The interesting thing about the opinion polls at the moment is that however you take an average of them Labour are not advancing on their general election showing. If you take an average of the last 5 polls, Labour are on just over 41%, if you take an average of the last 10 polls, Labour are on just over 41%. The same is true for the last 15 or 20 polls. At the general election Labour polled just over 41%. The only change is a small drop in the Tory share going to minor parties.
What were the opinion polls predict for Labour on polling day? Has Labour advanced from that?
I agree with that. As a non- Tory I did have a lot of respect for TM as someone who appeared to play politics with a straight bat. When she called the election contradicting so many of her earlier utterances, all of that disappeared - and she revealed herself to be just as calculating and untrustworthy as Cameron and Blair.
A politician can (and indeed should) be calculating, to further what he or she perceives as the interests of the country.
Theresa May's problem is that she's not calculating enough, or at least that she calculates wrongly. In particular, she seems often to assume that the situation will remain static whilst she decides what to do, failing to anticipate how others will move in the meantime. So she keeps getting caught out.
Her earlier words came back to haunt her. Thereafter, she would not be believed or given the benefit of the doubt.No longer did she seem 'straight' or more trustworthy than other politicians - yet that had been one of her selling points prior to calling the election. She effectively trashed her own brand .
I agree to an extent, although I think she could have got away with it in terms of calling the election - if you recall, at the time it went down very well and commentators from all sides were saying she'd played a blinder. Voters quite like ruthlessness in a politician, and rightly so. But it's true that it began the process of denting and then trashing her brand, with the dementia tax u-turn adding to the damage.
I agree with that. As a non- Tory I did have a lot of respect for TM as someone who appeared to play politics with a straight bat. When she called the election contradicting so many of her earlier utterances, all of that disappeared - and she revealed herself to be just as calculating and untrustworthy as Cameron and Blair.
A politician can (and indeed should) be calculating, to further what he or she perceives as the interests of the country.
Theresa May's problem is that she's not calculating enough, or at least that she calculates wrongly. In particular, she seems often to assume that the situation will remain static whilst she decides what to do, failing to anticipate how others will move in the meantime. So she keeps getting caught out.
Don't leave yourself hostage to fortune. Say at this stage I am not planning to hold another general election. And then things change and she changes her mind. As Brenda so aptly illustrated, the country was not in the mood for an election, and was happy that there was not going to be another one, as stated by the PM; they would have indeed gone with her in her difficult times partly because of this. They felt personally betrayed by Tezza lying to their faces. Or at least Brenda and I did.
And, most interestingly, David Davis is going for Single Market and Customs Union - In All But Name. The UK will emphatically not join the SM+CU according to Mr Davis' hints. But it will replicate them.
Hasn’t that been the government’s position from the start? “As close as we can get to what we have today without freedom of movement?”
Bringing the Ethereum thing back to betting, two prediction market platforms, Gnosis and Augur, should be shipping in the next few months. However users will have to compete for space on the network with crypto-kittens, which may make them prohibitively expensive to use.
And, most interestingly, David Davis is going for Single Market and Customs Union - In All But Name. The UK will emphatically not join the SM+CU according to Mr Davis' hints. But it will replicate them.
Hasn’t that been the government’s position from the start? “As close as we can get to what we have today without freedom of movement?”
I think we could stay within the customs union but ditch freedom of movement? But broadly yes - this government has chosen to prioritise ending FOM above all else.
I am absolutely no fan of May but if this is true and this was the sort of polling both Labour and the Tories were seeing, isn't that enough to reevaluate the view that May was wrong to go for the election?
20:20 hindsight is a wondrous thing but I wonder how many politicians could have resisted calling an election if they were seeing those sorts of numbers.
Personally, it was the TV pictures of the numbers turning up to see and listen to Corbyn at the many mass meetings that he held. It was at least to my mind, obvious that a sea change was happening. While in comparison, when May tried similar tactics, she had to try and arrange her supporters around her to make it look like large crowds, and failed. Sorry, but you just can't buy the support and the enthusiasm for Corbyn is getting, even now, when the press are still trying to ignore him.
So why were the polls, and particularly the internal party polls so wrong before the GE? Increasingly, because they are only asking their own supporters. Telephone and internet polls are tedious and boring, while street and door2door pollsters are easily ignored or abused, while the weighting of the results to increase the accuracy reminds me more of the acronym GIGO, garbage in, garbage out. Really, who is going to waste their time answering lots of questions, unless they feel they can influence the results?
And all that, before I even mention my suspicion that some of the parties are intentionally rigging the polls by making sure their own supporters flood them.
The polls were not wrong. They were self denying. People voted to stop what the polls were accurately predicting.
But many of the pollsters were not predicting a big Tory win by the last week of the campaign - indeed some were implying a Hung Parliament.
Yes, there was a good deal of denial in the final few weeks before the election.
If you look back at the polls, Labour was closing fast. In fact you have to think that another week of campaigning would have seen them take the lead, which of course they did in the post-election polling. There was a good deal of denial, here and elsewhere, of the reality which the polls were conveying.
And of course those polls that didn't fiddle around too much with their core data reflected the reality better than the rest.
And, most interestingly, David Davis is going for Single Market and Customs Union - In All But Name. The UK will emphatically not join the SM+CU according to Mr Davis' hints. But it will replicate them.
Hasn’t that been the government’s position from the start? “As close as we can get to what we have today without freedom of movement?”
Really good point.
It's pretty obvious what the deal to be made here is. Is May a good enough politician to get there?
It was a huge relief and refreshing change to see and hear Amber Rudd make her statement to Parliament this afternoon. A sensible Conservative minister on top of her brief.
I agree with that. As a non- Tory I did have a lot of respect for TM as someone who appeared to play politics with a straight bat. When she called the election contradicting so many of her earlier utterances, all of that disappeared - and she revealed herself to be just as calculating and untrustworthy as Cameron and Blair.
A politician can (and indeed should) be calculating, to further what he or she perceives as the interests of the country.
Theresa May's problem is that she's not calculating enough, or at least that she calculates wrongly. In particular, she seems often to assume that the situation will remain static whilst she decides what to do, failing to anticipate how others will move in the meantime. So she keeps getting caught out.
Her earlier words came back to haunt her. Thereafter, she would not be believed or given the benefit of the doubt.No longer did she seem 'straight' or more trustworthy than other politicians - yet that had been one of her selling points prior to calling the election. She effectively trashed her own brand .
I agree to an extent, although I think she could have got away with it in terms of calling the election - if you recall, at the time it went down very well and commentators from all sides were saying she'd played a blinder. Voters quite like ruthlessness in a politician, and rightly so. But it's true that it began the process of denting and then trashing her brand, with the dementia tax u-turn adding to the damage.
I think that is fair comment but would simply add that self interested ruthlessness was rather at variance with what had led so many - including myself - to warm to her in her earlier months.
True , I also thought last evening Jonny Jimmy was throwing about some serious allegations against the two retired police officers.I am not aware if he had any more information than the rest of us or he was ranting unwisely without any evidence of the allegations he was making.
True , I also thought last evening Jonny Jimmy was throwing about some serious allegations against the two retired police officers.I am not aware if he had any more information than the rest of us or he was ranting unwisely without any evidence of the allegations he was making.
It was a huge relief and refreshing change to see and hear Amber Rudd make her statement to Parliament this afternoon. A sensible Conservative minister on top of her brief.
She is the only one of the frontrunners for next leader that offers value IMO.
Bringing the Ethereum thing back to betting, two prediction market platforms, Gnosis and Augur, should be shipping in the next few months. However users will have to compete for space on the network with crypto-kittens, which may make them prohibitively expensive to use.
Interesting, did not know that. The most chatter I've heard about betting and crypto (other than the legendary Satoshi Dice) is a platform called DecentBet (DBET). Will check those out.
Serious question: if Ethereum irons out the kinks in proof of stake, do you think it will overtake Bitcoin?
True , I also thought last evening Jonny Jimmy was throwing about some serious allegations against the two retired police officers.I am not aware if he had any more information than the rest of us or he was ranting unwisely without any evidence of the allegations he was making.
There were quite a few observations from quite a few posters that on the evidence they themselves have provided, the retired police officers have broken several laws....
Retired police officers who leaked information about an inquiry into Cabinet minister Damian Green could face prosecution, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has said.
Cressida Dick said it was “quite wrong” for two former Metropolitan Police officers to speak out over allegations that pornographic images had been uncovered on Mr Green’s parliamentary computer during a police investigation into Home Office leaks in 2008
I agree with that. As a non- Tory I did have a lot of respect for TM as someone who appeared to play politics with a straight bat. When she called the election contradicting so many of her earlier utterances, all of that disappeared - and she revealed herself to be just as calculating and untrustworthy as Cameron and Blair.
A politician can (and indeed should) be calculating, to further what he or she perceives as the interests of the country.
Theresa May's problem is that she's not calculating enough, or at least that she calculates wrongly. In particular, she seems often to assume that the situation will remain static whilst she decides what to do, failing to anticipate how others will move in the meantime. So she keeps getting caught out.
Her earlier words came back to haunt her. Thereafter, she would not be believed or given the benefit of the doubt.No longer did she seem 'straight' or more trustworthy than other politicians - yet that had been one of her selling points prior to calling the election. She effectively trashed her own brand .
I agree to an extent, although I think she could have got away with it in terms of calling the election - if you recall, at the time it went down very well and commentators from all sides were saying she'd played a blinder. Voters quite like ruthlessness in a politician, and rightly so. But it's true that it began the process of denting and then trashing her brand, with the dementia tax u-turn adding to the damage.
I am absolutely no fan of May but if this is true and this was the sort of polling both Labour and the Tories were seeing, isn't that enough to reevaluate the view that May was wrong to go for the election?
20:20 hindsight is a wondrous thing but I wonder how many politicians could have resisted calling an election if they were seeing those sorts of numbers.
True , I also thought last evening Jonny Jimmy was throwing about some serious allegations against the two retired police officers.I am not aware if he had any more information than the rest of us or he was ranting unwisely without any evidence of the allegations he was making.
I am absolutely no fan of May but if this is true and this was the sort of polling both Labour and the Tories were seeing, isn't that enough to reevaluate the view that May was wrong to go for the election?
20:20 hindsight is a wondrous thing but I wonder how many politicians could have resisted calling an election if they were seeing those sorts of numbers.
I would have called one.
The evidence was overwhelming.
And then I hope would have fought it as though the polls were five points against you.
I agree with that. As a non- Tory I did have a lot of respect for TM as someone who appeared to play politics with a straight bat. When she called the election contradicting so many of her earlier utterances, all of that disappeared - and she revealed herself to be just as calculating and untrustworthy as Cameron and Blair.
A politician can (and indeed should) be calculating, to further what he or she perceives as the interests of the country.
Theresa May's problem is that she's not calculating enough, or at least that she calculates wrongly. In particular, she seems often to assume that the situation will remain static whilst she decides what to do, failing to anticipate how others will move in the meantime. So she keeps getting caught out.
or an election, and was happy that there was not going to be another one, as stated by the PM; they would have indeed gone with her in her difficult times partly because of this. They felt personally betrayed by Tezza lying to their faces. Or at least Brenda and I did.
She's have got away with it if everything else had gone well, but the manifest opportunism of her decision to go to the country became increasingly awkward as things started to go wrong.
You've certainly made the precis interesting. Sounds like the voters expected a walk-over and preferred May's majority to be less overwhelming but they overdid it. ..
Yep, it was the 'You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!' election.
As Gove's wife said to Gove following the Brexit result!
I agree with that. As a non- Tory I did have a lot of respect for TM as someone who appeared to play politics with a straight bat. When she called the election contradicting so many of her earlier utterances, all of that disappeared - and she revealed herself to be just as calculating and untrustworthy as Cameron and Blair.
A politician can (and indeed should) be calculating, to further what he or she perceives as the interests of the country.
Theresa May's problem is that she's not calculating enough, or at least that she calculates wrongly. In particular, she seems often to assume that the situation will remain static whilst she decides what to do, failing to anticipate how others will move in the meantime. So she keeps getting caught out.
Her earlier words came back to haunt her. Thereafter, she would not be believed or given the benefit of the doubt.No longer did she seem 'straight' or more trustworthy than other politicians - yet that had been one of her selling points prior to calling the election. She effectively trashed her own brand .
I agree to an extent, although I think she could have got away with it in terms of calling the election - if you recall, at the time it went down very well and commentators from all sides were saying she'd played a blinder. Voters quite like ruthlessness in a politician, and rightly so. But it's true that it began the process of denting and then trashing her brand, with the dementia tax u-turn adding to the damage.
The fault was not to call the election per se, but utterly to fail to make a case for calling it - and then run the worst campaign in living memory. And you cannot successfully be both ruthless and a ditherer.
This was all pre dementia tax and ending free school lunches and the triple lock etc and the Tories kamikaze manifesto
Be fair. If you think you're on course for a majority of 704 there isn't a problem making "difficult decisions" like this.
And this is my ongoing defence to Jezbollah worshippers on the campaign targeting - "had we ignored the polls we could have won more seats". Perhaps. Had everyone ignored the polls the Tories wouldn't have come over so overconfident and smarmy putting those seats within reach. Swings and roundabouts.
May wanted to use a big majority to take unpopular decisions and put them in her manifesto to ensure she had a mandate for them, the voters therefore decided if she lost her majority she would have no mandate to implement them and acted accordingly especially with Corbyn offering free ice cream and soda for all but the very rich.
It was totally inept.
By the end of the campaign, such was my distaste for Timothy/Hill that even I didn't want her to have a big majority.
I agree with that. As a non- Tory I did have a lot of respect for TM as someone who appeared to play politics with a straight bat. When she called the election contradicting so many of her earlier utterances, all of that disappeared - and she revealed herself to be just as calculating and untrustworthy as Cameron and Blair.
A politician can (and indeed should) be calculating, to further what he or she perceives as the interests of the country.
Theresa May's problem is that she's not calculating enough, or at least that she calculates wrongly. In particular, she seems often to assume that the situation will remain static whilst she decides what to do, failing to anticipate how others will move in the meantime. So she keeps getting caught out.
or an election, and was happy that there was not going to be another one, as stated by the PM; they would have indeed gone with her in her difficult times partly because of this. They felt personally betrayed by Tezza lying to their faces. Or at least Brenda and I did.
She's have got away with it if everything else had gone well, but the manifest opportunism of her decision to go to the country became increasingly awkward as things started to go wrong.
As noted to @Casino, she fought the campaign as though she was 20pts ahead, rather than five points behind.
It was apparent at the time that the Conservatives' hubris was leading them to target unrealistic seats. It was less apparent that Labour's defeatism was leading them to fail to target realistic seats.
Yup. If Labour's polling/confidence had been better, Jeremy Corbyn would be PM now.
Which would probably be one of the most (if not the most) dramatic political stories for British politics ever.
True , I also thought last evening Jonny Jimmy was throwing about some serious allegations against the two retired police officers.I am not aware if he had any more information than the rest of us or he was ranting unwisely without any evidence of the allegations he was making.
What have I alleged without evidence?
Correct me if I am wrong , if so I apologise.But I believe you alleged they were tampering with evidence.
The UK government hadn't, and still hasn't, confirmed the regulatory convergence applies to all of the UK, not just Northern Ireland.
David Davis has confirmed this.
Fair enough. That wasn't clear yesterday though - hence the DUP strop. The question now is whether the government can sell that new position to the DUP and its own cabinet. Jacob Rees-Mogg asked Davis to make regulatory divergence a red line, which he refused to do.
I am absolutely no fan of May but if this is true and this was the sort of polling both Labour and the Tories were seeing, isn't that enough to reevaluate the view that May was wrong to go for the election?
20:20 hindsight is a wondrous thing but I wonder how many politicians could have resisted calling an election if they were seeing those sorts of numbers.
Calling the election was a good idea.
Running the worst campaign in living memory with policies to upset your key demographics, not such a good idea.
I agree. But i also think that there is something in what Rochdale Pioneers was saying. If you feel you are on course for such a massive majority then isn't that exactly the time to put stuff into the manifesto that everyone agrees should be done but no one has the courage to do. Trying to do something to address the issues of late life care and age inequality is only really sometjing the Tories could go for if they thought thay could afford to upset a few vested interests amongst their own supporters.
One of the problems with the election result is that it makes these problems even more intractable.
The Conservative manifesto should have consisted of one word: Brexit. It was their vote winner. Everything else was going to lose votes.
Since Parliament was always going to be dominated by Brexit anyway, putting other stuff in was worse than pointless.
Exactly, Thatcher's 1983 campaign was focused on one word: Falklands with nothing controversial in the manifesto itself while Foot offered 'the longest suicide note in history'
The lesson is you always keep the manifesto optimistic and sexy for the voters.
I am absolutely no fan of May but if this is true and this was the sort of polling both Labour and the Tories were seeing, isn't that enough to reevaluate the view that May was wrong to go for the election?
20:20 hindsight is a wondrous thing but I wonder how many politicians could have resisted calling an election if they were seeing those sorts of numbers.
Personally, it was the TV pictures of the numbers turning up to see and listen to Corbyn at the many mass meetings that he held. It was at least to my mind, obvious that a sea change was happening. While in comparison, when May tried similar tactics, she had to try and arrange her supporters around her to make it look like large crowds, and failed. Sorry, but you just can't buy the support and the enthusiasm for Corbyn is getting, even now, when the press are still trying to ignore him.
So why were the polls, and particularly the internal party polls so wrong before the GE? Increasingly, because they are only asking their own supporters. Telephone and internet polls are tedious and boring, while street and door2door pollsters are easily ignored or abused, while the weighting of the results to increase the accuracy reminds me more of the acronym GIGO, garbage in, garbage out. Really, who is going to waste their time answering lots of questions, unless they feel they can influence the results?
And all that, before I even mention my suspicion that some of the parties are intentionally rigging the polls by making sure their own supporters flood them.
Polls are weighted to reflect the voteshare and turnout at the previous election, just in 2017 more young people turned out because Corbyn promised free tuition fees for all unlike Ed Miliband
More turned out for Corbyn, not from just the promise of free tuition fees, after all, hasn't the Tory front bench been extolling the increase in students going to university even after the increases. Can't, unlike DD, have it both ways. But, it was more likely people's voted for Corbyn as he seems to represent their interests, after all, isn't that an MP and potential PM supposed to do. Just because there are more people who believe in him rather than those who think the Tories represent them is just part of the messy process called democracy.
I am absolutely no fan of May but if this is true and this was the sort of polling both Labour and the Tories were seeing, isn't that enough to reevaluate the view that May was wrong to go for the election?
20:20 hindsight is a wondrous thing but I wonder how many politicians could have resisted calling an election if they were seeing those sorts of numbers.
Well, Richard, it is just about possible there are still some politicians around who put the interests of the country ahead of the party, and even themselves. I wouldn't count TM amongst them though.
She got what she deserved.
I agree with that. As a non- Tory I did have a lot of respect for TM as someone who appeared to play politics with a straight bat. When she called the election contradicting so many of her earlier utterances, all of that disappeared - and she revealed herself to be just as calculating and untrustworthy as Cameron and Blair.
That's key. Her huge poll leads were built on a characterisation of her that didn't stand up to close scrutiny.
I filled out a form for my mother online at the weekend. She was asked her nationality and said "English". I noted that it gave both British and English as options. She very firmly told me that she wanted English - "all those others want special terms".
I'm not sure how she finally voted in the referendum, mind.
I agree with that. As a non- Tory I did have a lot of respect for TM as someone who appeared to play politics with a straight bat. When she called the election contradicting so many of her earlier utterances, all of that disappeared - and she revealed herself to be just as calculating and untrustworthy as Cameron and Blair.
A politician can (and indeed should) be calculating, to further what he or she perceives as the interests of the country.
Theresa May's problem is that she's not calculating enough, or at least that she calculates wrongly. In particular, she seems often to assume that the situation will remain static whilst she decides what to do, failing to anticipate how others will move in the meantime. So she keeps getting caught out.
Her earlier words came back to haunt her. Thereafter, she would not be believed or given the benefit of the doubt.No longer did she seem 'straight' or more trustworthy than other politicians - yet that had been one of her selling points prior to calling the election. She effectively trashed her own brand .
I agree to an extent, although I think she could have got away with it in terms of calling the election - if you recall, at the time it went down very well and commentators from all sides were saying she'd played a blinder. Voters quite like ruthlessness in a politician, and rightly so. But it's true that it began the process of denting and then trashing her brand, with the dementia tax u-turn adding to the damage.
A bit of ruthlessness in slapping down that little f@cker Varadkar would be welcome.
It was apparent at the time that the Conservatives' hubris was leading them to target unrealistic seats. It was less apparent that Labour's defeatism was leading them to fail to target realistic seats.
Yup. If Labour's polling/confidence had been better, Jeremy Corbyn would be PM now.
Which would probably be one of the most (if not the most) dramatic political stories for British politics ever.
True , I also thought last evening Jonny Jimmy was throwing about some serious allegations against the two retired police officers.I am not aware if he had any more information than the rest of us or he was ranting unwisely without any evidence of the allegations he was making.
What have I alleged without evidence?
Correct me if I am wrong , if so I apologise.But I believe you alleged they were tampering with evidence.
No. I said that I hope the investigation into the bent cops discovers that they fabricated the evidence. My ranting was at enormous perverts* like @bigjohnowls who was cheering the bent cops on.
*I've been very clear that I think enjoying this perversion of justice makes one a bigger pervert than anyone watching legal porn.
I agree with that. As a non- Tory I did have a lot of respect for TM as someone who appeared to play politics with a straight bat. When she called the election contradicting so many of her earlier utterances, all of that disappeared - and she revealed herself to be just as calculating and untrustworthy as Cameron and Blair.
A politician can (and indeed should) be calculating, to further what he or she perceives as the interests of the country.
Theresa May's problem is that she's not calculating enough, or at least that she calculates wrongly. In particular, she seems often to assume that the situation will remain static whilst she decides what to do, failing to anticipate how others will move in the meantime. So she keeps getting caught out.
She is good at slow, thorough, steady analysis leading to a structured solution delivered via a set-piece speech.
She is absolutely not good at dealing with the real-time dynamism of politics, and thinking on her feet.
The interesting thing about the opinion polls at the moment is that however you take an average of them Labour are not advancing on their general election showing. If you take an average of the last 5 polls, Labour are on just over 41%, if you take an average of the last 10 polls, Labour are on just over 41%. The same is true for the last 15 or 20 polls. At the general election Labour polled just over 41%. The only change is a small drop in the Tory share going to minor parties.
Labour have united the Left, but otherwise stripped away only the Tories who are metropolitan and very pro-Remain.
The Tories have to hope they can claw some of them back post Brexit, under a new leader, as well as make inroads into the North.
I agree with that. As a non- Tory I did have a lot of respect for TM as someone who appeared to play politics with a straight bat. When she called the election contradicting so many of her earlier utterances, all of that disappeared - and she revealed herself to be just as calculating and untrustworthy as Cameron and Blair.
A politician can (and indeed should) be calculating, to further what he or she perceives as the interests of the country.
Theresa May's problem is that she's not calculating enough, or at least that she calculates wrongly. In particular, she seems often to assume that the situation will remain static whilst she decides what to do, failing to anticipate how others will move in the meantime. So she keeps getting caught out.
She is good at slow, thorough, steady analysis leading to a structured solution delivered via a set-piece speech.
She is absolutely not good at dealing with the real-time dynamism of politics, and thinking on her feet.
Points I made within 2 months of her taking over the top job:
True , I also thought last evening Jonny Jimmy was throwing about some serious allegations against the two retired police officers.I am not aware if he had any more information than the rest of us or he was ranting unwisely without any evidence of the allegations he was making.
+1
What do you think I've been alleging without evidence?
The interesting thing about the opinion polls at the moment is that however you take an average of them Labour are not advancing on their general election showing. If you take an average of the last 5 polls, Labour are on just over 41%, if you take an average of the last 10 polls, Labour are on just over 41%. The same is true for the last 15 or 20 polls. At the general election Labour polled just over 41%. The only change is a small drop in the Tory share going to minor parties.
Labour have united the Left, but otherwise stripped away only the Tories who are metropolitan and very pro-Remain.
The Tories have to hope they can claw some of them back post Brexit, under a new leader, as well as make inroads into the North.
Not a prayer. The Conservatives need to do something spectacular to get listened to by metropolitans and pro-Remain supporters again. They look lost for a generation to me.
I am absolutely no fan of May but if this is true and this was the sort of polling both Labour and the Tories were seeing, isn't that enough to reevaluate the view that May was wrong to go for the election?
20:20 hindsight is a wondrous thing but I wonder how many politicians could have resisted calling an election if they were seeing those sorts of numbers.
So why were the polls, and particularly the internal party polls so wrong before the GE? Increasingly, because they are only asking their own supporters. Telephone and internet polls are tedious and boring, while street and door2door pollsters are easily ignored or abused, while the weighting of the results to increase the accuracy reminds me more of the acronym GIGO, garbage in, garbage out. Really, who is going to waste their time answering lots of questions, unless they feel they can influence the results?
And all that, before I even mention my suspicion that some of the parties are intentionally rigging the polls by making sure their own supporters flood them.
The polls were not wrong. They were self denying. People voted to stop what the polls were accurately predicting.
But many of the pollsters were not predicting a big Tory win by the last week of the campaign - indeed some were implying a Hung Parliament.
Yes, there was a good deal of denial in the final few weeks before the election.
If you look back at the polls, Labour was closing fast. In fact you have to think that another week of campaigning would have seen them take the lead, which of course they did in the post-election polling. There was a good deal of denial, here and elsewhere, of the reality which the polls were conveying.
And of course those polls that didn't fiddle around too much with their core data reflected the reality better than the rest.
The problem is that the polls that didn't fiddle around with their data tended to overstate Labour in the past.
Regarding the polls, Labour were surging until about 7 or 8 days before polling day, when their support seemed to plateau at 35-38%, with the Tories on 42-46%. That's why I expected a 1979 type result at the end.
The closest polls were Survation (1% lead) Survey Monkey (4% lead) and Kantar (5% lead) compared to the outcome of a 2.5% lead. A 4% or 5% lead would have got the Conservatives over the line.
I am absolutely no fan of May but if this is true and this was the sort of polling both Labour and the Tories were seeing, isn't that enough to reevaluate the view that May was wrong to go for the election?
20:20 hindsight is a wondrous thing but I wonder how many politicians could have resisted calling an election if they were seeing those sorts of numbers.
I would have called one.
The evidence was overwhelming.
And then I hope would have fought it as though the polls were five points against you.
I'd certainly like to thing I could avoid falling victim to my own hubris.
I agree with that. As a non- Tory I did have a lot of respect for TM as someone who appeared to play politics with a straight bat. When she called the election contradicting so many of her earlier utterances, all of that disappeared - and she revealed herself to be just as calculating and untrustworthy as Cameron and Blair.
A politician can (and indeed should) be calculating, to further what he or she perceives as the interests of the country.
Theresa May's problem is that she's not calculating enough, or at least that she calculates wrongly. In particular, she seems often to assume that the situation will remain static whilst she decides what to do, failing to anticipate how others will move in the meantime. So she keeps getting caught out.
She is good at slow, thorough, steady analysis leading to a structured solution delivered via a set-piece speech.
She is absolutely not good at dealing with the real-time dynamism of politics, and thinking on her feet.
Points I made within 2 months of her taking over the top job:
It was apparent at the time that the Conservatives' hubris was leading them to target unrealistic seats. It was less apparent that Labour's defeatism was leading them to fail to target realistic seats.
Yup. If Labour's polling/confidence had been better, Jeremy Corbyn would be PM now.
Which would probably be one of the most (if not the most) dramatic political stories for British politics ever.
I agree with that. As a non- Tory I did have a lot of respect for TM as someone who appeared to play politics with a straight bat. When she called the election contradicting so many of her earlier utterances, all of that disappeared - and she revealed herself to be just as calculating and untrustworthy as Cameron and Blair.
A politician can (and indeed should) be calculating, to further what he or she perceives as the interests of the country.
Theresa May's problem is that she's not calculating enough, or at least that she calculates wrongly. In particular, she seems often to assume that the situation will remain static whilst she decides what to do, failing to anticipate how others will move in the meantime. So she keeps getting caught out.
She is good at slow, thorough, steady analysis leading to a structured solution delivered via a set-piece speech.
She is absolutely not good at dealing with the real-time dynamism of politics, and thinking on her feet.
Points I made within 2 months of her taking over the top job:
I filled out a form for my mother online at the weekend. She was asked her nationality and said "English". I noted that it gave both British and English as options. She very firmly told me that she wanted English - "all those others want special terms".
I'm not sure how she finally voted in the referendum, mind.
Difficult for me. I would pick British as my nationality (because it is) but I would identify myself as an Englishman.
English can (rather awkwardly) still be a nationality and an ethnicity. And I think I'm probably referring to a bit of both.
It was apparent at the time that the Conservatives' hubris was leading them to target unrealistic seats. It was less apparent that Labour's defeatism was leading them to fail to target realistic seats.
Yup. If Labour's polling/confidence had been better, Jeremy Corbyn would be PM now.
Which would probably be one of the most (if not the most) dramatic political stories for British politics ever.
Labour's private pollster had them 13% behind on polling day.
It was apparent at the time that the Conservatives' hubris was leading them to target unrealistic seats. It was less apparent that Labour's defeatism was leading them to fail to target realistic seats.
Yup. If Labour's polling/confidence had been better, Jeremy Corbyn would be PM now.
Which would probably be one of the most (if not the most) dramatic political stories for British politics ever.
Labour's private pollster had them 13% behind on polling day.
As mentioned previously, at 9.30pm on polling day Downing Street expected a 40-70 seat majority.
I filled out a form for my mother online at the weekend. She was asked her nationality and said "English". I noted that it gave both British and English as options. She very firmly told me that she wanted English - "all those others want special terms".
I'm not sure how she finally voted in the referendum, mind.
Difficult for me. I would pick British as my nationality (because it is) but I would identify myself as an Englishman.
English can (rather awkwardly) still be a nationality and an ethnicity. And I think I'm probably referring to a bit of both.
I'd describe my nationality as British and heritage as English.
"What we are seeing in the Brexiter response to the Irish border issue is the familiar combination of denial and irony that characterises Brexiter thinking in general"
And on technical solutions based on other borders:
"But the extent to which the systems at other EU borders provide solutions for the Irish border is limited for two reasons. First, because the Irish border has an extremely dense and interconnected economy. There is six times as much goods traffic across it as across the Norway-Sweden border and, moreover, it is of a different type.
Almost all Norway-Swedish traffic is one-time (i.e. goods going once across the border), but the Irish border cuts across supply chains so that many goods cross and re-cross the border several times. Secondly, because even to the extent that technology can make for quick and easy controls, on the Irish border any controls at all entail an enormous political sensitivity and are bound up with the detailed legal and political issues arising from the Good Friday Agreement."
I agree with that. As a non- Tory I did have a lot of respect for TM as someone who appeared to play politics with a straight bat. When she called the election contradicting so many of her earlier utterances, all of that disappeared - and she revealed herself to be just as calculating and untrustworthy as Cameron and Blair.
A politician can (and indeed should) be calculating, to further what he or she perceives as the interests of the country.
Theresa May's problem is that she's not calculating enough, or at least that she calculates wrongly. In particular, she seems often to assume that the situation will remain static whilst she decides what to do, failing to anticipate how others will move in the meantime. So she keeps getting caught out.
She is good at slow, thorough, steady analysis leading to a structured solution delivered via a set-piece speech.
She is absolutely not good at dealing with the real-time dynamism of politics, and thinking on her feet.
Points I made within 2 months of her taking over the top job:
Unfortunately she followed the advice in your last sentence, so clearly the whole disaster is your fault!
Long ago, a bridge expert was told of a little old lady who held an ace on lead against seven no trumps against two other expert opponents. She neither doubled nor led the ace. He commented that she had only made one mistake: if she wasn't going to lead the ace, it was correct not to double.
It was right to call the election. It's hardly my fault she mangled her strong hand so badly in the play.
It was apparent at the time that the Conservatives' hubris was leading them to target unrealistic seats. It was less apparent that Labour's defeatism was leading them to fail to target realistic seats.
Yup. If Labour's polling/confidence had been better, Jeremy Corbyn would be PM now.
Which would probably be one of the most (if not the most) dramatic political stories for British politics ever.
Labour's private pollster had them 13% behind on polling day.
I read somewhere the other day (Newstatesman?) that many pollsters now feel it is next to impossible to poll the UK politically, as they just can't reach a representative sample.
It was apparent at the time that the Conservatives' hubris was leading them to target unrealistic seats. It was less apparent that Labour's defeatism was leading them to fail to target realistic seats.
Yup. If Labour's polling/confidence had been better, Jeremy Corbyn would be PM now.
Which would probably be one of the most (if not the most) dramatic political stories for British politics ever.
Labour's private pollster had them 13% behind on polling day.
I read somewhere the other day (Newstatesman?) that many pollsters now feel it is next to impossible to poll the UK politically, as they just can't reach a representative sample.
I read that too. I wonder whether any of them will on that basis waive their fees in future for conducting political polls.
The interesting thing about the opinion polls at the moment is that however you take an average of them Labour are not advancing on their general election showing. If you take an average of the last 5 polls, Labour are on just over 41%, if you take an average of the last 10 polls, Labour are on just over 41%. The same is true for the last 15 or 20 polls. At the general election Labour polled just over 41%. The only change is a small drop in the Tory share going to minor parties.
Labour have united the Left, but otherwise stripped away only the Tories who are metropolitan and very pro-Remain.
The Tories have to hope they can claw some of them back post Brexit, under a new leader, as well as make inroads into the North.
Not a prayer. The Conservatives need to do something spectacular to get listened to by metropolitans and pro-Remain supporters again. They look lost for a generation to me.
If the last two days is anything to go by the Tories may find they are going to revive UKIP. I am all of regulatory alignment, but I am not sure how many convinced Brexiteers are. David Davis didn't seem that ecstatic about it earlier.
I still am utterly gobsmacked that May survived the humiliation of right royally screwing up an unnecessary election. I thought Corbyn had taken resilience and bare faced audacity to a new level when he faced down the mass resignation of his shadow cabinet.....but that was essentially an eternal party affair.
May had called a general election and been humiliated by the outcome. She had put the country through a GE to improve her personal position and failed. They want to sack Green for chugging away in his office (allegedly) between writing emails and whatnot. But that is only between Green and his right hand. May put the fucking country through the stress of an election. Please tell me of any political acts of self harm that have survived. I cannot think of any.
It was apparent at the time that the Conservatives' hubris was leading them to target unrealistic seats. It was less apparent that Labour's defeatism was leading them to fail to target realistic seats.
Yup. If Labour's polling/confidence had been better, Jeremy Corbyn would be PM now.
Which would probably be one of the most (if not the most) dramatic political stories for British politics ever.
Labour's private pollster had them 13% behind on polling day.
I read somewhere the other day (Newstatesman?) that many pollsters now feel it is next to impossible to poll the UK politically, as they just can't reach a representative sample.
It was apparent at the time that the Conservatives' hubris was leading them to target unrealistic seats. It was less apparent that Labour's defeatism was leading them to fail to target realistic seats.
Yup. If Labour's polling/confidence had been better, Jeremy Corbyn would be PM now.
Which would probably be one of the most (if not the most) dramatic political stories for British politics ever.
Labour's private pollster had them 13% behind on polling day.
I read somewhere the other day (Newstatesman?) that many pollsters now feel it is next to impossible to poll the UK politically, as they just can't reach a representative sample.
I think that public opinion has become more volatile than it used to be. I think that the closest parallel is the 1918-31 period, during which there were wild shifts in vote shares in individual constituencies.
But what is the point of leaving the EU if we maintain "regulatory alignment"? What price sovereignty then? The UK will be forced to accept regulations it has no say in drafting.
The UK government hadn't, and still hasn't, confirmed the regulatory convergence applies to all of the UK, not just Northern Ireland.
It'll be UK wide - and it will be called regulatory alignment, not convergence. It will mean that we will not be signing many buccaneering FTAs, but we could well get to keep pretty decent access to the single market. It's all good news compared to where we could have been going, though not as good as what we have now, of course.
It was apparent at the time that the Conservatives' hubris was leading them to target unrealistic seats. It was less apparent that Labour's defeatism was leading them to fail to target realistic seats.
Yup. If Labour's polling/confidence had been better, Jeremy Corbyn would be PM now.
Which would probably be one of the most (if not the most) dramatic political stories for British politics ever.
Labour's private pollster had them 13% behind on polling day.
I read somewhere the other day (Newstatesman?) that many pollsters now feel it is next to impossible to poll the UK politically, as they just can't reach a representative sample.
Survation managed it.
Ipsos MORI & GFK managed it with their exit poll.
Leaving aside the joke polling outfits, I think it's pretty much a matter of luck which of them comes closest.
It was apparent at the time that the Conservatives' hubris was leading them to target unrealistic seats. It was less apparent that Labour's defeatism was leading them to fail to target realistic seats.
Yup. If Labour's polling/confidence had been better, Jeremy Corbyn would be PM now.
Which would probably be one of the most (if not the most) dramatic political stories for British politics ever.
Labour's private pollster had them 13% behind on polling day.
I read somewhere the other day (Newstatesman?) that many pollsters now feel it is next to impossible to poll the UK politically, as they just can't reach a representative sample.
Survation managed it.
Ipsos MORI & GFK managed it with their exit poll.
The French managed it too......and POTUS 2016 the national polls were broadly on the money, though the state polling in places like PA, MI and WI left much to be desired
It was apparent at the time that the Conservatives' hubris was leading them to target unrealistic seats. It was less apparent that Labour's defeatism was leading them to fail to target realistic seats.
Yup. If Labour's polling/confidence had been better, Jeremy Corbyn would be PM now.
Which would probably be one of the most (if not the most) dramatic political stories for British politics ever.
Labour's private pollster had them 13% behind on polling day.
I read somewhere the other day (Newstatesman?) that many pollsters now feel it is next to impossible to poll the UK politically, as they just can't reach a representative sample.
Survation managed it.
Ipsos MORI & GFK managed it with their exit poll.
YouGov managed it with their big mysterious statistical seat by seat analysis.
But what is the point of leaving the EU if we maintain "regulatory alignment"? What price sovereignty then? The UK will be forced to accept regulations it has no say in drafting.
Nobody can get their idea of Brexit through Parliament so this fudge will have to do. Whoever next gets a big majority will be able to renegotiate all this.
The UK government hadn't, and still hasn't, confirmed the regulatory convergence applies to all of the UK, not just Northern Ireland.
It'll be UK wide - and it will be called regulatory alignment, not convergence. It will mean that we will not be signing many buccaneering FTAs, but we could well get to keep pretty decent access to the single market. It's all good news compared to where we could have been going, though not as good as what we have now, of course.
But what is the point of leaving the EU if we maintain "regulatory alignment"? What price sovereignty then? The UK will be forced to accept regulations it has no say in drafting.
But what is the point of leaving the EU if we maintain "regulatory alignment"? What price sovereignty then? The UK will be forced to accept regulations it has no say in drafting.
Its only in specified areas such as animal safety & energy - not a blanket alignment......the DUP agreed with that (there is already convergence within the island of Ireland on some of these) but it wasn't specified in the agreement (too much fudge?) - hence the strop.....
It was apparent at the time that the Conservatives' hubris was leading them to target unrealistic seats. It was less apparent that Labour's defeatism was leading them to fail to target realistic seats.
Yup. If Labour's polling/confidence had been better, Jeremy Corbyn would be PM now.
Which would probably be one of the most (if not the most) dramatic political stories for British politics ever.
Labour's private pollster had them 13% behind on polling day.
I read somewhere the other day (Newstatesman?) that many pollsters now feel it is next to impossible to poll the UK politically, as they just can't reach a representative sample.
I read that too. I wonder whether any of them will on that basis waive their fees in future for conducting political polls.
On the other hand, the Yougov 50000 was remarkably accurate. It even suggested [ taken with an enormous amount of salt at the time ] that Canterbury, Kensington could be close. Did it also not suggest that one MK candidate in Cornwall was also going to do well.
The YG 50000 "poll" was not a poll as we understand it, but a rolling poll of 7000 a day where the latest one replaced the one from seven days earlier.
Survation was also remarkably accurate. The problem with the other pollsters, particularly, ICM , was that they "knew" what the outcome should be and were changing their methodology to achieve that desire "outcome".
Comments
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/938047100822093824
But broadly yes - this government has chosen to prioritise ending FOM above all else.
If you look back at the polls, Labour was closing fast. In fact you have to think that another week of campaigning would have seen them take the lead, which of course they did in the post-election polling. There was a good deal of denial, here and elsewhere, of the reality which the polls were conveying.
And of course those polls that didn't fiddle around too much with their core data reflected the reality better than the rest.
It's pretty obvious what the deal to be made here is. Is May a good enough politician to get there?
I read it, and it sucked compared to GE2015, and the reception was awful.
Serious question: if Ethereum irons out the kinks in proof of stake, do you think it will overtake Bitcoin?
Retired police officers who leaked information about an inquiry into Cabinet minister Damian Green could face prosecution, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has said.
Cressida Dick said it was “quite wrong” for two former Metropolitan Police officers to speak out over allegations that pornographic images had been uncovered on Mr Green’s parliamentary computer during a police investigation into Home Office leaks in 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/damian-green-pornography-police-officers-cressida-dick-prosecution-secretary-state-met-commissioner-a8090326.html
LAB Wirral South 7-1. Bloody Hell.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/dec/05/theresa-may-struggles-to-rescue-brexit-deal-as-dublin-says-it-wont-back-down-politics-live
As I pointed out yesterday, this isn't a totally daft idea; joining the ERM did not commit us to the euro, as it turned out.....
The evidence was overwhelming.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/05/eu-blacklist-names-17-tax-havens-and-puts-caymans-and-jersey-on-notice?CMP=twt_gu
And you cannot successfully be both ruthless and a ditherer.
By the end of the campaign, such was my distaste for Timothy/Hill that even I didn't want her to have a big majority.
Which would probably be one of the most (if not the most) dramatic political stories for British politics ever.
I'm not sure how she finally voted in the referendum, mind.
*I've been very clear that I think enjoying this perversion of justice makes one a bigger pervert than anyone watching legal porn.
She is absolutely not good at dealing with the real-time dynamism of politics, and thinking on her feet.
The Tories have to hope they can claw some of them back post Brexit, under a new leader, as well as make inroads into the North.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/09/11/meet-the-new-boss/
Regarding the polls, Labour were surging until about 7 or 8 days before polling day, when their support seemed to plateau at 35-38%, with the Tories on 42-46%. That's why I expected a 1979 type result at the end.
The closest polls were Survation (1% lead) Survey Monkey (4% lead) and Kantar (5% lead) compared to the outcome of a 2.5% lead. A 4% or 5% lead would have got the Conservatives over the line.
But who knows??
https://mobile.twitter.com/DanielBoffey/status/938047748603043840
It's one thing to insist on terms, and quite another to crow about it.
Do they really want us to walk away ?
English can (rather awkwardly) still be a nationality and an ethnicity. And I think I'm probably referring to a bit of both.
David Davis has spent months saying he wants x, then asks for the opposite of x, which is much inferior to remaining in the EU (or EEA et al)
"What we are seeing in the Brexiter response to the Irish border issue is the familiar combination of denial and irony that characterises Brexiter thinking in general"
And on technical solutions based on other borders:
"But the extent to which the systems at other EU borders provide solutions for the Irish border is limited for two reasons. First, because the Irish border has an extremely dense and interconnected economy. There is six times as much goods traffic across it as across the Norway-Sweden border and, moreover, it is of a different type.
Almost all Norway-Swedish traffic is one-time (i.e. goods going once across the border), but the Irish border cuts across supply chains so that many goods cross and re-cross the border several times. Secondly, because even to the extent that technology can make for quick and easy controls, on the Irish border any controls at all entail an enormous political sensitivity and are bound up with the detailed legal and political issues arising from the Good Friday Agreement."
http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/why-brexiters-are-flummoxed-by-irish.html?m=1
It was right to call the election. It's hardly my fault she mangled her strong hand so badly in the play.
He's going to hand supervision of the above to the European Central Bank isn't he?
https://twitter.com/loftusfarms/status/938049492468813835
May had called a general election and been humiliated by the outcome. She had put the country through a GE to improve her personal position and failed. They want to sack Green for chugging away in his office (allegedly) between writing emails and whatnot. But that is only between Green and his right hand. May put the fucking country through the stress of an election. Please tell me of any political acts of self harm that have survived. I cannot think of any.
Ipsos MORI & GFK managed it with their exit poll.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/05/theresa-may-catalonia-brexit-uk-leaving-eu
The French managed it too......and POTUS 2016 the national polls were broadly on the money, though the state polling in places like PA, MI and WI left much to be desired
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/938061800167395328
https://twitter.com/kevinhorourke/status/938045027372224512
Subtweeting is what happens when you tweet about someone without actually mentioning his Twitter handle.
http://www.businessinsider.com/subtweeting-explained-2012-12?IR=T
The YG 50000 "poll" was not a poll as we understand it, but a rolling poll of 7000 a day where the latest one replaced the one from seven days earlier.
Survation was also remarkably accurate. The problem with the other pollsters, particularly, ICM , was that they "knew" what the outcome should be and were changing their methodology to achieve that desire "outcome".