blowing is the level of hubris in that Tory manifesto that literally punches their own supporters in the stomach and says "there is no alternative". And to those people who aren't hardened supporters but have swayed Tory as recently as 2015 its "we literally take you for granted because you have no choice".

So regardless of the collected wisdom of views on Jezbollah, when he is left as the least worst option by the PM herself thats when "bollocks to TINA!" comes into play and people vote Brexit/Trump/Corbyn. Up here on Teesside the Tory-leaning paper is reporting her visit to Guisborough with a sarcastic portrait of being refused proper access to her and "on a knife-edge" polls for MSEC and my own Stockton South.

So bring it on. She's Frit. She's being routed. And next week she'll be gone.

I refer the Honourable gentleman to his 2015 general election prediction.

Pulpstar

jayfdee said:

JackW said:

Despite all the p*ss and wind of the campaign and the p*ss filled undergarments of various Conservative nervous nellies, the only election related "tightening" I've seen recently is the grip of Mrs JackW on my profits !!

Undeserved Con Landslide A Week Away ....

Well Jack, you were right last time when all about were panicking about Ed Mili becoming PM, I hope you are right this time. I have faith in your judgement, and yes it will be an undeserved victory, but the thought of Corbyn in charge.....

Yr in Cumbria iirc

Jonathan

So, if you're Labour what do you do? Some people are about to think for the first time 'maybe'. How do they handle that? In the past, Labour has not handled that moment well. How would you play it?

foxinsoxuk

jayfdee said:

JackW said:

Despite all the p*ss and wind of the campaign and the p*ss filled undergarments of various Conservative nervous nellies, the only election related "tightening" I've seen recently is the grip of Mrs JackW on my profits !!

Undeserved Con Landslide A Week Away ....

Well Jack, you were right last time when all about were panicking about Ed Mili becoming PM, I hope you are right this time. I have faith in your judgement, and yes it will be an undeserved victory, but the thought of Corbyn in charge.....

May is as nailed on to win as Hillary Clinton.

ROFL!

kle4

jayfdee said:

JackW said:

Despite all the p*ss and wind of the campaign and the p*ss filled undergarments of various Conservative nervous nellies, the only election related "tightening" I've seen recently is the grip of Mrs JackW on my profits !!

Undeserved Con Landslide A Week Away ....

Well Jack, you were right last time when all about were panicking about Ed Mili becoming PM, I hope you are right this time. I have faith in your judgement, and yes it will be an undeserved victory, but the thought of Corbyn in charge.....

So much in agreement with this. But, the people, as a song once said, are letting us down.

alex.

JackW said:

kle4 said:

JackW said:

Despite all the p*ss and wind of the campaign and the p*ss filled undergarments of various Conservative nervous nellies, the only election related "tightening" I've seen recently is the grip of Mrs JackW on my profits !!

Undeserved Con Landslide A Week Away ....

How do you define landslide?

Con Maj 100+

Opinion or sources from within the Tory campaign as employed in preparation of the A.R.S.E?

spudgfsh

AndyJS said:

isam said:

spudgfsh said:

rcs1000 said:

spudgfsh said:

I didn't look at many samples TBH but in the one I did look at it was 62% for 10/10 with a further 10% at 9/10 (this was the one with 42 to 39)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/imdk9bjaff/TimesResults_170531_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

if you go back to the beginning of the campaign they were getting 44% for 10/10 and 4% for 9/10

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/04xxn42p3e/TimesResults_170419_VI_Trackers_GE_W.pdf

this is a major change. Yes the JC campaign has energised the 18-24 but the question I'm asking is why have ICM not seen the same change in engagement from the same group of people?

That is what people say. YouGov weights it down somewhat. It probably needs further down weighting, but the effect will be very minor as 18-24 year old are about 10% of the electorate, and they're not all Corbyn fans.

You get a set of data (some of which is published) and then some magic happens to get the final numbers. Some of that is to correct the data and as I've said elsewhere. it's more difficult to fix the numbers after the fact than to get a representative sample in the first place.

"How can pollsters improve their results? One possibility could be to ask each respondent how politically engaged they are, how often they watch QT, Newsnight, News at Ten etc and weight their responses accordingly, skewed heavily towards the politically disinterested. Maybe they should exclude the politically engaged from political opinion polls altogether.

It may not be popular with the chatterati, but their considered view is considerably less important than that of the bloke down the pub."

http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-problem-with-opinion-polls-polls.html?m=1

The interesting thing is the polls were pretty much spot on in 1979 and 1983 without most of the adjustments they do today.

the population has fragmented since then and there are a lot more viable parties. The problem with online surveys is that when you send out the call (however it actually happens I don't care) those that are more politically engaged will always respond quickest. if you fill up all of your youth slots in the survey early then it'll be unrepresentative regardless of the percentage of the population. it's true for 18-24, for 25-34 and to a lesser extent for 35-44

RobD

spudgfsh said:

AndyJS said:

isam said:

spudgfsh said:

rcs1000 said:

spudgfsh said:

I didn't look at many samples TBH but in the one I did look at it was 62% for 10/10 with a further 10% at 9/10 (this was the one with 42 to 39)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/imdk9bjaff/TimesResults_170531_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

if you go back to the beginning of the campaign they were getting 44% for 10/10 and 4% for 9/10

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/04xxn42p3e/TimesResults_170419_VI_Trackers_GE_W.pdf

this is a major change. Yes the JC campaign has energised the 18-24 but the question I'm asking is why have ICM not seen the same change in engagement from the same group of people?

That is what people say. YouGov weights it down somewhat. It probably needs further down weighting, but the effect will be very minor as 18-24 year old are about 10% of the electorate, and they're not all Corbyn fans.

You get a set of data (some of which is published) and then some magic happens to get the final numbers. Some of that is to correct the data and as I've said elsewhere. it's more difficult to fix the numbers after the fact than to get a representative sample in the first place.

"How can pollsters improve their results? One possibility could be to ask each respondent how politically engaged they are, how often they watch QT, Newsnight, News at Ten etc and weight their responses accordingly, skewed heavily towards the politically disinterested. Maybe they should exclude the politically engaged from political opinion polls altogether.

It may not be popular with the chatterati, but their considered view is considerably less important than that of the bloke down the pub."

http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-problem-with-opinion-polls-polls.html?m=1

The interesting thing is the polls were pretty much spot on in 1979 and 1983 without most of the adjustments they do today.

the population has fragmented since then and there are a lot more viable parties. The problem with online surveys is that when you send out the call (however it actually happens I don't care) those that are more politically engaged will always respond quickest. if you fill up all of your youth slots in the survey early then it'll be unrepresentative regardless of the percentage of the population. it's true for 18-24, for 25-34 and to a lesser extent for 35-44

There must also be panelist fatigue given how many times they are polled by YouGov.

alex.

Interesting to note that PollingReport (unless i'm missing it) don't appear to have commented on YouGov's "constituency polling model".

spudgfsh

RobD said:

spudgfsh said:

the population has fragmented since then and there are a lot more viable parties. The problem with online surveys is that when you send out the call (however it actually happens I don't care) those that are more politically engaged will always respond quickest. if you fill up all of your youth slots in the survey early then it'll be unrepresentative regardless of the percentage of the population. it's true for 18-24, for 25-34 and to a lesser extent for 35-44

There must also be panelist fatigue given how many times they are polled by YouGov.

that is more likely in the older groups than the younger ones though

isam

Danny565 said:

isam said:

spudgfsh said:

rcs1000 said:

spudgfsh said:

I didn't look at many samples TBH but in the one I did look at it was 62% for 10/10 with a further 10% at 9/10 (this was the one with 42 to 39)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/imdk9bjaff/TimesResults_170531_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

if you go back to the beginning of the campaign they were getting 44% for 10/10 and 4% for 9/10

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/04xxn42p3e/TimesResults_170419_VI_Trackers_GE_W.pdf

this is a major change. Yes the JC campaign has energised the 18-24 but the question I'm asking is why have ICM not seen the same change in engagement from the same group of people?

That is what people say. YouGov weights it down somewhat. It probably needs further down weighting, but the effect will be very minor as 18-24 year old are about 10% of the electorate, and they're not all Corbyn fans.

You get a set of data (some of which is published) and then some magic happens to get the final numbers. Some of that is to correct the data and as I've said elsewhere. it's more difficult to fix the numbers after the fact than to get a representative sample in the first place.

"How can pollsters improve their results? One possibility could be to ask each respondent how politically engaged they are, how often they watch QT, Newsnight, News at Ten etc and weight their responses accordingly, skewed heavily towards the politically disinterested. Maybe they should exclude the politically engaged from political opinion polls altogether.

It may not be popular with the chatterati, but their considered view is considerably less important than that of the bloke down the pub."

http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-problem-with-opinion-polls-polls.html?m=1

YouGov claims that they have tried to go to special lengths since the last election to include more people who aren't politically-engaged (though they're a bit vague on the ways in which they've actually done this):

In the case of YouGov we have mostly concentrated on improving our sample – recruiting more people who are less interested in politics and weighting by political interest and education. However, we no longer take people’s self-reported likelihood to vote as being entirely reliable. As past voting behaviour is a useful guide to whether people will vote this time, we weight down people who didn’t vote in 2015.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/01/pollsters-experimental-election/

They should just tack political questions on the end of non political surveys

kle4

isam said:

Danny565 said:

isam said:

spudgfsh said:

rcs1000 said:

spudgfsh said:

I didn't look at many samples TBH but in the one I did look at it was 62% for 10/10 with a further 10% at 9/10 (this was the one with 42 to 39)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/imdk9bjaff/TimesResults_170531_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

if you go back to the beginning of the campaign they were getting 44% for 10/10 and 4% for 9/10

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/04xxn42p3e/TimesResults_170419_VI_Trackers_GE_W.pdf

this is a major change. Yes the JC campaign has energised the 18-24 but the question I'm asking is why have ICM not seen the same change in engagement from the same group of people?

That is what people say. YouGov weights it down somewhat. It probably needs further down weighting, but the effect will be very minor as 18-24 year old are about 10% of the electorate, and they're not all Corbyn fans.

You get a set of data (some of which is published) and then some magic happens to get the final numbers. Some of that is to correct the data and as I've said elsewhere. it's more difficult to fix the numbers after the fact than to get a representative sample in the first place.

"How can pollsters improve their results? One possibility could be to ask each respondent how politically engaged they are, how often they watch QT, Newsnight, News at Ten etc and weight their responses accordingly, skewed heavily towards the politically disinterested. Maybe they should exclude the politically engaged from political opinion polls altogether.

It may not be popular with the chatterati, but their considered view is considerably less important than that of the bloke down the pub."

http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-problem-with-opinion-polls-polls.html?m=1

YouGov claims that they have tried to go to special lengths since the last election to include more people who aren't politically-engaged (though they're a bit vague on the ways in which they've actually done this):

In the case of YouGov we have mostly concentrated on improving our sample – recruiting more people who are less interested in politics and weighting by political interest and education. However, we no longer take people’s self-reported likelihood to vote as being entirely reliable. As past voting behaviour is a useful guide to whether people will vote this time, we weight down people who didn’t vote in 2015.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/01/pollsters-experimental-election/

They should just tack political questions on the end of non political surveys

They do.

DecrepitJohnL

Bufton_Tufton said:

Oh look. Sir Michael Fallon in Plymouth today - day after Theresa. The Plymouth seats seem to be very much in play for Labour.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/defence-secretary-says-plymouth-will-play-major-part-in-the-future-of-the-royal-navy/story-30366674-detail/story.html

In play if planned. If not then it is a ploy to give the local media a story to knock Theresa May's Q&A off the front pages.

AnneJGP

nichomar said:

I actually think that the explanation to the way the polls are going is quite obvious, the panels are self selecting and unlikely to attract a voter who is genuinely undecided. The anectdotal evidence of the lack of posters and leaflets in marginal constituenc being far less than before implies that he campaign is "under the radar" . The big question is will the 18-35 age group turn out? Having watched the effectiveness of Tory targeting in lib dem seats in 2015 being so successful I seriously doubt if a lot of the polls reflect the true position. Whilst there are not many hats left to eat I think there may be excessive sheet changing in some quarters. Now this is from someone who's hope and expectations on ED is Lib Dems in double figures and not caring what else happens is neither ramping or hot air

If Conservative targeting was effective in 2015, does it necessarily follow that it's as effective this time?

Incidentally, if anyone is interested in these things, I received a bundle of GE leaflets today, delivered by the postman. (LD, Lab, Con, Green). Prior to that I'd only had leaflets delivered prior to the locals - 2 Con GE leaflets. (Newton Abbot constituency.)

Good evening, everyone.

isam

kle4 said:

isam said:

Danny565 said:

isam said:

spudgfsh said:

rcs1000 said:

spudgfsh said:

I didn't look at many samples TBH but in the one I did look at it was 62% for 10/10 with a further 10% at 9/10 (this was the one with 42 to 39)

this is a major change. Yes the JC campaign has energised the 18-24 but the question I'm asking is why have ICM not seen the same change in engagement from the same group of people?

That is what people say. YouGov weights it down somewhat. It probably needs further down weighting, but the effect will be very minor as 18-24 year old are about 10% of the electorate, and they're not all Corbyn fans.

You get a set of data (some of which is published) and then some magic happens to get the final numbers. Some of that is to correct the data and as I've said elsewhere. it's more difficult to fix the numbers after the fact than to get a representative sample in the first place.

"How can pollsters improve their results? One possibility could be to ask each respondent how politically engaged they are, how often they watch QT, Newsnight, News at Ten etc and weight their responses accordingly, skewed heavily towards the politically disinterested. Maybe they should exclude the politically engaged from political opinion polls altogether.

It may not be popular with the chatterati, but their considered view is considerably less important than that of the bloke down the pub."

http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-problem-with-opinion-polls-polls.html?m=1

YouGov claims that they have tried to go to special lengths since the last election to include more people who aren't politically-engaged (though they're a bit vague on the ways in which they've actually done this):

In the case of YouGov we have mostly concentrated on improving our sample – recruiting more people who are less interested in politics and weighting by political interest and education. However, we no longer take people’s self-reported likelihood to vote as being entirely reliable. As past voting behaviour is a useful guide to whether people will vote this time, we weight down people who didn’t vote in 2015.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/01/pollsters-experimental-election/

They should just tack political questions on the end of non political surveys

They do.

Shrewdies!

Even then, the polls are only answered by people that volunteer to be in polling panels, which is a particular kind of nerd. I have nothing against pollsters, but it just seems to me, as I say in my article, that they are shit

spudgfsh

DecrepitJohnL said:

Bufton_Tufton said:

Oh look. Sir Michael Fallon in Plymouth today - day after Theresa. The Plymouth seats seem to be very much in play for Labour.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/defence-secretary-says-plymouth-will-play-major-part-in-the-future-of-the-royal-navy/story-30366674-detail/story.html

In play if planned. If not then it is a ploy to give the local media a story to knock Theresa May's Q&A off the front pages.

defence secretary in shock visit to naval city during election!

jayfdee

Pulpstar said:

jayfdee said:

JackW said:

Despite all the p*ss and wind of the campaign and the p*ss filled undergarments of various Conservative nervous nellies, the only election related "tightening" I've seen recently is the grip of Mrs JackW on my profits !!

Undeserved Con Landslide A Week Away ....

Well Jack, you were right last time when all about were panicking about Ed Mili becoming PM, I hope you are right this time. I have faith in your judgement, and yes it will be an undeserved victory, but the thought of Corbyn in charge.....

Yr in Cumbria iirc

Sometimes. I live in 2 locations but registered to vote in Morecambe and Lunesdale, I will be watching the Farron vote as this area should be naturally Tory territory, but he is a very good constituency MP and reasonably well liked locally.
My other location where I live is Rory territory and probably safe.

chrisb

The_Taxman said:

Good article. There is a problem:

"For me what’s been significant is that Theresa May now making visits not just to targets which they hope to gain to but seats they already hold. That reflects a certain loss of confidence."

She was visiting Tory held west country seats in the first week of the campaign. The Tories were at 50% in the polls IIRC. I think Cameron went with her and you (Or one of the other comment writers) did an article about how the resurgent Lib Dems were going to take back the south west.....

She also campaigned in Berwick upon Tweed, Eastbourne and Norwich North in the first half of last month, all seats held by the Tories.

Jonathan

If I was running the Lab campaign I would need creating situations where he looked prime ministerial. He has gained a lot of gravitas since he started,. I wonder if they can create a situation to place him as a PM.

You know, the opposite of EdStone or meeting Russell what's his face.

handandmouse

Possibly a dumb question, but: do the pollsters ask if respondents are registered to vote? All very well having 10/10 intention to vote if on the day you find you can't because you never got around to registering!