Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Introducing the PB/YouGov Favourability Ratings – a new dev
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Introducing the PB/YouGov Favourability Ratings – a new development by the site
As many will know I am a great fan of leader ratings which I believe are a better pointer to political outcomes than voting intention numbers. There are several different formats. Ipsos-MORI ask about “satisfaction”, Opinium goes for straight approval number while the standard YouGov question is asking the sample whether those named are doing well or badly.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Cameron is -46 with Remain and -31 with Leave but he's -27 overall.
That is surely impossible unless he is about +100 with undecideds on EU which isn't realistic.
Other numbers hard to reconcile as well - eg May is +49 (Leave) and -8 (Remain) but only +12 overall.
Interesting.
Ukip are not going to sweep England we don't have hard Brexit, they even like Obama more.
Jeremy Warner on John Major, National Lottery, Olympic success, picking winners and why socialism delivers mediocracy for all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/15/british-success-at-the-olympics-is-not-just-a-national-achieveme/
Money spent: £355m over four years - about £1.5m per year per medal.
In any case, the counter-example is swimming which had its funding cut yet has won more medals in Rio than in London 2012.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3742456/ROBERT-HARDMAN-Rio-2016-United-Kingdom-again.html
'The Southern rail debacle just goes to show how private transport operators cannot be trusted with having passengers' best interests at heart," Mr Corbyn said in advance of launching his "Transport Tuesday" initiative.
Or, alternatively: The Southern rail debacle just goes to show how unions cannot be trusted with having passengers' best interests at heart.
"Public ownership of our railways is needed now to fix the transport nightmare we are currently faced with, and we know there is overwhelming support among the British public for a people's railway."
Yet again, he's got an answer and is trying to make the question fit. As for transport nightmare: can he not remember BR?
Was also somewhat surprised to see Tim Farron running ahead of his party.
It's not a Thatcherite line: it's an observation of reality. And it also makes common sense.
So let's have a list of where the UK government has picked winners *before* they became winners?
I mean, really?
The man has been decidedly average in office, and isn't Jesus.
I can't help thinking that if Article 50 is delayed or Brexit turns out to be soft that will not last. As Mike says the most useful aspect of this sort of measurement is comparators over time but May in her honeymoon will have a tough comparator to deal with and is very likely to go backwards.
It would be interesting to include, say, an Adolf Hitler or similar and Jesus or someone like that, and see if Donald Trump is less popular than the former and if Barack Obama beats the latter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/15/get-ready-for-terrific-tuesday-as-team-gb-targets-six-gold-medal/
Favourable - 27%
Unfavourable - 33%
DK - 40%
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3742431/Disgraced-Labour-MP-Simon-Danczuk-spends-night-police-cell-wife-Karen-taken-hospital-following-row-Spanish-apartment.html
https://twitter.com/hopisen/status/764793386608066561
It takes a heart of stone...
On these figures, what's clear to me is the extent to which the country is divided between Remain and Leave - it's probably a bigger divide in some ways that between party support and certainly than between, say, men and women or rich and poor. What the causality is there though is harder to say. Do people divide their views because they are Remain or Leave (i.e. is their Euro-vote preference driving their other opinions), or is the split deeper than that, with Remain and Leave also consequences or that difference in outlook?
To get meaningful numbers, you should break it down further, to see if there are significant differences between right wing Remain/Leave voters, and left wing Remain/Leave voters.
Given what he said during the referendum I'd have thought he'd at least be behind with Leavers.
Even Downing Street's staff took the piss out of Obama (pre referendum) due to his lack of communication and indecisiveness.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harry-reid-asks-donald-trump-to-take-the-naturalization-test
"Immigrants work hard to get here and become Americans, while Trump inherited everything from his father and works hardest at Tweeting insults and ripping off hard-working people with two-bit scams," Reid said.
As an illustration of this, I remember (on more than one occassion) my father coming home very late from London because his train had been delayed and the driver had 'clocked off', and pretty much abandoned the train, having completed the hours for his shift, but two stations and 11 miles shy of the terminus of our branch line where we lived.
It was one of the major contributing factors to Network Rail's failures during their Christmas works in 2014 - delays on site meant that drivers got over their allotted time and legally could not drive trains, even if they'd only been driving for a few minutes in their shift.
At the start is was leavers who weren't well represented, with Labour, the LibDems , SNP, PC and Greens all 'remain' parties, with the Tories split but clearly 'remain' at the top table. All the leavers had was UKIP.
But May's pitch on the no. 10 steps clearly intends to turn the Tories toward the leavers. For Labour, Corbyn and the left are clearly less pro-remain than the blairites, although I would expect many of the young educated London-based corbynite new members to be strongly remain. Even the greens have their split with the anti-globalisation/world trade wing becoming more vocal. So the solid remainer would now appear to have just the LibDems and SNP wholly onside?
That's why key infrastructure like railways should be publicly owned, since the purpose of governments is to represent voters, including passengers. Even better, if you think they do a rubbish job, you have recourse (voting), which you don't have with a regional monopoly rail company or a trade union of which you aren't a member.
It's an issue on which Corbyn and the public are largely in agreement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-37091391
That said, if I ever meet him I'll shake him by the hand and thank him for the poll bounce he gave us.
"That's why key infrastructure like railways should be publicly owned, since the purpose of governments is to represent voters, including passengers."
Odd then how so many governments, including Labour ones, did not look after passengers when the railways were nationalised. Perhaps because railways will only influence a small proportion to vote, whereas screams of 'education, education, education' are much more effective?
You can also make that argument to nationalise everything.
Also odd how usage by passengers has more than doubled since those golden days of BR. (Freight's another matter, with the decimation of trainload coal). People are voting with their feet.
He should have completed the journey and taken hundreds of commuters home, an extra 10 minutes.
This has never happened since privitisation. It was union muscle putting their drivers first and passengers last.
We can pick blue or red and guess what it signifies
The intellectual Titan at the head of the Labour Party.
Tories should run ads with Corbo's face on the Southern network. 'This man wants you to give him a job so that he can stop you getting to work'
Yesterday I was booking a rail trip, and precisely the same single journey, same stations and time, was £75 on the national rail site but £28 on trainline.
It'd also be interesting to look at pure favourability ratings, which tell you something different. If X has 35% favourable, 50% unfavourable and 15% don't know, while Y has 25% favourable, 40% unfavourable and 35% don't know, then X has a much higher floor (people who positively like him) but a lower ceiling (because most non-supporters have already decided against him). For British politicians in particular, the key is having 40% favourable - it doesn't necessarily matter with FPTP if 60% think you're an emissary of Beezlebub.
Even more risable given the a franchise awarding system also allows a second layer of protection for customers over and above the market.
If the choice is between the government and the market, I'll take my chances with the market every single time.
With WWII and the relaxation of the rules, an exhausted driver became so confused that he overrode his signal protection mechanism, thereby causing the only head on collision in the last hundred years of the GWR's existence.
I agree with your diagnosis regarding nationalisation but your conclusions may be awry.
The unions aim to maximise the workers' terms and conditions, and as Marx said, that sets up a contest with the owners (via the shareholders). What he didn't go on to say (but might have done today), is that it also sets up a contest with the customers. When their interests conflict, the workers take priority for the union.
In a nationalised industry, you have only one contest, not two, but you have no threat of bankruptcy and therefore redundancy either. Therein lies the potential problem.
Das Kapital - stating the bleeding obvious and making a big song and dance about it -. Rubbish!
He was British Transport Police but I never asked if he did it in uniform.....
In the chrome browser it all works fine and blue is those candidates with positive favourability ratings. So I would argue that the Red and Blue colours are meaningless.
In this they have been successful. The capacity of our infrastructure, and train paths, is now the constraint and, in the meantime, TOCs aren't left with much option other than to strip out seats and increase standing room.
Edit - on a serious note, isn't it rather strange that both candidates seem to have rather close and indeed rather dubious links to the Kremlin?
It's a good move to include such a thing, and tracking changes will be interesting.
In somewhat related news, the weak-kneed naivety of many MPs continues to disappoint:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37091464
Apparently we must unilaterally guarantee EU citizens currently in the UK lots of rights, despite no reciprocal arrangement in place for British citizens in the EU. May got stick for her stance, which is entirely correct, so this is an early opportunity to see whether she's got backbone to back up (in this instance) sound judgement.
It has happened since privatisation around the country, although the companies have got very good at scheduling shifts and driver changes to mostly avoid it.