politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What I’m hoping to tell the House of Lords next week about the
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What I’m hoping to tell the House of Lords next week about the polling fail at the general election
A week today I’ll be travelling to Westminster where I have been invited to give evidence before the House of Lords Committee that’s carrying out a review of what went wrong with GE2017 polls.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Luckily they don't read PB.
As far as I'm aware there is no requirement to have the HOL as the first or only point for dissemination.
As Mike points out the local election results indicated that the Tories were in a very strong position and the narrative at that time was all about how unbelievably useless Corbyn was and indeed is. But were the Tories ever 20% ahead? I really doubt it. For the second election in a row significant numbers of people voted on a false premise. It is a concern.
Should we make more of an effort to provide objective inquiry, rather than indulging in groupthink-driven mockery of accurate analysis? How many policy disasters have in part been caused by “he said/she said” reporting replacing a discussion of empirical evidence?
And welcome from me, too.
Disaster staring us in the face.
The key point:
13. So we *definitely* will lose all of our JIT manufacturing and we lose most of our 3rd country trade relationships overnight.
The interesting thing was I dismissed the evidence of my own eyes - the lack of Tory posters where you would expect them, a large well organised group of Labour canvassers operating in a very Tory part of Hastings and the fact that several people I know revealed that they were going to switch to Labour.
David Herdson's now famous post aside, one of the reasons for believing the polls rather than real life was this forum. The pro-Conservative posters on here all seemed very confident and very knowledgeable and many were actively campaigning. I assumed that they were the ones with the inside info and that what they were saying was a good guide to what was actually going on.
I won't make that mistake again.
Hope you have a nice time with their lordships, Mr. Smithson. Maybe it'll be Lord Smithson of Bedford soon?
I don't doubt the PM's goodwill, but take a rather less generous view of her ability to deliver social reform even in the absence of Brexit.
(FWIW, I'd already got a small punt on a hung parliament a few days before David's last minute cry of desperation persuaded me to increase it.)
The adjustments are the key - pollsters fighting the last war by trying to compensate for their mistakes the previous time, compounding the error when the bias came at them from a different direction this time.
Previously, it you think there is a small bias in the polling, you can pitch your own estimate (bets) just the right side of the polling average, and you'd stand a 50/50 chance of coming out OK. This time, it was possible to see that the polls (ex Survation and the YG model) were were over-stating the Tories, as many of us did, and still come out horrendously wrong.
The classic polling interview of the campaign was BBCDP when that boring guy who runs survation predicted the Tories would not get a majority, just a few days before the campaign. The other pollster, the presenter, guests, and I suspect almost all of the audience reacted as if he was insane, and didn't engage with the possibility at all.
There turned out to be a lot of people angry about unaffordable housing and unpayable debt.
Upon hearing of the social care proposals, granddad saw his savings disappearing, whilst his children and grandchildren saw their inheritances disappearing.
Similarly, the prospect of student debt being written off, will have appealed to the student, the student's parents and the student's grandparents.
I have to assume that these seats were shown as vulnerable by our internal polling. Similar ultra-defensive instructions were given by other regional directors to other constituencies - the internal Labour Party poll appears to have reflected the trend of the public polls going by the reaction from the party.
Nor can we assume that the "Jeremy is crap isn't Theresa marvellous" narrative was a creation of the pollsters and the press. Yes of course they amplify it, but that narrative was already there, it was real and it was tangible - as those people campaigning during the local elections can testify. It was also a worrying trend in our first few weeks of the general - I remember our first door knocking session with our newly selected candidate. We took him to a 'heartland' estate in a pro-Labour ward. And even there heard the familiar horror story of I've voted Labour my whole life but won't vote for you because of Corbyn that Theresa May is doing alright.
For me what changed is simple - it's the manifesto stupid. Ours offered people hope, the Tories offered even their own horror. And in the days that followed May fell apart and dragged the whole string and stable narrative with her - and that was all they had apart from "Jeremy is crap". And in the weeks that followed up to polling day the "I can't vote for you because Jeremy" brigade mostly decided to hold their nose and vote for us. And we used things like social media with brilliant effect to motivate the wanderers and the occasional voters. Tories appear to have also held their noses as their vote went up as well. So it's true that the early polls had the right trend of a whopping Tory lead and tracked the collapse of this lead post manifesto launches.
What was more interesting was that the parties themselves seemed to be blind-sided by the polling too. The Tories should have never lost seats like Canterbury while they were fannying about trying to unseat Skinner in Bolsover. Labour candidates assumed they were going to get a shellacking, and often ran effectively as independents (see Ben Bradshaw in Exeter for an example).
I would love to know what the party polling was saying.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/why-isnt-theresa-mays-conference-catastrophe-showing-in-the-polls/
My view? Yes it was the manifestos and, like the drunk looking under the lamppost for the keys he dropped a mile away, the electorate preferred the light of hope than the darkness of despair.
No matter how unlikely they knew deep down it was that they would actually get the puppies.
Instead they expect us to invent a debt to pay them.
"The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.
That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?
I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.
And Stockton S was not out of line compared to 2010 - it was 2015 which was the shock there.
We should learn from the past, but deriding honestly held and openly stated views smacks of being wise after the event.
I reported that the usual farmers signs were missing, but posters seem to be a thing of the past as I saw only 1 in the entire Brexit referendum, and that in the Isle of Wight.
I thought no change to the Leics seats, and the Tory hopes of unseating Liz Kendall delusional.
I plumped for a 45 seat Tory majority on the PB contest, as I was sure the Jezzasm a real phenomenon, but without much certainty.
When I saw the exit poll, I believed it, and the evens on BF for about an hour allowed me to do a reverse ferret and come out slightly in the Green on the night, while many here mocked the exit poll.
It was a tough election to call, but I do wonder if the best strategy in such volatile times is to bet on both ends of the possibilities, against an undeserved consensus. This would have worked well in our last two elections and in POTUS.
No one trusts experts anymore!
It tallied exactly with the polls. Which, to be fair, tallied with the increased Tory vote. Mrs May was truly popular with the public; unfortunately she was also truly unpopular, and the whole narrative didn't do anything to discourage the voters of opponents.
If you believe that the EU is an inflexible, bureaucratic institution, then it seems wrong to expect pragmatism and/or realpolitik from them.
In any event, the government seems equally divided between those who would attempt to purchase a settlement and those who favour the brusque response, while May attempts to find an impossible formula to satisfy both sides.
Eminently sensible from beginning to end. Recommend others interested read it too; especially those hyperbolists who think Britain is going to hell in a handcart.
2. What is it with 'Liberals' and banning things? Never heard of free expression?
A. The SNP are terrible; or
B. May is marvellous.
The manifesto - hope vs gloom - was a big thing, assisted by the Tory press leaking it and going on about how ludicrously and unrealistically generous it was - people felt OK, maybe only half of it will happen, but hell, that's still better than a dementia tax. Corbyn did enthuse the young to finally get out and vote, and reduced his negatives in older groups simply by calming hanging in there in the face of a hurricane of derision. And Momentum's activists cheerily shrugged off the polls and fought everywhere they were present, giving a ground game edge in unlikely places like Canterbury.
The interesting question going forward is how to assess polls now. Are they now basing themselves on 2017 turnout, and is that realistic? We don't know. There is some evidence that once people have voted once they keep on doing so, so the youth surge shouldn't just vanish, but whether the new 18-23 range in 2022 will surge too, who knows? And if Brexit isn't milk and honey, what will that do to Tory turnout?
It makes for good entertainment but I wouldn't take many on here seriously. The exceptions are those who actively canvas, the results can be brutal but undeniable as opposed to those who form their views from their twitter feeds.
And they were right to think so.
If there had been a big Conservative victory we wouldn't have seen the recent changes to student debt.
By voting Labour en mass students have saved themselves over £10,000.
OGH could text that to their lordships and save the cab fare to Westminster.
So it's a horrible explanation of the election result.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/09/actor-romola-garai-felt-violated-after-harvey-weinstein-encounter
She went for an interview with the director, who eccentrically was still in a dressing gown - yes, that's a bit odd. Then she sat on a chair and had a brief discussion about the film. There's no suggestion that he said or did anything unprofessional in the discussion. Now, many years later, she looks back on it as "humiliating", "an abuse of power", and the most problematic thing that has ever happened to her in her career.
Some of the other allegations about him do sound bad, but this? I really don't want to be a Neanderthal and underrate the feeling of vulnerability that women (or people generally) can have, especially nervous teenage actresses, but I think the tendency to put things like this into the general category of sexual abuse can lead to the most serious cases being underrated.
But maybe I'm missing the point?
I also think it's odd that Weinstein hasn't been suspended, but sacked. At the moment, these are allegations. That's not the same as conviction. If he's guilty, then by all means punish him, but guilt should be established prior to punishment.
On the Border issue, the UK position is it wants control of its own borders, irrespective of any trade agreements. Again the EU position is to ask how the UK intends to establish that control.
It's a good job Romola never had to meet Churchill, who apparently would have meetings while he was in his bath!
Mr. Daodao/Mr. Topping, it's an intellectually vacant position to demand an exit bill but refuse to say what it should be.
I think the point of the story is that Garai is re-evaluating a meeting - and perhaps a narrow escape - that she had, in light of recent events. I don't think this played a part in his dismissal.
I hang on your every word.
Strangley, the erstwhile regular Leavers' mantras along the lines of 'they need us more than we need them' and 'the German car industry will make sure we get a trade deal' seem to have dried up on this forum.
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/10/9/16447118/confidentiality-agreement-weinstein-sexual-harassment-nda
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/871432155330744320?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/06/04/the-polling-that-should-worry-mrs-may-and-all-tories/
Then from Ipsos MORI
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/871434971797475328/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/06/04/the-polling-that-should-worry-mrs-may-and-all-tories/
But an encounter such as this can make a young woman, especially one without power, feel vulnerable. It could so easily turn nasty. It is hard to deal with without potentially ruining your chances of work. And it’s this last which is the nub of it. You don’t interview someone if you’re not fully dressed, especially when you are a man, more physically powerful and more economically powerful and in a sector where the “casting couch” is a reality. You just don’t.
When I was a young lawyer, I had instances of people (older men) saying or suggesting things which were quite wrong. I was amazed and thought it reflected appallingly on them. But I was lucky in having a father who set an example for me of how men should behave and so gave me a sort of force field around me which protected me. I was always clear that it was they who were in the wrong and that I had no reason to feel ashamed or humiliated. So I ignored them (or got my own back in subtle but satisfying ways) and was fortunate to have the support of my pupil master. But as the most junior person on the team, with no sway, needing work, you have to make a fine calculation as to how to respond by making it clear that you’ll bite back without completely screwing over your chances of getting on.
There are ways of doing so. But young females should not be put in this situation just because men, who do - and should - know better cannot behave in a civilised manner and are indulged (all this bollocks about “ working through their demons” is nonsense) when caught out in shabby behaviour that any decent man would be ashamed of.
No point moaning that they aren't playing fair.
On election night it was a Tory majority of 60 plus Scotland.
Despite the rows on here the general public is underwhelmed by the whole thing, like everything else it will be sorted in the end, if its not the tories are toast, they have to own this.
She went for an interview with the director, who eccentrically was still in a dressing gown - yes, that's a bit odd. Then she sat on a chair and had a brief discussion about the film. There's no suggestion that he said or did anything unprofessional in the discussion. Now, many years later, she looks back on it as "humiliating", "an abuse of power", and the most problematic thing that has ever happened to her in her career.
Some of the other allegations about him do sound bad, but this? I really don't want to be a Neanderthal and underrate the feeling of vulnerability that women (or people generally) can have, especially nervous teenage actresses, but I think the tendency to put things like this into the general category of sexual abuse can lead to the most serious cases being underrated.
But maybe I'm missing the point?
No, I don’t think you are. And you make a good point. Sexual abuse involving touching or worse or exposing yourself is the worst. There is a tendency to describe even the most minor incident, however behaviourally inappropriate or wrong, in the most apocalyptic terms which can, as you say, underrate serious cases.
But an encounter such as this can make a young woman, especially one without power, feel vulnerable. It could so easily turn nasty. It is hard to deal with without potentially ruining your chances of work. And it’s this last which is the nub of it. You don’t interview someone if you’re not fully dressed, especially when you are a man, more physically powerful and more economically powerful and in a sector where the “casting couch” is a reality. You just don’t.
When I was a young lawyer, I had instances of people (older men) saying or suggesting things which were quite wrong. I was amazed and thought it reflected appallingly on them. But I was lucky in having a father who set an example for me of how men should behave and so gave me a sort of force field around me which protected me. I was always clear that it was they who were in the wrong and that I had no reason to feel ashamed or humiliated. So I ignored them (or got my own back in subtle but satisfying ways) and was fortunate to have the support of my pupil master. But as the most junior person on the team, with no sway, needing work, you have to make a fine calculation as to how to respond by making it clear that you’ll bite back without completely screwing over your chances of getting on.
There are ways of doing so. But young females should not be put in this situation just because men, who do - and should - know better cannot behave in a civilised manner and are indulged (all this bollocks about “ working through their demons” is nonsense) when caught out in shabby behaviour that any decent man would be ashamed of.
Excellent post.
They have set out their stall, perhaps cryptically, and it's up to us to respond or do something. We are the ones long theta.
To use a sporting analogy, you might say the ball is in our court.
Take the Irish border. That depends upon the trade agreement (or lack thereof) we have, but the EU insists it'll only discuss the prerequisite for an agreement on the Irish border after the border is settled. It's crazy.
For instance total number of people phoned in a phone survey is never stuck in to the details.
The Huffington Post polling team made good sense of the GE numbers, unfortunately they aren't listing the sequence right now as we're a way off the next GE. Some of the overbending of the numbers to the Tories was crazy.
But how does that help us ?
In 2015 everyone assumed a hung parliament based on all the polls - and voters engineered a majority government
In 2017 almost every one assumed a Tory landslide based on almost all the polls - so it was 'safe' to throw votes Labour's way to cut their majority a little. Did they want Corbyn or just a slightly less powerful May. Had all the polls predicted a much closer result or a hung parliament would voters have donr a 2015.
If Cameron's own polling before the EU referendum not shown remain 10 per cent ahead but level or behind would he have done things differently?