Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is it all about leader ratings and the economic lead?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is it all about leader ratings and the economic lead?
Atul Hatwal at Labour-Uncut posted a piece yesterday about Labour’s polling, he had one observation, which stood out, and I decided to investigate if it were true, his observation was this,
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://xkcd.com/1122/
The striking thing about that table is that apart from this rather contrived thing about whether you lead in two things or not (and some of the leads the theory is based on are MoE), there seems to be exactly zero correlation between those ratings and whether they win or not. Overall it's six pluses to six minuses.
Redoing the table for the election winner to make it easier for my cold-addled brain to tell what's going on:
Year Economy Leader ... Economy Leader
1992 +4 -47 ... +5 +11
1997 +9 +61 ... -7 +49
2001 +18 +52 ... +26 +29
2005 +11 -2 ... +26 -15
2010 +1 +21 ... +3 +27
Labour's FPTP position is just so very strong this time.
Year Economy Leader ... Economy Leader
1992 -4 +47 ... -5 -11 -> -1 -58 (*)
1997 +9 +61 ... -7 +49 -> -16 -12
2001 +18 +52 ... +26 +29 -> +8 -23
2005 +11 -2 ... +26 -15 -> +15 -13 (*)
2010 -1 -21 ... -3 -27 -> -2 -6
...which is a downward trend, but it's not uniform, and part of it is the Tories knifing under-performing leaders.
So a 46% Labour share would be about 39% UK wide and 21% for the Tories would be about 31%. The Lib Dems are 12% down equating to 60% of their Welsh GE vote gone. That sounds plausible.
Its interesting that while the point has been made in the past of Labour trailing on the economic question despite going onto win that spectacular victory in 1997 with regard the current political landscape on PB. That both the fact that the Conservatives had been in Office for four terms as well as Blair having such a far more substantial leadership lead as Leader of the Opposition over the PM really should really have been included as caveats when it came to comparing the economic question polling then and now.
We suffered a recession and Black Monday in the early 90's, and the Conservatives as the party in power for so long were quite rightly blamed for this. That meant that they struggled to then benefit from making the right economic decisions that set us on the road to a recovery, thus giving the fresh New Labour party a golden economic inheritance. I can believe the electorate can clinically punish a Government even after they cleared up their own mess, especially if they look tired, dysfunctional and are ripping themselves apart.
But I find it far less plausible that the electorate will punish a 'new' Coalition Government who have forged a political pact in uncharted territory, and then stuck to it far more cohesively as they cleared up the last Labour Government's economic mess by making the tough and unpopular decisions necessary, even as we all lambaste them for doing so as a result. And then only to just hand the reins back to the Labour party to make the same promises and mistakes all over again, with only a swift pat on the head and trusting nod not to do it again just as this Government has effectively been proved to be right on the main issue of the economy and has delivered on it despite Labour's constant heckling and criticism. I don't think the Labour party has done anywhere enough to see that being the result at the next GE, as both the economic/leadership polling points out.
Well done to Atul Hatwal of Labour-Uncut for unearthing this polling info and pointing it out, unbelievable that this talented journalist has not been snapped up by one of the nationals or even the Labour Party! He was extremely impressive on the Daily Politics recently, and his coverage of the Falkirk/Labour/Unite saga has been an excellent example of good old fashioned political journalism of the highest standard. Real shades of Benedict Brogan's insightful coverage of the latter years of Brown Premiership coming through in his thoughtful observations.
Someone told me that it isn't distributed widely "because it's an independent production".
But it occurs to me that I don't know what that means. What is the difference between "independent" and "one of the big main ones"? And why would that be a reason for it not to be widely shown. I was expecting it to be really big and huge purely because Daniel Radcliffe in it.
Yesterday I signed the condolence book at the South African High Commission. The queue was 14 minutes, and there were 5 books for people to sign.
When Princess Diana died, there were 41 books of condolence and the queues were up to 15 hours at times.
"When Princess Diana died....."
What were the queues like in Pretoria?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The average English constituency probably now has a population of more than 100,000. There are 533 constituencies and the population was 53.0 million in 2011.
If someone lives to be 95, then maybe its not so surprising that they finally pop off. (of course 20 odd of those years were in prison). Not so much need for condolences, more for celebration of a life well lived?
whereas if the cia/mossad/black panthers/countryside alliance etc. had not intervened Diana had a good few years left to live?
Old wording (no explanation)- CON 18%, LAB 39%, LDEM 4%, PC 21%, UKIP 9%
Current wording (“second vote”) – CON 16%, LAB 19%, LDEM 8%, PC 24%, UKIP 20%
New wording (“regional vote”) – CON 18%, LAB 35%, LDEM 5%, PC 21%, UKIP 14%
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8524
Labour types are confident because they have a small lead in the voting intention, but this is entirely based on Lib Dems who currently don't like the Lib Dem party and who may very well change their minds when the election comes round. Labour have taken almost no votes from people who voted Conservative in 2010, and the Conservatives are doing surprisingly well with keeping a coalition together under the circumstances (notwithstanding local elections where even more people vote against the government than in opinion polls). There is no winner here - for a first term government the Tories are doing slightly worse than they should; Labour are doing slightly better than you'd expect for an opposition coming out of a long period of government.
Labour also lead on a variety of questions on strong topics like health and education, but not on Tory plus points like immigration and crime. Again there is no real winner.
And when we get to the economy and leaders there is also uncertainty - Labour lead on the cost of living but the Tories lead on the macro economy; Cameron isn't liked very much but the voters dislike Miliband even more; Osborne is disliked a lot more than both but Balls doesn't look like a worthy replacement, etc, etc
Firstly, the plus/minus issue is as much a distraction here as in the GDP figures. The difference between -60 and -5 is very significant; that between -2 and +3, far less so. Adding up plusses and minuses leads us down a false path.
The correct way to interpret them is to combine the two figures and then use that as a dynamic factor set against the last general election result. So:
1992: Opp (Lab) +43, +16; result - Opp makes good gains reducing govt maj to barely workable.
1997: Opp (Lab) +70, +42; result - Opp makes vast gains, winning a landslide victory
2001: Gov (Lab) +70, +55; result - almost exactly the same as 1997
2005: Gov (Lab) +9, +11; result - Opp makes good gains reducing govt maj significantly
2010: Opp (Con) +22, +30; result - Opp makes substantial gains, but without winning an overall majority.
Interestingly, the figures from 17 months in advance generally seem to be a better guide than those within a month or two (though as always, events, dear boy). Perhaps they cut through the chaff of electioneering better. Whatever, what we see is that the bigger the lead, the bigger the relative win.
What does this mean for 2015? Apart from the complicating factor of coalition, the Gov +20 figure would point to modest Labour gains (it's 10 points better than the comparative figure for 2010), but with Con still ahead in votes and possibly seats. Clegg king-maker again.
That said, we shouldn't invest too much in any one predictive model and caveat emptor etc etc
"What does this mean for 2015? Apart from the complicating factor of coalition, the Gov +20 figure would point to modest Labour gains (it's 10 points better than the comparative figure for 2010), but with Con still ahead in votes and possibly seats. Clegg king-maker again."
Another ringing endorsement for my ARSE.
Latest projection - Con 301 .. LibDem 39 .. Lab 276 .. Coalition Maj 30
I find that really encouraging. Probably the best polling result for the no campaign for a while. It certainly reflects my opinion. The UK is worth a lot more to me as a concept as is the self identification of "British" than a few quid additional income. If even a small majority feel that way then Yes has a real problem.
When you add in that the SNP are having enormous difficulty in producing a credible economic plan vis a vis the currency, pensions, lender of last resort, interest rates etc they have a lot of work to do. Hopefully too much.
So at the very least you have to go back over 25 years for the theory to not work - per tim.
Even then and concentrating on the thrust of the Uncut piece which is at election time (not really 17m out as I read that article), is tim right to say it doesn't hold up in the years for 1979 or 1987 and what abour 1983 too if we are having to go so far back?
Of course, a five-year coalition government is entirely unprecedented in post-war British history, so looking at very selective polling data - much of it from a time when methodologies were less than watertight - may not really tell us very much at all.
History repeats itself until it doesn't.
"tim" is in the final moments of preparation for the oven. Headless certainly and completely plucked (careful there with the keyboard).
JohnO is ready to stuff him as he traditionally does. A family recipe of hoary old chestnuts and pork barrel meat.
Herders has completed a medley of vegetables or as we know call them the shadow cabinet and JackW has rounded off the festive meal with a tart cranberry jelly as he knows a great deal about tar..
A cracker then .... shall we pull a cracker .... Oh but I did with Mrs JackW decades ago !!
'Bad loser' accusation on doubters of Pisa school tests
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25318651
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2013/12/from-the-tory-problem-ahead-on-the-economy-behind-on-brand.html
Time to look for others then..... any suggestions?
I'd thought the MORI leader scores were one of the key stats you posted on here.
Put another way, we know now that these figures were 17 months before their relevant elections but the public and politicians of the day didn't. They only became 17 months before once the election had happened. That should be less of an issue this time now that fixed-term parliaments are in place but of course the fact that there are two parties in government complicates matters in another direction.
If you take the election-day poll scores, add them together for each leader, and use it to rank the leaders it puts them in the following order:
Blair
Cameron
Howard
Kinnock
Hague
You could quibble that Howard and Kinnock should swap places in that list, but otherwise the ranks match the respective election outcomes closely. Where does Miliband lie today? Between Kinnock and Hague. On the face of it, he has a lot of work to do to improve that.
The only problem was she wore them to the fair and it took me five hours to get her off the ferris wheel !!
Arf arf ....
It\d bloody foggy in London and I'm going back to bed!*
Hmm...I think UKIP and the fact we have a coalition puts us in new territory. The LibDems have lost a fair chunk of their vote permamently to Labour. So the crappiness of Ed is rendered a bit irrelevant by the effective unsplitting of the left (Labour have a steady vote share at a level which would give them a majority). And UKIP are eating into Dave's traditional core vote. Under FPTP and old boundaries he needs every single vote quite desperately and the UKIP bleeding of his vote will have a disproportionate effect on the outcome.
So...I stick to my view that in the old world the data OGH shows above is a solid predictor - but not any more.
Gove managing to overspend the free school budget by three, £450 million to £1.5 billion. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25304382
While IDS continues to argue that he is right and everyone else is wrong. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25320269
Whether his claims yesterday, that they were going through things slowly in order to get them right and prevent too much wide disruption for the public (again, as has happened passim) matches what he was saying a couple of years ago is another matter.
At times it sounded as though some Labour MPs were complaining that he had not lost enough on the project, or caused enough disruption ...
But, feral minx, you've already had a peek preview, haven't you? Don't try and deceive Uncle John.
I don't smirk. That's not me. I care.
Cameron is reported to have said that the Conservatives can't win unless they get UKIP down to 5%. That may be the best summary of the position.
The article doesn't quote yesterday's Welsh poll, but that's in the same pattern as the national polls - interestingly, the regional government's performance (whether we think it's great or rotten or, like me, haven't been paying attention) seems to have no effect whatever. I suspect that most people don't reallty follow its activities very closely, even in Wales.
It's the time that every Santa has a ball.
Does he ride a red nosed reindeer.
Does a ton-up on his sleigh.
Do the fairies keep him sober for a day.
Over £500,000 in royalties this year.
http://metro.co.uk/2013/12/10/mariah-carey-will-earn-455000-for-all-i-want-for-christmas-is-you-this-year-4225220/
Noddy Holder and Jim Lea found a way to fund their old age.
A megashambles? A LabShambles? A Timmageddon?
Is there any evidence that electoral rolls have increased where UKIP is strong?
All credit to Maria Miller for arranging the first gay marriage for Tebbits birthday, sadly not noticed while Dave was busy making an arse of himself.
So who've you got in mind tim?
Don't say it's JackW's ARSE.
this j'accuse scattergun approach is a bit silly.
9:10 am 11:12:13 ....
The end is nigh .... well at least until it happens again in 90 years time !!
Drat a minute late
Do you really think that was value for money for £10 billion?
After ten years, the Lorenzo care record system is not in use by a single trust. That is failure at an epic level. The fact you try and find tiny crumbs of comfort in the disaster is telling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Connecting_for_Health
"Launching Ofsted's annual report, chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw will say "a poverty of expectation" is also a fundamental weakness in schools.
He says this prevents England moving up international league rankings.
Teaching unions said a combative approach was not constructive.
Sir Michael will warn of "a culture of casual acceptance of low-level disruption and poor attitudes to learning".
"The sort of culture that is a million miles away from the sort of cultures we see in some of the high-performing Asian countries," he will say."....
"Sir Michael is expected to use his speech to call on England's school leaders who are failing to deal with naughty behaviour to create a "calm and respectful culture essential for learning".
Lessons should not be undermined by "background chatter, inattention and horseplay", he says."....
"Sir Michael told the BBC: "We're saying very clearly in this report that poverty, disadvantage is not a predictor for failure, that we've got lots of poor children now - more than ever before - doing well in our schools.
"What we are seeing though is that the country is divided between lucky and unlucky children. We're seeing children that happen to be born in the right postcode who are fortunate children because they go to good schools with head teachers and teachers with high expectations of them.
"But we're also seeing unlucky children with the same sort of background, who are born in the wrong area, live in the wrong place, go to the wrong sort of school where there's poor leadership, with head teachers and teachers with low expectations of what they can achieve."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25317247
"More needs to be done by ministers to tackle the effects of poverty on low school achievement, a report says.
Inspection body Estyn also says schools do not make good use of money allocated to help poorer pupils.
It says the emphasis is on literacy and numeracy but not on tackling the link between poverty and low achievement.
The Welsh government says it is "absolutely committed" to breaking the link between deprivation and educational attainment.
Although many schools have recently become more focused on the importance of improving the standards and wellbeing of disadvantaged pupils, tackling poverty is still not a high enough priority for all schools”
In a report out on Tuesday, Estyn - the inspectorate of education and training in Wales - says pupils from poorer backgrounds have difficulties not faced by others.
"Learners from disadvantaged backgrounds tend to have parents who are less likely to be involved in their education and more likely to have a negative perception of education."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-25306079
'Overall, eight in 10 state schools in England are now rated as good or outstanding by Ofsted - the highest proportion in the watchdog's 21-year history.'
How does that compare with Labour run Wales?
We all know what @tim is alluding to...he has previously claimed the increase in grades in inner London was due to "thick white racists " moving out.... He isn't saying so now to get around the moderators ban
Imagine the opposite was said.
11/12/13 14:15:16
We're all in it together, REALLY? MPs get 11% rise: £7,600 pay hike
http://ow.ly/28FSRg
Actually I wouldn't mind MP's getting a £7,600 pay hike, providing they were worth it and not contributing to ruining the country. As it is, they should be deducted that amount until they improve performance and back benchers show some individual enterprise.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10509490/Business-leaders-criticise-Alex-Salmonds-independence-wish-lists.html
POSNPWAS.
Sounds familiar - I wonder if these 'Business leaders' have been reading PB.com ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_Tower_Hamlets
You have also said that inner London schools have improved because "thick white racists" have left the area... Have the courage of your convictions.
You obviously believe the best thing for the country to do is import people that are more intelligent, resulting in the original people moving away from their homes and struggling in education somewhere else... You have said so many times, you point it out with glee. You have done it already today.
Now imagine a white person saying the same about school grades in South Africa
My mistake, "wrongly pilloried"
Your thin veiled ant-semitic remarks are deplorable.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/all-signs-suggest-obamas-interpreter-for-the-deaf-was-fake-20131211-2z60s.html
It seemed odd to me when I watched yesterday, but I assumed that the sign language used in SA was different from BSL.
(fx: checking: it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Sign_Language )
If true and the guy was a fake, then it is really embarrassing.
It appears that its both sides that have questions to answer.
'“It seems to us that increasingly there are some answers being made on the hoof to make policies up, or wishlists which are appearing, which basically tell us when we ask questions that it will be OK when we have independence, or it’ll be OK from the other side because the UK is a big country.”'
A lot of nonsensical educational theory has been imbibed by the teaching profession over the last forty years to the detriment of their pupils. It is turning this round that has been and is the major problem and is creating the most resistance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2508568/Revealed-Tape-shows-BBC-chief-did-know-Savile-probe.html
"A Tory MP last night sent a bombshell tape recording to the chairman of the BBC Trust which he says proves there was a ‘cover-up’ over the Jimmy Savile affair.
Rob Wilson has given Chris Patten a recording of Nick Pollard – who headed an independent inquiry into why the BBC’s Newsnight programme axed its investigation of Savile.
On the tape, Mr Pollard is heard admitting that he made a ‘mistake’ by withholding a key detail from his report. He says he was told that BBC head of news, Helen Boaden, had personally informed director-general Mark Thompson of the sex abuse allegations against Savile in December 2011. Mr Pollard added he received the information in a letter from Ms Boaden’s lawyer."