Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Pollsters should follow Ipsos MORI’s 2008 example and not r
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Pollsters should follow Ipsos MORI’s 2008 example and not rush to resume general election surveys
Back in 2008 at the first Boris-Ken battle the opinion polls became an issue during the campaign. YouGov was showing Boris leads close to what happened (a 6.2% Johnson lead) while Ipsos, in its final had Ken 3% ahead.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The "I cannot be bothered as all the same" mantra took over?
Glad to see that the Guardian has stuck with it's ICM monthly poll, which I believe has been running since 1984. - As for the rest, meh.
Of all the options, it seems much more likely that the polls were consistently out of tune with voters' views for some time before the general election. This is backed up by the fact that the Conservatives, and apparently Labours, private polling showed a different story.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/im-backing-andy-burnham-next-5720021
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32784980
Labour need to stop bashing enterprise, aspiration and profits otherwise they will condemn themselves to another long period out of office.
It was only a decade or so ago that there thoughtful articles in the Guardian and gushing profiles on the BBC concerning ex-Army major & new Labour MP Eric Joyce.
That ended badly.
I regret to say that ICM, until now the gold standard, has some of the sharpest questions to answer on this. Its last 3 polls showed, allegedly, a strong swing to Labour from a position where they were actually pretty close to the result to the consensus. They really need to explain how that happened.
The key to 2020 is whether five years of majority Tory government revives an efficient anti-Tory vote or not. If it does, Labour will return to power. If it doesn't, fundamental political realignment is almost inevitable.
"How dare they [Lab] make that comment...there are more ex-soldiers behind me than in the whole of the Labour Party..."
or somesuch.
Pretty tricky if the person making that charge now is not an ex-soldier and is talking to a LotO or PM who is.
Plus it shores up a vulnerable flank for Lab. A bit like the Cons appointing a 20-yr veteran NHS staff sister as leader.
Tackle the big issues of the day, not like school kids. At all...
It's the proliferation of useless internet polls by companies with poor track records that were the issue, combined with Yougov's flawed re-weighting decision a month before the election.
Mark Serwotka on Today saying how Lab lost because they weren't left-wing enough, banging on about foodbanks, etc..
Long may it last! Let's hope his endorsed candidate (AB?) makes it to leadership. S*d my 5/1 on Yvette I'm thinking of the country here...
He is also a pragmatist rather than an idealist, much like Cameron in that respect, able to put country before party rather than blindly opposing everything for the sake of an argument. I dare say that with someone like Jarvis in opposition, the government could accomplish a lot of the difficult things that need consensus such as reform of personal care and pensions, scope of NHS treatment, tax simplification etc.
This does not mean that his successors cannot learn from his mistakes of course. I would hope that Labour spend the next 5 years developing some genuine and coherent policies that can sustain more than a few minutes of consideration before falling into derision; that (as Yvette Cooper is already saying) the anti business, anti wealth creation, anti market mindset is quietly abandoned and Labour start to address the real problems in our society instead of intellectual ones.
For me Burnham comes across as nice but dim; Cooper not particularly nice but bright; Kendall interesting and personable but fundamentally unknown and Creagh similar to Kendall but perhaps less so. It is not a great choice.
The Tories at this point seem to have better choices but there will be casualties from 5 more years of government and there is an opportunity for stars to rise so it is probably too early to say. I think it is fair to say that many on here on the left and indeed on the right seriously underestimated Dave and that it is unlikely that the Tories will find a replacement of the same standard.
Clearly, from a Tory perspective the Tories have the best candidates. As a non-Tory, though, I don't see anyone who comes close to Dave's extra-party reach - largely because Dave had five years in which to create an image for himself having previously been completely unknown (the Jarvis option). The next Tory leader will not have that and will instead already have a definable public profile - and one largely forged within the context of a majority Tory government.
I hope OGH's unfailing belief in the polls - especially the Ashcroft Q2 for the LibDems prospects - didn't cost him too deep in the purse. Those of us who had evidence it was a crock of shit did try to say so...
I'll take your 0.0005% of the public who know who Mark S is and raise (lower) you 0.00000005% of them who realise he and Lab aren't the same thing.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03309/190515-MATT-web_3309000a.jpg
But Labour do not need to just listen to all the voices in the tent, they need to especially listen to those outside it, especially those who have drifted away over the last decade.
Cameron made the Tories acceptable and attractive again to many who would not consider themselves natural tories by making them more centrist, signing up to the importance of the NHS, not banging on about Europe and being far more socially inclusive. This cost him support lost to UKIP but it has delivered a majority and it is to be hoped that the threat that has hung over all Tory leaders since Major has at last been faced down.
Where is the Labour leader that can do the same? Blair showed what needs to be done but his name is an insult in the party. I cannot see any of the current contenders having anything like that sort of reach, Burnham least of all.
Only following orders? Give me a break.
Only thing is, it will probably work given the alternatives.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e3d529c4-fd74-11e4-9e96-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3aWb3eBFFh
"David Cameron is likely to drop plans to reduce the number of MPs to 600 as the prime minister tries to avoid an early stand-off with his backbenchers."
Except...Burnham was the guy who wanted to close down investigation into the failings of the NHS. Failings that left many hundreds dead. You think this is a guy who is going to have a full and frank discussion of where Labour has gone wrong? Not a chance.
Labour need to reach out to people in the centre, people like me who just voted for Cameron rather than those who will always vote Labour.
Blair got this, very few others in the party seem to right now. They just seem to think that it is their right to be elected next time. A stitch-up to keep Kendall off the ballot will be the day Labour lose themselves the 2020 election.
There wasn't a single Scotland-only poll by anyone in 2004.
' The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready. '
"Only following orders? Give me a break."
She'll get away with it. Just an Ambassadors are sent abroad to lie for their countries, politicians ares sent in front of the TV cameras to lie for their party. No wonder no one believes them.
Whoever Labour pick will be an improvement. Ed was a dud from the start and looked it. By choosing him (or allowing the unions to choose him), Labour gave up any chance of winning the 2015 election.
Burnham or Cooper are politicians you may like or dislike, but Ed was a once in a lifetime balls-up. One they couldn't rectify because of the system.
Apart from Hunt, who appears to be out, Burnham would be the worst leader for Labour. I wonder if Jarvis has backed him because it looks likely Burnham will get the job, because he genuinely believes in Burnham's abilities [stop sniggering], or because he thinks Burnham will crash and burn in 2020, opening up a job opportunity.
On polling: there's the Holyrood elections first, which may be a test (although it's not UK-wide, of course). The uncertainty over polling will make the run-up to the referendum particularly interesting.
I agree with Mr. Fletcher below [and have expressed similar views for years]. Excessive polling is not reflecting public opinion but shaping the media narrative which then influences public perception.
The Curse of Sion
Labour were utterly useless at axing Brown, or Miliband. I can't think they'd be better at ousting someone in 2018.
Plus there's the polling dilemma. If Labour are polling well, the leader's safe. If Labour are polling badly, rivals would rather the incumbent take the 2020 hit then duke it out, rather than risk two years and a failed election.
@gabyhinsliff: What I'd really like to know, btw, is who those many good candidates who missed out on becoming MPs under EdM would like to be leader.
That's such a good idea we can be sure it will be ignored completely.
He was certainly one to watch, especially in a bar after he'd had a few drinks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32790726
It's an exercise in economic masochism.
In a few months it'll be nice to have a Venn diagram indicating those who think leaving the EU would be bad, and those who thought we really ought to join the euro.
Unfashionably, I believe that the Labour leadership line-up is fine and that Labour could make a decent go of it under any of the three front runners. My choice would be Yvette Cooper who is more subtle in her voltes faces than Andy Burnham, more experienced than Liz Kendall (who I can imagine stumbling in those critical early months when the public form their views of politicians) and a hard target for David Cameron to attack in the House of Commons.
The bigger problem for Labour is the party's uncertain steel for the policy tacks that any of the three will need to push through.
The dinosauric Union leaders are making so much noise as they realise that their organisations are suffering pangs of death by many cuts. Technology is increasingly reducing the available jobs for their members and globalisation has thrown the ground rules into irrelevance. This is not unique to the UK as is currently evidenced in France and Germany.
To be a revitalised party with a relevant purpose, Labour has to cast aside any worries about upsetting its present base support. It knows that for UK to be successful in the future, the State has to do more with less. This applies both the state wide structures and local councils and so will reduce the numbers employed by such organisations.
If our education is not shaken up and vastly reorganised quickly, then our innovation and technology will decline and so will our ability to compete which means less jobs. So education has to come away from council control where ideology and non-aspiration are often the main drivers, instead of educating every child to the best of their ability and natural talents.
Will any Labour leader be brave enough to think so widely and radically?
1997 13,518,167
2001 10,724,953
2005 9,552,436
2010 8,606,517
2015 9,347,304
Which will be the next cycle of those seats contested in 2012.
The 2012 local elections followed the omnishambles budget and were won by Labout with IIRC a 6% lead over the Conservatives.
If Labour doesn't do as well in 2016 it will lose councillors, which will be a bit hard to explain - "So Labour leader why is your party performing worse under your leadership than it did under EdM's leadership ?"
Presumably, a single new vote!
As to south of Watford - further afield than that, I'd say. Not sure how well a Scouser is going to play in the Midlands. There's not much love for them from what I've seen there, so Burnham starts with a negative.
All those TV comedies about 'cheeky' Liverpool people have created an image.
At GE 2020, the perception of the new conservative leader will be much closer to how his party is rated. That will be healthy for everyone.
Today I start working on @leicesterliz’s campaign for Labour leader
And here’s why
https://t.co/Xsx3ytWra6
Lots of relieved Glasgow SLab councillors no doubt.
Sooner than that, some SNP cooncillors have moved to Westminster so there will be some by-elections. As always, it will be hard to assess shifts when (say) a third choice on each slate of three is being replaced - the voting system inevitably giving priority to the first choice, so it's comparing apples and oranges, or perhaps rather oranges and satsumas.
Unfortunately for Flint she was never part of Labour's privileged circle.
Really they needed an interim leader for 2-3 years.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/2020-where-might-conservatives-go-from.html