Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn goes into the campaign with the worst Ipsos MORI opposi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn goes into the campaign with the worst Ipsos MORI opposition leader ratings it has ever recorded
Above are the latest satisfaction ratings from Ipsos-MORI which started polling in the late 1970s. As can be seen from the chart Johnson is now in positive territory, Swinson is a net minus 12, Farage a net minus 22 with the LAB leader on minus 60. There are equal the worst numbers for an opposition leader ever.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Edit: Clearly I'm a pessimist, but still.
The satisfaction numbers are a bit more within normal bounds though, and I think using them rather than net might be more accurate here - in past elections with huge gaps between the leaders, that works better. 31% sat gap >> 14% election result.
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ipsosmorioctoberchartsv1-191031125712/95/ipsos-mori-october-2019-political-monitor-13-638.jpg?cb=1572526682
Corbyn has misplayed the last year and his position won't fully recover unless the Tories do something mindbogglingly stupid.
Corbyn should have allowed May's deal to pass, so Brexit was out of the way & he could fight an election on favourable grounds.
In fact, the Remainer Parliament has misplayed this. We will all end up with a much harder Brexit because of it.
However, at worst, it might even manage to create an anti-tactical voting effect, where people mistakenly follow erroneous advice and make the outcome they want to avoid more likely.
I think this is shaping up to be an epochal shellacking for non-Johnsonites.
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ipsosmorioctoberchartsv1-191031125712/95/ipsos-mori-october-2019-political-monitor-27-638.jpg?cb=1572526682
The Cultural Revolution that will follow will make the task of government that much easier for Johnson.
Gee turns out people can see through all the silly schenanigans and wheezes of Corbyn, Benn, Grieve and co. No shit Sherlock.
At that point, Cameron had only just announced a referendum on YouGov membership. 52% of Labour supporters were in favour of such a referendum (29% against) and 34% of Labour supporters would vote to leave the EU (48% to remain). Only 2% of 2010 Labour supporters planned to vote UKIP in a GE. An internal debate rumbled on in Labour about whether to back an EU referendum with Balls, Cruddas and Vaz reported to be in favour.
What changed? Well a few days later Miliband came out against the idea and I think Labour never recovered from that disasterous failure in political judgement.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/23/ed-miliband-eu-referendum-david-cameron
On the debate on tactical voting, my situation is easy luckily, it's a Lab remainer held seat where the tories came close in 2015 but way out again in 2017. LDs going nowhere, and its not quite a safe enough seat to risk voting for them instead of Lab.
Don't envy those who have a less clear choice but it seems to me that the the safest choice is to go by 2017 results because that is what the average person will do, the one who doesn't look and compare 75 different voting guide websites, and is the only concrete data we have. Euro election results don't count in a GE, its a different system with different stakes so misleading to accord it the same importance as a GE. Also, the argument. That 2017 can't be used as a base because Labour's support has slipped is a circular argument - the people who don't want to vote Labour now are largely the remainer tactical voter types moving to LDs. The bulk of whom will look at their constituency on polling day and cross the Labour box because in this country we vote against the one we want to lose, not for the one we want to win. It sucks for the LDs of course but from a tactical voting system it will almost always be best to just vote for second place party in 2017.
I've got a feeling Labour could be in for pasting...
There’s very little Johnson can do to blow this election because Leavers will filter out any major gaffs .
Barring Trump turning up at the NATO summit and saying the NHS is definitely on the table then it’s very hard to see how Labour can overcome the resurgent Lib Dems.
Even though they’re likely to see some squeeze , it won’t be enough to get Labour close .
I’d love to be proven wrong but I simply can’t make a case for a Labour win and then even a minority government still needs everything to align perfectly.
Totally focused on Bre-what?
Labour activist: "Brexit isn't the main issue."
95% of those who care: "Damned right it isn't."
5%: "But Tarquin and Jemima reminded me after they went on an Extinction Rebellion protest that it's so important for us to Remain. I'm thinking of voting LD.
Labour activist: "I know what you mean, but it's got to be done democratically (wink), otherwise the pitchforks will come out and Tarquin and Jemima might get something much more serious to protest about than the imminent destruction of all life on Earth because some people haven't gone all electric yet. The LDs don't think for a moment they'll actually get in, and even if they did they wouldn't really revoke unless they got more than 50% of voteshare, which they obviously won't. It's Tory nutters that caused the whole Brexit mess and the only way to put it behind us is with a referendum and (mumble mumble) Remain (mumble mumble) seriousness not protest...and good state schools too...really jolly good ones."
In February the TIG were polling at 14% with YouGov and that was supposed to scare the crap out of Labour too.
This will be a hyper-polarised election. Lab + Con >80% in GB.
If I were a billionaire I'd be funding 600+ constituency opinion polls and publishing them as an independent service to voters.
I think the Royal College of GPs may have a few comments about that...
I'll be fascinated to see how this plays out in Wales. There is absolute rage on the Plaid Cymru/Welsh Nationalist blogs as to what Adam Price has done.
"If both of your models are wrong, why does combining them make it better? If one is correct, why do the other model?"
But you do not know which model is correct! Example: you can see two clocks, which differ by four minutes. It is quite likely that one is almost right and the other is slow/fast. If you need to guess "exactly the right time" then you choose one of the two clocks at random, you'll be right 50% of the time. But with prediction you are usually aiming to minimise some kind of loss function. If you wan to minimise the difference between your estimate and the real time you would take an average of the two clocks, even though you know your estimate is almost certainly going to be wrong, your loss will lower.
But didn't Salmond also have a fall-back due to the electoral system, as he could have gone on via the regional list? Not sure if he was nominated in that election, but a regional member could have resigned and been replaced by Salmond without further ado.
Johnson wouldn't have that - he could lean on a safe seat occupant to stand down, but would need to go through a fairly lengthy election process which wouldn't be guaranteed by any means and would leave a very odd position in the (very unlikely) event of a Tory majority AND a Johnson defeat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilevel_regression_with_poststratification
Take Southport for instance, where Labour got 15,000 votes for the first time in eons and came second in what has always been a Con-LD marginal. Should tactical voters vote Labour based on that ?
This is the approach YouGov took for its great 2017 MRP poll but the error bars are large, you cannot possibly extrapolate a single constituency to 1 decimal place without a huge amount of context to explain what that means and what the upper and lower bounds are. That is outrageously stupid at best and deliberately misleading at worst.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against any party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
I'm not sure how that works out in terms of number of unopposed candidates, because I think there were some constituency quirks that muddy the water. I've found a different website with the stats and it looks like a relatively good year for having a vote, with only 63 unopposed candidates.
Often more than 100, or even 200 MPs would be elected unopposed, a practice that hasn't been seen at all since 1951 and only in a handful of seats since there were 40 in 1935.
So it does look like the Liberals only prosper without any competition at all. How diverting.
But I also don't understand how it was done, as it has been synthesised together from multiple different survey companies. Each company will have a different bias when sampling, that can't possibly be taken into account when aggregating the data - unlike YouGov's tremendous attmept in 2017.
Also YouGov's data was very open and honest about the wide error bars their approach had. This is presenting the midpoint as if it is precise fact.
I don't think just because there is no Green candidate, a Green voter says "I will put on my yellow rosette and now vote LibDem."
And to be fair, one of the LibDem posters on this site (TorbyFennel, I believe) confirmed this.
He said he voted LibDem because he wants to see LibDem policies enacted (nothing wrong with that). And if the LibDems didn't stand in a constituency, he wouldn't vote.
I like people like Torby, because he has something definite he believes in, and he wants to vote for it.
I despise all this chicanery of forcing the Greens to stand down, or making a stupid alliance with parties smaller than you (but not ones bigger than you) so you get a clear run. It is false and hypocritical.
Without constituency polling there is only the 2017 result. LDs could try using the Euros or local election results but that lacks credibility. These constituency polls are perfect for squeeze leaflets.
If he is re-elected, motion will be brought back to the house in the next term, in order that he serves the full suspension.
Lab need to withdraw the whip now.
In your model, are you not double counting the tactical voting ? Presumably in the seats where it might matter most, it was fairly close last time and a fair chunk of the TV is already built in, right ?
Those a big error bars. And these Best for Britain chancers are pretending they don't exist.
The forced choice many people have to make is:
- do I vote for my principles but have no effect on the election outcome, or
- do I vote for the least worst option in the hope that it might affect the outcome slightly
The solution to the problem is to operate an electoral system that allows a vote to be cast both in line with the voter's principles AND with a chance of affecting the outcome of the election.
It's a shame because, in principle, I think it's a much better approach then just using the GE2017 figures, given the large swings since then.
No such worries for the Tories of course.
The electoral system rewards success and penalises favour. It has no regard to which party is which.
I voted for AV in 2011. I am perfectly well aware of the drawbacks of FPTP.
I have also noted with wry amusement the behaviour of the Canadian Liberals who were in favour of electoral reform when they were driven into third place. But, they lost their enthusiasm for reform once they won with FPTP in 2015.
And, even more ironically, the Liberals only retained power in 2019 because of FPTP, since they lost the popular vote.
So, less patronising lectures from Tabman please about "you're not admitting it"
The national shares in the polls will reflect genuine non-tactical movements from eg Lab to LD but will also contain an element of tactical considerations in some seats so there is an element of doublecounting.
But the number of seats where this might apply are relatively small in number and the tactical considerations will be confused (as we can see from the debates on here) and possibly self-cancelling in the big picture. So I making the assumption that the effect is not material enough to affect the national shares. The national shares are a measure of basic intent. The tactical assumptions are then applied individually for each constituency.
So for their purposes the error bars don't matter so much.
That is not what libdems believe but rather the lesser of two evils.