The trouble with a thread like that is that it’s very obvious the author has started from the fact he doesn’t like the large Tory poll leads and has come up with lots of reasons to salami slice them down again. However, he hasn’t done the same the other way. For example, he doesn’t cover how several pollsters who downweighted Labour in the polling for GE2017 after the fiasco of 2015 simply removed this after it, having found it not to work, and may now have gone back to overstating Labour now.
It doesn’t mean everything he says is wrong but it does mean that he is only interested in playing with one side of the equation, not solving it.
Of course all the polls could be wrong. Anything that is a predictor of behaviour can be wrong, it’s only a prediction after all.
Not sure that tweet makes a lot of sense, you’re not going to get an indication the polls are wrong from the data. It is how the pollsters use data to come up with their headline figures which can be wrong, but it is very difficult to argue the weighting IS wrong until the point when the actual result comes though because, well, then you know if it actually is wrong or not.
Erdington and Northfield seats shown in that video will be announced at 3am.
Its amazing how Lewis seems to find totally different people from John Harris....The later has a good record of getting a really good representation of what is going on, despite his own personal politics.
All these Conservative soldiers for truth might profitably spend a couple of minutes dissecting the Prime Minister’s claim, made today, that there will be no customs declarations on goods being sent from Northern Ireland to GB.
Easy. Hes a liar. You act like people think its impossible to object to more than than one thing at a time.
I can’t think of a single Tory leader I wasn’t worried wouldn’t fuck up a basic debate/Q&A since William Hague. Possibly Michael Howard but he creeped everyone out.
Everyone else I’ve been very nervous about their debating skills or performance in front of a camera.
That really doesn’t bode well. It should be a basic skill for a politician.
And William Hague has the worst general election record of any Tory leader since the Duke of Wellington which goes to show how little impact debates and Question Time have on elections
He ran too early.
But what we don’t know is if another Tory leader might have lost a further 20-40 seats at GE2001 if he hadn’t been in charge.
I’m of the view that it was an even worse election for the Tories than GE1997.
I can’t think of a single Tory leader I wasn’t worried wouldn’t fuck up a basic debate/Q&A since William Hague. Possibly Michael Howard but he creeped everyone out.
Everyone else I’ve been very nervous about their debating skills or performance in front of a camera.
That really doesn’t bode well. It should be a basic skill for a politician.
Did Cameron really look like he would fuck up a debate or Q&A?
I know Clegg "won" the first one in 2010, but that wasn't actually due to a spectacularly poor performance by either of the other men on the stage. He was just an unknown package who had a very good performance which, because it was a more interesting story, was elevated somewhat ludicrously into being seen as Churchillian over the next 24 hours.
Cameron had a minor foot in mouth moment about meeting a "black man in Plymouth" I recall. But the story really wasn't how badly he and Brown had done but how surprisingly well Clegg had performed.
Cameron reliably performed pretty well at those sort of things. But you can't legislate for someone else doing better. There's a difference between that and actively screwing it up.
There's an analogy with sport - England losing to Argentina because Maradonna was on fire is totally different to England losing to Iceland because they were totally clueless.
Of course all the polls could be wrong. Anything that is a predictor of behaviour can be wrong, it’s only a prediction after all.
Not sure that tweet makes a lot of sense, you’re not going to get an indication the polls are wrong from the data. It is how the pollsters use data to come up with their headline figures which can be wrong, but it is very difficult to argue the weighting IS wrong until the point when the actual result comes though because, well, then you know if it actually is wrong or not.
He claimed that the Tories could be overstated by as much as 12%. Even looking through the prism of bias and cognitive dissonance, that's quite ridiculous.
The 5M views is a red herring. There are 500,000 Labour party members, it wouldn't take very long for each of them to run a short video ten times each. Now if it was 5M individual views that's different, but even that doesn't follow that it's damaging. We can't know that until we see the results of the election, and even then we won't know for certain unless polling companies carry out specific surveys about TV debate no-shows.
I think it's damaging. Indeed this is what makes me sanguine about him not doing the interview. If it is not damaging we are back to square one with the BBC having failed to ensure fairness unless he does the interview (which he won't). So let's agree that it's damaging. Shake and move on.
All these Conservative soldiers for truth might profitably spend a couple of minutes dissecting the Prime Minister’s claim, made today, that there will be no customs declarations on goods being sent from Northern Ireland to GB.
Easy. Hes a liar. You act like people think its impossible to object to more than than one thing at a time.
The Conservative soldiers for truth do indeed seem incapable of farting and chewing gum at the same time, when one of those activities is not in the Conservative cause.
Of course all the polls could be wrong. Anything that is a predictor of behaviour can be wrong, it’s only a prediction after all.
Not sure that tweet makes a lot of sense, you’re not going to get an indication the polls are wrong from the data. It is how the pollsters use data to come up with their headline figures which can be wrong, but it is very difficult to argue the weighting IS wrong until the point when the actual result comes though because, well, then you know if it actually is wrong or not.
He claimed that the Tories could be overstated by as much as 12%. Even looking through the prism of bias and cognitive dissonance, that's quite ridiculous.
I believe he is also wrong / making massive incorrect assumptions about the voter registration. Didn't somebody post yesterday some actual figures and there were down in a number of crucial seats.
One big difference to 2017 is we saw from the get-go a clear trend of Labour closing the gap. The pollsters still had the gap wider than it was, but there was a clear trend and there was a clear trend in the supplementary questions. This time it has basically remained steady on both the gap and the supplementary questions.
2015: Polls (on average) overstated Labour 2017: Polls (on average) understated Labour 2019: ?
It is 122 polls since labour had a lead and that was 1%
The polls could be misleading but anecdotal evidence is that Boris is winning the midlands and north and the Wrexham poll with conservatives 15% ahead is remarkable
I do not expect a hung parliament but neither do I expect a landslide
No amount of playing around with equations is going to determine the result, it will be a vote from those outside the M25 who do not think anyone is listening who will see Boris home if that happens
I'm a long-time 'Ding Dong' voter but this time I've switched allegiance to the Carol of the Bells. I think there will be a big swing for them this year.
*in the Britain's favourite carol poll
I've checked Youtube and you are wrong. A churchgoing friend once observed that the once or twice a year Christmas, weddings and rememberance crowd want the carols and hymns they learned 40 years ago, whereas regulars prefer more modern hymns, and the choir would be happiest showing off mediaeval harmonies. I do not know what our resident church organist makes of it all.
Erdington and Northfield seats shown in that video will be announced at 3am.
Its amazing how Lewis seems to find totally different people from John Harris....The later has a good record of getting a really good representation of what is going on, despite his own personal politics.
His tweet thread tells a different story to the video - says v different feel to 2017, when he felt the Lab vote was holding up. This time it's not, and Corbyn is the biggest part of it. Also said strong generational split, under 30s enthused by Corbynism, older voters are not.
I don’t agree with this good election to lose/ bad election to win motif.
People have been saying that about the Conservatives at every election since 2010. In fact, aside from 1997, and possibly 2001 and maybe even 1987, I can’t think of any “rosy” elections to win in the last 50 years. And possibly not before either. You never know what’s over the horizon.
If you’re in politics you’re in politics to win. Governing is never easy, and your agenda is always at the mercy of events, but you can do nothing without power.
Imagine if Labour won at this GE....it would be no Brexit, 16 year old and immigrant voting rights which would benefit Labour, and of course if you control the levers of power there you get to decide when the GE is, get to hold a budget to throw money at people etc.
Immediately the Tories would be at a huge disadvantage in 5 years time.
It is a huge home advantage to be in power. It is much harder to win being the away team.
As far as I’m concerned, anyone who keeps this Labour Party out of office is doing us a national service. The last one (which until Brown was tolerable) still spent most of its years in office against anything or anyone Conservative in the public services/public space, and it was very effective at it. I remember it was very hard even for Cameron to get heard in opposition.
However, it is almost inevitable that they will win again at some point in the future, and possibly in the very near future, and so corrosive is the values and economics divide now I expect to detest and suffer through every minute of it.
Erdington and Northfield seats shown in that video will be announced at 3am.
Its amazing how Lewis seems to find totally different people from John Harris....The later has a good record of getting a really good representation of what is going on, despite his own personal politics.
His tweet thread tells a different story to the video - says v different feel to 2017, when he felt the Lab vote was holding up. This time it's not, and Corbyn is the biggest part of it. Also said strong generational split, under 30s enthused by Corbynism, older voters are not.
"But it just feels like the Tories are on the advance in so many places, it’s hard to see how they’re not lucky enough in enough places to get at least a small majority."
Wow - things must be bad for Labour if Goodall is conceding this.
Erdington and Northfield seats shown in that video will be announced at 3am.
Its amazing how Lewis seems to find totally different people from John Harris....The later has a good record of getting a really good representation of what is going on, despite his own personal politics.
His tweet thread tells a different story to the video - says v different feel to 2017, when he felt the Lab vote was holding up. This time it's not, and Corbyn is the biggest part of it. Also said strong generational split, under 30s enthused by Corbynism, older voters are not.
If Lewis Goodall is saying the Labour vote is soft then that's the equivalent of Arsene Wenger saying he saw every red card incident and penalty across an entire season of football.
Erdington and Northfield seats shown in that video will be announced at 3am.
Its amazing how Lewis seems to find totally different people from John Harris....The later has a good record of getting a really good representation of what is going on, despite his own personal politics.
His tweet thread tells a different story to the video - says v different feel to 2017, when he felt the Lab vote was holding up. This time it's not, and Corbyn is the biggest part of it. Also said strong generational split, under 30s enthused by Corbynism, older voters are not.
The 5M views is a red herring. There are 500,000 Labour party members, it wouldn't take very long for each of them to run a short video ten times each. Now if it was 5M individual views that's different, but even that doesn't follow that it's damaging. We can't know that until we see the results of the election, and even then we won't know for certain unless polling companies carry out specific surveys about TV debate no-shows.
I think it's damaging. Indeed this is what makes me sanguine about him not doing the interview. If it is not damaging we are back to square one with the BBC having failed to ensure fairness unless he does the interview (which he won't). So let's agree that it's damaging. Shake and move on.
We'll see if it's damaging or not next Thursday, until then it's impossible to know either way. But shake and move on anyway.
Ah, perhaps the Tories got there in the end. Last time they let Corbyn have a free ride, both in terms of personality and policies, and did nothing to counter Momentum's smear stuff on Facebook and other social media.
Erdington and Northfield seats shown in that video will be announced at 3am.
Its amazing how Lewis seems to find totally different people from John Harris....The later has a good record of getting a really good representation of what is going on, despite his own personal politics.
His tweet thread tells a different story to the video - says v different feel to 2017, when he felt the Lab vote was holding up. This time it's not, and Corbyn is the biggest part of it. Also said strong generational split, under 30s enthused by Corbynism, older voters are not.
2015: Polls (on average) overstated Labour 2017: Polls (on average) understated Labour 2019: ?
It is 122 polls since labour had a lead and that was 1%
The polls could be misleading but anecdotal evidence is that Boris is winning the midlands and north and the Wrexham poll with conservatives 15% ahead is remarkable
I do not expect a hung parliament but neither do I expect a landslide
No amount of playing around with equations is going to determine the result, it will be a vote from those outside the M25 who do not think anyone is listening who will see Boris home if that happens
Erdington and Northfield seats shown in that video will be announced at 3am.
Its amazing how Lewis seems to find totally different people from John Harris....The later has a good record of getting a really good representation of what is going on, despite his own personal politics.
His tweet thread tells a different story to the video - says v different feel to 2017, when he felt the Lab vote was holding up. This time it's not, and Corbyn is the biggest part of it. Also said strong generational split, under 30s enthused by Corbynism, older voters are not.
If Lewis Goodall is saying the Labour vote is soft then that's the equivalent of Arsene Wenger saying he saw every red card incident and penalty across an entire season of football.
Even Wenger had a more balanced outlook on the red team than Lewis....
I find the point about how it's wrong to weight back to the EU ref result (given the demographic changes since June 2016) compelling.
But the pollsters must have some reason for not doing that. Does anyone know what it is?
Been following Dr Moderate for a couple of weeks thanks to Horse's posts. A straw to clutch and the polls may be wrong, but this fella seems to fail to understand the most rudimentary aspects of polling. So if they are wrong it wont be because he's spotted an oversight by all the pollsters but by coincidence.
Another point I have made before re voter registration.....lots of universities now use a system to auto-register ALL their students, not just ones in halls (unless they actively opt-out when they register, in the same way as they are auto-registered for the NUS). This has become a lot more prevalent in the last few years.
That doesn't give any indication of actually wanting to vote.
And @HYUFD's predictions notwithstanding should the Cons win that they will win in 2024, that will be 14 years of power; I'm sure there will be other factors at play at that point wrt the electorate wanting them out (cf. 1997).
Well I wouldn't go quite that far - but, yes, the core point is valid and well made. All elections are good ones to win. Least at the time they are. And given the future is unknown it is only right now that matters.
And @HYUFD's predictions notwithstanding should the Cons win that they will win in 2024, that will be 14 years of power; I'm sure there will be other factors at play at that point wrt the electorate wanting them out (cf. 1997).
Well I wouldn't go quite that far - but, yes, the core point is valid and well made. All elections are good ones to win. Least at the time they are. And given the future is unknown it is only right now that matters.
A few things to take from this People of Colour/Talent episode.
3) By accident, this episode reveals the dangers in the next few years of the deep fake videos. If you have the hive-mind of Twitter searching for a gotcha moment and you have someone else ready to supply it, then its clear we are about to enter a new era where truth is destroyed. I'm sure our enemies are rubbing their hands with glee.
The depressing thing is how quickly people have allowed Twitter to do all the things you mention after hundreds of years of most journalists endeavouring to be as truthful and accurate as possible.
The other big problem is psychological rather than technological.
A few years ago there was a study in the U.S. where participants were asked to identify what were purportedly real and fake suicide notes (bit grim, but bear with me). One group were told they were brilliant at it and had some innate ability, the other awful. At the end of the study they were told the whole thing was a setup. It had been invented by researchers. Remarkably the belief in their relative abilities, both positive and negative, sustained after being told it was based on a fiction.
We see something similar here. People see the footage, form strong opinions (often that fit their previous preconceptions of Johnson) and have a psychological disinclination to admit a collection of beliefs they have established is false. So even those who know it to be untrue find away to justify it anyway.
We also saw something similar with that Corbyn supporters duped on antisemitism video. They have so strongly bought into the idea that their man is a saint, they are simply cognitively unable to process facts that show him to be a sinner. It must be a smear, or somehow justifiable because it doesn't fit with the collection of beliefs they have formed around Corbyn and Labour that have become part of their sense of self. After pretty much claiming anyone who doesn't vote Labour is a baby killer for four years, Rob Delaney is hardly going to look at new evidence saying he's been sold a pup and say 'fair cop mate I'm voting Lib Dem'.
True of Brexit to an extent too. Whatever your original views on the matter you'd have expected a much larger break back to remain via a 2nd ref from the small but significant number for whom this bodged together, almost certainly damaging version of their desire, isn't what they wanted at all. Hasn't happened, in part due to some desire to 'honour' the referendum - but also because even those who now know Brexit was based on lies but supported it, still want it to be right and so will shift their justifications.
Another point I have made before re voter registration.....lots of universities now use a system to auto-register ALL their students now, not just ones in halls (unless they actively opt-out when they register, in the same way as they are auto-registered for the NUS). This has become a lot more prevalent in the last few years.
That doesn't give any indication of actually wanting to vote.
On students, probably CCHQ picked election day so most students will be back at home in their safe Tory seats and not acting as an anti-Tory bloc vote at college.
Erdington and Northfield seats shown in that video will be announced at 3am.
Its amazing how Lewis seems to find totally different people from John Harris....The later has a good record of getting a really good representation of what is going on, despite his own personal politics.
His tweet thread tells a different story to the video - says v different feel to 2017, when he felt the Lab vote was holding up. This time it's not, and Corbyn is the biggest part of it. Also said strong generational split, under 30s enthused by Corbynism, older voters are not.
"But it just feels like the Tories are on the advance in so many places, it’s hard to see how they’re not lucky enough in enough places to get at least a small majority."
Wow - things must be bad for Labour if Goodall is conceding this.
I might adjust my 20-40 majority forecast to an absolute thrashing.
I find the point about how it's wrong to weight back to the EU ref result (given the demographic changes since June 2016) compelling.
But the pollsters must have some reason for not doing that. Does anyone know what it is?
Been following Dr Moderate for a couple of weeks thanks to Horse's posts. A straw to clutch and the polls may be wrong, but this fella seems to fail to understand the most rudimentary aspects of polling. So if they are wrong it wont be because he's spotted an oversight by all the pollsters but by coincidence.
He might be an absolute polling genius, but I am very wary of people who have been tweeting for 7 years and still only have a few 100 followers. Look at the likes of Britain Elects, those kind of people get popular quickly because they provide solid info.
Another point I have made before re voter registration.....lots of universities now use a system to auto-register ALL their students now, not just ones in halls (unless they actively opt-out when they register, in the same way as they are auto-registered for the NUS). This has become a lot more prevalent in the last few years.
That doesn't give any indication of actually wanting to vote.
On students, probably CCHQ picked election day so most students will be back at home in their safe Tory seats and not acting as an anti-Tory bloc vote at college.
And perhaps not even registered for at their home address.
Obviously your JezFest attendees will, but it wouldn't surprise me if a load of students auto-enrolled at uni haven't sorted out the home address.
We may well see them come out in big numbers again, I don't know. Just pointing out that registration system means these aren't necessarily people kicking the doors down to make sure they get a vote. And you can see it by the fact there were 4 days with huge spikes in registration.
Erdington and Northfield seats shown in that video will be announced at 3am.
Its amazing how Lewis seems to find totally different people from John Harris....The later has a good record of getting a really good representation of what is going on, despite his own personal politics.
His tweet thread tells a different story to the video - says v different feel to 2017, when he felt the Lab vote was holding up. This time it's not, and Corbyn is the biggest part of it. Also said strong generational split, under 30s enthused by Corbynism, older voters are not.
"But it just feels like the Tories are on the advance in so many places, it’s hard to see how they’re not lucky enough in enough places to get at least a small majority."
Wow - things must be bad for Labour if Goodall is conceding this.
I might adjust my 20-40 majority forecast to an absolute thrashing.
I think it will be 20 to 40 Tory majority not a landslide due to reasonably effective Remainer tactical voting, especially in more Remain areas like London and the South, for whichever of the LDs or Labour is best placed to beat the Tories and the SNP picking up a few Tory seats in Scotland. However due to big losses in the strongly Leave voting Midlands, the North of England and North Wales to the Tories and in Scotland to the SNP Corbyn Labour could still be in for a thrashing
I find the point about how it's wrong to weight back to the EU ref result (given the demographic changes since June 2016) compelling.
But the pollsters must have some reason for not doing that. Does anyone know what it is?
Been following Dr Moderate for a couple of weeks thanks to Horse's posts. A straw to clutch and the polls may be wrong, but this fella seems to fail to understand the most rudimentary aspects of polling. So if they are wrong it wont be because he's spotted an oversight by all the pollsters but by coincidence.
...this fella seems to fail to understand the most rudimentary aspects of polling
PB Tories prepare for a change of underwear. OGH is right that the difference in positive ratings is a better predictor of the result than the difference in the net ratings. If you run a simple regression of vote share on both the positive and the negative ratings differential using data from 1979 (10 observations) then the coefficient on the positive rating differential is about 10x that on the negative one. For 2019 it predicts... A 6.8% Tory lead. 2.2pp standard deviation. DYOR.
They also predicted 2017 when few other signs did.
This and consumer confidence makes me slightly more confident in my prediction.
Can you show how you got to 6.8% Tory lead?
What do your calculations show for 2017?
Regression of actual vote share of govt Vs opposition on positive rating differential and negative rating differential. 10 elections since 1979. Predicted 1.8pp Vs 2.5pp actual in 2017.
How does it hold up for 2015?
5.9 Vs 6.4 actual. If you run it out of sample for 2015/7 (ie using only data through 2010) the results hardly change.
What's the r^2 correlation on net, positive and negative ?
Net 92%, positive 94%, negative 86%, both included separately 94%. Negative is not statistically significant, once you include positive, it's the positive score that matters. If you run it out of sample the predictions for 2015 and 2017 underpredict the Tory lead by 0.7 and 0.9pp respectively. But in this case the prediction for 2019 is 6.5 not 7.0.
Yes I've just done that. Correlation between difference in seats and difference in positive satisfaction was also fairly strong, and I think that suggests a Tory majority of 78.
Wrong question. I think he should do it. I’m sure everyone on here does. I also think he should eat his tie properly, invest in suits that fit, and wear proper shoes.
Won’t affect my vote though.
And it will not affect the vote of most people. But at the fringes, where votes are fluid, it can only be a negative, albeit with a small effect.
If he does the interview and it's a probable car crash, it will become mainstream and affect a far wider percentage of the voting fringe. There's a reason why the Labour party are so wound up about this. It's pretty obvious they want Boris to do a damaging interview on the eve of a general election.
He's not going to do it, wisely IMO.
I agree. There is no way out of this that benefits Boris, but ducking the interview is far less potentially damaging.
I can’t think of a single Tory leader I wasn’t worried wouldn’t fuck up a basic debate/Q&A since William Hague. Possibly Michael Howard but he creeped everyone out.
Everyone else I’ve been very nervous about their debating skills or performance in front of a camera.
That really doesn’t bode well. It should be a basic skill for a politician.
Did Cameron really look like he would fuck up a debate or Q&A?
I know Clegg "won" the first one in 2010, but that wasn't actually due to a spectacularly poor performance by either of the other men on the stage. He was just an unknown package who had a very good performance which, because it was a more interesting story, was elevated somewhat ludicrously into being seen as Churchillian over the next 24 hours.
Cameron had a minor foot in mouth moment about meeting a "black man in Plymouth" I recall. But the story really wasn't how badly he and Brown had done but how surprisingly well Clegg had performed.
Cameron reliably performed pretty well at those sort of things. But you can't legislate for someone else doing better. There's a difference between that and actively screwing it up.
There's an analogy with sport - England losing to Argentina because Maradonna was on fire is totally different to England losing to Iceland because they were totally clueless.
Yes, I was always nervous about Cameron in debates.
He could deliver pre-planned lines confidently and quickly but he couldn’t innovate in close-quarters debate.
I find the point about how it's wrong to weight back to the EU ref result (given the demographic changes since June 2016) compelling.
But the pollsters must have some reason for not doing that. Does anyone know what it is?
Because it makes a whole set of new assumptions, i.e. that the "new" 18 year olds would have voted the same way as the old ones, and nobody's changed their mind
Just had a peep at the latest weather model run for next week. Snow risk all but gone (aside from at elevation as per normal in December) but periods of very wet and windy weather all week coming and going.
There seems to be a bit of a battle going on in the government about the regulatory/tariff loss risks of the Irish Sea crossing, with the Treasury lobbying for more checks and other departments pushing different approaches.
So nothing fixed or agreed at all. Corbyn's document could even be a deliberate leak to stir up.the pot.
Tony Connelly wrote an article after this version of the WA was agreed last October. Basically Leo and Boris cut a deal that was NI in both the UK and EU customs unions, with no thought of how this would be achieved. The other EU leaders said well if Leo is OK with this then we are. Barnier got told to sort the details out to make it happen. The only problem is that under current EU law it is not legally possible and it is the biggest Cherry of all. At the end they just agreed to put it in and work it out afterwards. So Johnson fully believes that there will be no pwperwork, this is what he agreed with Leo. But current EU law says there will be.
I find the point about how it's wrong to weight back to the EU ref result (given the demographic changes since June 2016) compelling.
But the pollsters must have some reason for not doing that. Does anyone know what it is?
Been following Dr Moderate for a couple of weeks thanks to Horse's posts. A straw to clutch and the polls may be wrong, but this fella seems to fail to understand the most rudimentary aspects of polling. So if they are wrong it wont be because he's spotted an oversight by all the pollsters but by coincidence.
He might be an absolute polling genius, but I am very wary of people who have been tweeting for 7 years and still only have a few 100 followers. Look at the likes of Britain Elects, those kind of people get popular quickly because they provide solid info.
Britain Elects are the best on twitter and I hope it stays that way despite the investment from the New Statesman. Election Maps are sadly too keen to project their own views.
I find the point about how it's wrong to weight back to the EU ref result (given the demographic changes since June 2016) compelling.
But the pollsters must have some reason for not doing that. Does anyone know what it is?
Been following Dr Moderate for a couple of weeks thanks to Horse's posts. A straw to clutch and the polls may be wrong, but this fella seems to fail to understand the most rudimentary aspects of polling. So if they are wrong it wont be because he's spotted an oversight by all the pollsters but by coincidence.
He might be an absolute polling genius, but I am very wary of people who have been tweeting for 7 years and still only have a few 100 followers. Look at the likes of Britain Elects, those kind of people get popular quickly because they provide solid info.
Britain Elects are the best on twitter and I hope it stays that way despite the investment from the New Statesman. Election Maps are sadly too keen to project their own views.
Wrong question. I think he should do it. I’m sure everyone on here does. I also think he should eat his tie properly, invest in suits that fit, and wear proper shoes.
Won’t affect my vote though.
And it will not affect the vote of most people. But at the fringes, where votes are fluid, it can only be a negative, albeit with a small effect.
If he does the interview and it's a probable car crash, it will become mainstream and affect a far wider percentage of the voting fringe. There's a reason why the Labour party are so wound up about this. It's pretty obvious they want Boris to do a damaging interview on the eve of a general election.
He's not going to do it, wisely IMO.
I agree. There is no way out of this that benefits Boris, but ducking the interview is far less potentially damaging.
Post Neil video I think that true because the video is as damaging as any interview could have been so the impact has already happened. But hes still a coward
There seems to be a bit of a battle going on in the government about the regulatory/tariff loss risks of the Irish Sea crossing, with the Treasury lobbying for more checks and other departments pushing different approaches.
So nothing fixed or agreed at all. Corbyn's document could even be a deliberate leak to stir up.the pot.
Tony Connelly wrote an article after this version of the WA was agreed last October. Basically Leo and Boris cut a deal that was NI in both the UK and EU customs unions, with no thought of how this would be achieved. The other EU leaders said well if Leo is OK with this then we are. Barnier got told to sort the details out to make it happen. The only problem is that under current EU law it is not legally possible and it is the biggest Cherry of all. At the end they just agreed to put it in and work it out afterwards. So Johnson fully believes that there will be no pwperwork, this is what he agreed with Leo. But current EU law says there will be.
PB Tories prepare for a change of underwear. OGH is right that the difference in positive ratings is a better predictor of the result than the difference in the net ratings. If you run a simple regression of vote share on both the positive and the negative ratings differential using data from 1979 (10 observations) then the coefficient on the p on the negative one. For 2019 it predicts... A 6.8% Tory lead. 2.2pp standard deviation. DYOR.
They also predicted 2017 when few other signs did.
This and consumer confidence makes me slightly more confident in my prediction.
Can you show how you got to 6.8% Tory lead?
What do your calculations show for 2017?
Regression of actual vote share of govt Vs opposition on positive rating differential and negative rating differential. 10 elections since 1979. Predicted 1.8pp Vs 2.5pp actual in 2017.
How does it hold up for 2015?
5.9 Vs 6.4 actual. If you run it out of sample for 2015/7 (ie using only data through 2010) the results hardly change.
What's the r^2 correlation on net, positive and negative ?
Net 92%, positive 94%, negative 86%, both included separately 94%. Negative is not statistically significant, once you include positive, it's the positive score that matters. If you run it out of sample the predictions for 2015 and 2017 underpredict the Tory lead by 0.7 and 0.9pp respectively. But in this case the prediction for 2019 is 6.5 not 7.0.
Model choice based on maximising r^2 is extremely unwise, and almost always leads to overfitting.
I was responding to a request for information not explaining how I determined which model to use. Thanks for the advice but I have a decent understanding of empirical techniques! My thought process was the following: ran with net satisfaction, noted failure to predict 2015 despite strong performance overall. Noted OGH's comments about using positive satisfaction only but thought it sounded implausible since surely negatives matter too. Ran with positives only, found that the 2015 problem went away and it did a better predictive job overall. Ran with negatives only, found much weaker effect, but still strong correlation. Ran both together in a horse race, found that negative didn't matter much at all once positives included too. Concluded it is indeed positives that matter, and as a result data on leader favorability consistent with a Tory lead of 6-7pp. Shared it on here out of goodness of heart. Feel free to ignore, and DYOR as always.
I find the point about how it's wrong to weight back to the EU ref result (given the demographic changes since June 2016) compelling.
But the pollsters must have some reason for not doing that. Does anyone know what it is?
Been following Dr Moderate for a couple of weeks thanks to Horse's posts. A straw to clutch and the polls may be wrong, but this fella seems to fail to understand the most rudimentary aspects of polling. So if they are wrong it wont be because he's spotted an oversight by all the pollsters but by coincidence.
He might be an absolute polling genius, but I am very wary of people who have been tweeting for 7 years and still only have a few 100 followers. Look at the likes of Britain Elects, those kind of people get popular quickly because they provide solid info.
Britain Elects are the best on twitter and I hope it stays that way despite the investment from the New Statesman. Election Maps are sadly too keen to project their own views.
Election maps is just one guy
Ballot Box Scot is good if you're wanting detailed analysis of Scottish seats.
They won't, the Tories will win again outside London in 2024 if they win this time or at least be largest party, the country does not want the hard left. Indeed if Chuka wins Cities of London and Westminster and Swinson loses the LDs might be leading opinion polls by 2024 anyway if Labour pick a hard left Corbyn loyalist rather than a potential PM like Pidcock or Long-Bailey with Labour falling to third place
Just so I'm clear - you would consider a centrist LD party, led by Chuka Umunna, to be a serious threat to a Johnson Government seeking re-election in 2024?
Far more than Pidcock or Long Bailey led Labour absolutely, they would never win Remain or soft Leave Tory seats in London or the South, Chuka might
You think Remain/Leave will still be a thing in 2024?
By then I think we will be back to Left/Right.
It will be a thing as it reflects a cultural shift in British politics, I expect Remain seats like Cities of London and Westminster, Esher and Walton and Chingford and Woodford Green and Altrincham and Sale West for example, all Tory holds in 1997 and 2001 to be more marginal for the Tories this time than seats like Harlow, Thurrock, Torbay, Dartford, Clwyd West, Nuneaton and Rugby which were won by Labour or the LDs in 1997 or 2001 but will be safe Tory holds this time.
Erdington and Northfield seats shown in that video will be announced at 3am.
Its amazing how Lewis seems to find totally different people from John Harris....The later has a good record of getting a really good representation of what is going on, despite his own personal politics.
His tweet thread tells a different story to the video - says v different feel to 2017, when he felt the Lab vote was holding up. This time it's not, and Corbyn is the biggest part of it. Also said strong generational split, under 30s enthused by Corbynism, older voters are not.
I know I said this yesterday but in above posts we have still got people talking about new voter registration applications.
We really do need the electorate figures - one person yesterday attempted to ring round and get some - they found four Northern Lab seats all down, Enfield Southgate down, Lambeth seats up a lot.
I find the point about how it's wrong to weight back to the EU ref result (given the demographic changes since June 2016) compelling.
But the pollsters must have some reason for not doing that. Does anyone know what it is?
Been following Dr Moderate for a couple of weeks thanks to Horse's posts. A straw to clutch and the polls may be wrong, but this fella seems to fail to understand the most rudimentary aspects of polling. So if they are wrong it wont be because he's spotted an oversight by all the pollsters but by coincidence.
I have about six nicknames on here. Never been called just Horse before but I like it
I find the point about how it's wrong to weight back to the EU ref result (given the demographic changes since June 2016) compelling.
But the pollsters must have some reason for not doing that. Does anyone know what it is?
Been following Dr Moderate for a couple of weeks thanks to Horse's posts. A straw to clutch and the polls may be wrong, but this fella seems to fail to understand the most rudimentary aspects of polling. So if they are wrong it wont be because he's spotted an oversight by all the pollsters but by coincidence.
He might be an absolute polling genius, but I am very wary of people who have been tweeting for 7 years and still only have a few 100 followers. Look at the likes of Britain Elects, those kind of people get popular quickly because they provide solid info.
Britain Elects are the best on twitter and I hope it stays that way despite the investment from the New Statesman. Election Maps are sadly too keen to project their own views.
Election maps is just one guy
Ballot Box Scot is good if you're wanting detailed analysis of Scottish seats.
Wrong question. I think he should do it. I’m sure everyone on here does. I also think he should eat his tie properly, invest in suits that fit, and wear proper shoes.
Won’t affect my vote though.
And it will not affect the vote of most people. But at the fringes, where votes are fluid, it can only be a negative, albeit with a small effect.
If he does the interview and it's a probable car crash, it will become mainstream and affect a far wider percentage of the voting fringe. There's a reason why the Labour party are so wound up about this. It's pretty obvious they want Boris to do a damaging interview on the eve of a general election.
He's not going to do it, wisely IMO.
I agree. There is no way out of this that benefits Boris, but ducking the interview is far less potentially damaging.
Post Neil video I think that true because the video is as damaging as any interview could have been so the impact has already happened. But hes still a coward
Coward is an emotive description. This is about political calculation, not personal bravery.
Erdington and Northfield seats shown in that video will be announced at 3am.
Its amazing how Lewis seems to find totally different people from John Harris....The later has a good record of getting a really good representation of what is going on, despite his own personal politics.
His tweet thread tells a different story to the video - says v different feel to 2017, when he felt the Lab vote was holding up. This time it's not, and Corbyn is the biggest part of it. Also said strong generational split, under 30s enthused by Corbynism, older voters are not.
The EU continue to have issues in managing their anger that Brexit is happening in the first place.
This doesn’t bode well for a constructive and foresighted future relationship.
Whether or not your point is correct, can you identify anything that the British government has done to build a constructive future relationship with the EU?
Erdington and Northfield seats shown in that video will be announced at 3am.
Its amazing how Lewis seems to find totally different people from John Harris....The later has a good record of getting a really good representation of what is going on, despite his own personal politics.
His tweet thread tells a different story to the video - says v different feel to 2017, when he felt the Lab vote was holding up. This time it's not, and Corbyn is the biggest part of it. Also said strong generational split, under 30s enthused by Corbynism, older voters are not.
Bizarre....the video is full of VOTING LABOUR....ALL ME LIFE...UP THE REDS....
Because the video is not intended to inform ... but to persuade.
It is, but nevertheless I suspect he’s right that undecideds (who are now almostly entirely on the Left) will end up firming up behind Labour in the final days.
Shops may sell out of industrial strength clothes-pegs but I still think most of these voters find it really really hard *not* to vote Labour.
We'll see if it's damaging or not next Thursday, until then it's impossible to know either way. But shake and move on anyway.
It's big Con win next week regardless. I'll be genuinely shocked by a majority less than 75.
I still reckon Corbyn will cling on, even in that scenario.
I think he'll go on that scenario immediately. Small tory majority he holds on but is clear he will begin a process of transition. Same as now and he is PM. Briefly.
There seems to be a bit of a battle going on in the government about the regulatory/tariff loss risks of the Irish Sea crossing, with the Treasury lobbying for more checks and other departments pushing different approaches.
So nothing fixed or agreed at all. Corbyn's document could even be a deliberate leak to stir up.the pot.
Tony Connelly wrote an article after this version of the WA was agreed last October. Basically Leo and Boris cut a deal that was NI in both the UK and EU customs unions, with no thought of how this would be achieved. The other EU leaders said well if Leo is OK with this then we are. Barnier got told to sort the details out to make it happen. The only problem is that under current EU law it is not legally possible and it is the biggest Cherry of all. At the end they just agreed to put it in and work it out afterwards. So Johnson fully believes that there will be no pwperwork, this is what he agreed with Leo. But current EU law says there will be.
It’s possible that some young areas/ university/ metro areas might swing *further* to Labour at this election. I know that doesn’t necessarily tie-up with what I’ve previously said on this forum.
And, I probably haven’t given this enough thought in my betting.
Erdington and Northfield seats shown in that video will be announced at 3am.
Its amazing how Lewis seems to find totally different people from John Harris....The later has a good record of getting a really good representation of what is going on, despite his own personal politics.
I am not sure what anyone expects to learn from Northfield. I was brought up there and even at my advanced age I still cannot figure it out as a seat. It should be rock solid Labour (and even more so now than in my youth when it was being developed). It has an industrial past (Longbridge), serious poverty and drug problems (especially around Ley Hill), a truly crappy shopping centre and has long been neglected by Conservatives - even when they have won council seats in the constituency. But it has been pretty close for as long as I recall. Labour would probably not have got it back in '92 if Cadbury had still been MP. So I am not sure how to relate it to the behaviour of other seats. I can think of very few like it which have voted like it in the past.
We'll see if it's damaging or not next Thursday, until then it's impossible to know either way. But shake and move on anyway.
It's big Con win next week regardless. I'll be genuinely shocked by a majority less than 75.
I still reckon Corbyn will cling on, even in that scenario.
I think at all depends on whether McDonnell, Milne, Mcclusky etc have got a successor lined up.
As I`ve said before, they may feel that there is no hurry to replace him and if the 2015 leadership contest is a guide then it will take four months to put a new leader in place.
This is why I`m surprised that the odds on BF for Corbyn`s departure are: 7/1 April - Jun and 3.3/1 Jul 2020 or later. I`m on both, at even longer odds. Unless Corbyn refuses to stay for the period up to the new leader`s election, it is impossible for his exit date to be before April 2020.
Erdington and Northfield seats shown in that video will be announced at 3am.
Its amazing how Lewis seems to find totally different people from John Harris....The later has a good record of getting a really good representation of what is going on, despite his own personal politics.
I am not sure what anyone expects to learn from Northfield. I was brought up there and even at my advanced age I still cannot figure it out as a seat. It should be rock solid Labour (and even more so now than in my youth when it was being developed). It has an industrial past (Longbridge), serious poverty and drug problems (especially around Ley Hill), a truly crappy shopping centre and has long been neglected by Conservatives - even when they have won council seats in the constituency. But it has been pretty close for as long as I recall. Labour would probably not have got it back in '92 if Cadbury had still been MP. So I am not sure how to relate it to the behaviour of other seats. I can think of very few like it which have voted like it in the past.
Yougov MRP has it as a very close one. 43/40 to Labour.
The EU continue to have issues in managing their anger that Brexit is happening in the first place.
This doesn’t bode well for a constructive and foresighted future relationship.
Whether or not your point is correct, can you identify anything that the British government has done to build a constructive future relationship with the EU?
I find the point about how it's wrong to weight back to the EU ref result (given the demographic changes since June 2016) compelling.
But the pollsters must have some reason for not doing that. Does anyone know what it is?
Because it makes a whole set of new assumptions, i.e. that the "new" 18 year olds would have voted the same way as the old ones, and nobody's changed their mind
Presumably the weighting by referendum vote is only done for people aged 21+? What you really want to do is weight by age group applying the leave/remain shares of people aged 3 years younger in 2016. Then you should naturally capture the demographic changes. You shouldn't allow for people changing their minds since you are weighting by 2016 vote not what 2016 voters think now, surely?
The EU continue to have issues in managing their anger that Brexit is happening in the first place.
This doesn’t bode well for a constructive and foresighted future relationship.
Whether or not your point is correct, can you identify anything that the British government has done to build a constructive future relationship with the EU?
No, but approving the WA they agreed with us would technically improve relations from the limbo we are in with them at present as even a ref would not, since they'd be clear about our direction so we'll be easier to work with.
Erdington and Northfield seats shown in that video will be announced at 3am.
Its amazing how Lewis seems to find totally different people from John Harris....The later has a good record of getting a really good representation of what is going on, despite his own personal politics.
His tweet thread tells a different story to the video - says v different feel to 2017, when he felt the Lab vote was holding up. This time it's not, and Corbyn is the biggest part of it. Also said strong generational split, under 30s enthused by Corbynism, older voters are not.
Wrong question. I think he should do it. I’m sure everyone on here does. I also think he should eat his tie properly, invest in suits that fit, and wear proper shoes.
Won’t affect my vote though.
And it will not affect the vote of most people. But at the fringes, where votes are fluid, it can only be a negative, albeit with a small effect.
If he does the interview and it's a probable car crash, it will become mainstream and affect a far wider percentage of the voting fringe. There's a reason why the Labour party are so wound up about this. It's pretty obvious they want Boris to do a damaging interview on the eve of a general election.
He's not going to do it, wisely IMO.
I agree. There is no way out of this that benefits Boris, but ducking the interview is far less potentially damaging.
Post Neil video I think that true because the video is as damaging as any interview could have been so the impact has already happened. But hes still a coward
Coward is an emotive description. This is about political calculation, not personal bravery.
His calculation, as described by many, is he is worried he will be caught out and be damaged. That is politically cowardly, but sound. It shows a level if political timidness that he pretends he does not have.
I find the point about how it's wrong to weight back to the EU ref result (given the demographic changes since June 2016) compelling.
But the pollsters must have some reason for not doing that. Does anyone know what it is?
Because it makes a whole set of new assumptions, i.e. that the "new" 18 year olds would have voted the same way as the old ones, and nobody's changed their mind
Ok but the alternative is to assume that the 2.7m people who've turned 18 since June 2016 would have voted 52/48 in favour of Leave.
Ditto the 1.6m who have died since June 2016, this latter despite it being clear that the large majority of those deaths will be people in the over 65 age group, who voted 65% in favour of Leave.
I find the point about how it's wrong to weight back to the EU ref result (given the demographic changes since June 2016) compelling.
But the pollsters must have some reason for not doing that. Does anyone know what it is?
Except that the pollsters don't weight exactly back to the EU ref result.
And note that Ipsos MORI, which uniquely weights only to demographics rather than past election/referenda results, has just posted a Con lead of 12%. MORI no longer use a demographic based turnout model, which was the cause of their error in understating Labour in 2017. They, and other pollsters, have adjusted their methods in the light of their 2017 experience.
I find the point about how it's wrong to weight back to the EU ref result (given the demographic changes since June 2016) compelling.
But the pollsters must have some reason for not doing that. Does anyone know what it is?
Because it makes a whole set of new assumptions, i.e. that the "new" 18 year olds would have voted the same way as the old ones, and nobody's changed their mind
Ok but the alternative is to assume that the 2.7m people who've turned 18 since June 2016 would have voted 52/48 in favour of Leave. Ditto the 1.6m who have died, this latter despite it bing clear that the large majority of those deaths will be people in the over 65 age group, who voted 65% in favour of Leave.
Which is ridiculous. I’d estimate that group is 70/30 Remain/Leave
The EU continue to have issues in managing their anger that Brexit is happening in the first place.
This doesn’t bode well for a constructive and foresighted future relationship.
Whether or not your point is correct, can you identify anything that the British government has done to build a constructive future relationship with the EU?
No, but approving the WA they agreed with us would technically improve relations from the limbo we are in with them at present as even a ref would not, since they'd be clear about our direction so we'll be easier to work with.
Let’s stick with the first word of your answer. Leavers still can’t get to the point of taking responsibility for their own infantile tantrums and the damage they cause.
I find the point about how it's wrong to weight back to the EU ref result (given the demographic changes since June 2016) compelling.
But the pollsters must have some reason for not doing that. Does anyone know what it is?
Because it makes a whole set of new assumptions, i.e. that the "new" 18 year olds would have voted the same way as the old ones, and nobody's changed their mind
Ok but the alternative is to assume that the 2.7m people who've turned 18 since June 2016 would have voted 52/48 in favour of Leave. Ditto the 1.6m who have died, this latter despite it bing clear that the large majority of those deaths will be people in the over 65 age group, who voted 65% in favour of Leave.
Which is ridiculous. I’d estimate that group is 70/30 Remain/Leave
The 18-24 year olds were 75/25 in favour of Remain according to Ipsos
Erdington and Northfield seats shown in that video will be announced at 3am.
Its amazing how Lewis seems to find totally different people from John Harris....The later has a good record of getting a really good representation of what is going on, despite his own personal politics.
His tweet thread tells a different story to the video - says v different feel to 2017, when he felt the Lab vote was holding up. This time it's not, and Corbyn is the biggest part of it. Also said strong generational split, under 30s enthused by Corbynism, older voters are not.
I find the point about how it's wrong to weight back to the EU ref result (given the demographic changes since June 2016) compelling.
But the pollsters must have some reason for not doing that. Does anyone know what it is?
Because it makes a whole set of new assumptions, i.e. that the "new" 18 year olds would have voted the same way as the old ones, and nobody's changed their mind
Ok but the alternative is to assume that the 2.7m people who've turned 18 since June 2016 would have voted 52/48 in favour of Leave. Ditto the 1.6m who have died, this latter despite it bing clear that the large majority of those deaths will be people in the over 65 age group, who voted 65% in favour of Leave.
Which is ridiculous. I’d estimate that group is 70/30 Remain/Leave
The 18-24 year olds were 75/25 in favour of Remain according to Ipsos
People die, people turn 18, but everyone gets older, and the link between age and becoming more right wing still seems to hold.
I'm getting more LEFT wing with age. At this rate my final whispered words to the loved ones crowded around my hospice bed will be "Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!"
Interesting despite the 2017 video being all "UP THE REDS", Labour only won by 6 in Northfield. They won by 12 in Erdington, down from 15 in 2015. In both, no signs in either of any Corb-agsm, even at his height.
Comments
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1202986852766175235?s=20
The trouble with a thread like that is that it’s very obvious the author has started from the fact he doesn’t like the large Tory poll leads and has come up with lots of reasons to salami slice them down again. However, he hasn’t done the same the other way. For example, he doesn’t cover how several pollsters who downweighted Labour in the polling for GE2017 after the fiasco of 2015 simply removed this after it, having found it not to work, and may now have gone back to overstating Labour now.
It doesn’t mean everything he says is wrong but it does mean that he is only interested in playing with one side of the equation, not solving it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/people/alexandra-hall-hall
Not sure that tweet makes a lot of sense, you’re not going to get an indication the polls are wrong from the data. It is how the pollsters use data to come up with their headline figures which can be wrong, but it is very difficult to argue the weighting IS wrong until the point when the actual result comes though because, well, then you know if it actually is wrong or not.
Its amazing how Lewis seems to find totally different people from John Harris....The later has a good record of getting a really good representation of what is going on, despite his own personal politics.
But what we don’t know is if another Tory leader might have lost a further 20-40 seats at GE2001 if he hadn’t been in charge.
I’m of the view that it was an even worse election for the Tories than GE1997.
I know Clegg "won" the first one in 2010, but that wasn't actually due to a spectacularly poor performance by either of the other men on the stage. He was just an unknown package who had a very good performance which, because it was a more interesting story, was elevated somewhat ludicrously into being seen as Churchillian over the next 24 hours.
Cameron had a minor foot in mouth moment about meeting a "black man in Plymouth" I recall. But the story really wasn't how badly he and Brown had done but how surprisingly well Clegg had performed.
Cameron reliably performed pretty well at those sort of things. But you can't legislate for someone else doing better. There's a difference between that and actively screwing it up.
There's an analogy with sport - England losing to Argentina because Maradonna was on fire is totally different to England losing to Iceland because they were totally clueless.
One big difference to 2017 is we saw from the get-go a clear trend of Labour closing the gap. The pollsters still had the gap wider than it was, but there was a clear trend and there was a clear trend in the supplementary questions. This time it has basically remained steady on both the gap and the supplementary questions.
The polls could be misleading but anecdotal evidence is that Boris is winning the midlands and north and the Wrexham poll with conservatives 15% ahead is remarkable
I do not expect a hung parliament but neither do I expect a landslide
No amount of playing around with equations is going to determine the result, it will be a vote from those outside the M25 who do not think anyone is listening who will see Boris home if that happens
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1202982273483718656
However, it is almost inevitable that they will win again at some point in the future, and possibly in the very near future, and so corrosive is the values and economics divide now I expect to detest and suffer through every minute of it.
But the pollsters must have some reason for not doing that. Does anyone know what it is?
Wow - things must be bad for Labour if Goodall is conceding this.
Also, Labour messaging highly effective - they've got their fingerprints all over blocking Brexit. All over it.
That doesn't give any indication of actually wanting to vote.
https://twitter.com/michelbarnier/status/1202985220271693824
Yep.
A few years ago there was a study in the U.S. where participants were asked to identify what were purportedly real and fake suicide notes (bit grim, but bear with me). One group were told they were brilliant at it and had some innate ability, the other awful. At the end of the study they were told the whole thing was a setup. It had been invented by researchers. Remarkably the belief in their relative abilities, both positive and negative, sustained after being told it was based on a fiction.
We see something similar here. People see the footage, form strong opinions (often that fit their previous preconceptions of Johnson) and have a psychological disinclination to admit a collection of beliefs they have established is false. So even those who know it to be untrue find away to justify it anyway.
We also saw something similar with that Corbyn supporters duped on antisemitism video. They have so strongly bought into the idea that their man is a saint, they are simply cognitively unable to process facts that show him to be a sinner. It must be a smear, or somehow justifiable because it doesn't fit with the collection of beliefs they have formed around Corbyn and Labour that have become part of their sense of self. After pretty much claiming anyone who doesn't vote Labour is a baby killer for four years, Rob Delaney is hardly going to look at new evidence saying he's been sold a pup and say 'fair cop mate I'm voting Lib Dem'.
True of Brexit to an extent too. Whatever your original views on the matter you'd have expected a much larger break back to remain via a 2nd ref from the small but significant number for whom this bodged together, almost certainly damaging version of their desire, isn't what they wanted at all. Hasn't happened, in part due to some desire to 'honour' the referendum - but also because even those who now know Brexit was based on lies but supported it, still want it to be right and so will shift their justifications.
Obviously your JezFest attendees will, but it wouldn't surprise me if a load of students auto-enrolled at uni haven't sorted out the home address.
We may well see them come out in big numbers again, I don't know. Just pointing out that registration system means these aren't necessarily people kicking the doors down to make sure they get a vote. And you can see it by the fact there were 4 days with huge spikes in registration.
Can you give some instances?
He could deliver pre-planned lines confidently and quickly but he couldn’t innovate in close-quarters debate.
At the end they just agreed to put it in and work it out afterwards.
So Johnson fully believes that there will be no pwperwork, this is what he agreed with Leo. But current EU law says there will be.
https://twitter.com/MPIainDS/status/1202969400514625536
The EU continue to have issues in managing their anger that Brexit is happening in the first place.
This doesn’t bode well for a constructive and foresighted future relationship.
My thought process was the following: ran with net satisfaction, noted failure to predict 2015 despite strong performance overall. Noted OGH's comments about using positive satisfaction only but thought it sounded implausible since surely negatives matter too. Ran with positives only, found that the 2015 problem went away and it did a better predictive job overall. Ran with negatives only, found much weaker effect, but still strong correlation. Ran both together in a horse race, found that negative didn't matter much at all once positives included too. Concluded it is indeed positives that matter, and as a result data on leader favorability consistent with a Tory lead of 6-7pp. Shared it on here out of goodness of heart. Feel free to ignore, and DYOR as always.
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1202915074970664960
He's saying he's getting a different response now.
We really do need the electorate figures - one person yesterday attempted to ring round and get some - they found four Northern Lab seats all down, Enfield Southgate down, Lambeth seats up a lot.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1202906042759286790
People die, people turn 18, but everyone gets older, and the link between age and becoming more right wing still seems to hold.
Shops may sell out of industrial strength clothes-pegs but I still think most of these voters find it really really hard *not* to vote Labour.
And, I probably haven’t given this enough thought in my betting.
So I am not sure how to relate it to the behaviour of other seats. I can think of very few like it which have voted like it in the past.
As I`ve said before, they may feel that there is no hurry to replace him and if the 2015 leadership contest is a guide then it will take four months to put a new leader in place.
This is why I`m surprised that the odds on BF for Corbyn`s departure are: 7/1 April - Jun and 3.3/1 Jul 2020 or later. I`m on both, at even longer odds. Unless Corbyn refuses to stay for the period up to the new leader`s election, it is impossible for his exit date to be before April 2020.
Ditto the 1.6m who have died since June 2016, this latter despite it being clear that the large majority of those deaths will be people in the over 65 age group, who voted 65% in favour of Leave.
And note that Ipsos MORI, which uniquely weights only to demographics rather than past election/referenda results, has just posted a Con lead of 12%. MORI no longer use a demographic based turnout model, which was the cause of their error in understating Labour in 2017. They, and other pollsters, have adjusted their methods in the light of their 2017 experience.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum
But you can work it out by going on Youtube and looking at the date. Does make considerably more sense in that context.
MRP has both tightening.