Don't vote Tory

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

So, how would we take it into account if trying to calculate the number of votes needed to secure a vote of confidence and form a minority government?

the NI tory-supporting seats is about 10 in number (there's 18 in total).

[stuartbert two hats]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

the youth vote may well be up compared to the norm.

Will it be 100% of those who say they'll vote, which yougov is using? Not a fucking chance.

What gives you the impression they're assuming 100% turnout?  That would be a ridiculous assumption.  Survation who predicated only one point difference assumed a 82% turnout (source Polling Matters podcast Ep 105, 5:00).  We're discussing YouGov's model, not any unweighted poll.  Quote from YouGov:

Quote

It works by modelling every constituency and key voter types in Britain based on analysis of key demographics as well as voting behaviour in the 2015 general election and the 2016 EU referendum. Turnout is assessed on voters’ demographics and is based on analysis from 2010 and 2015 British Election Study data.

There are certainly many factors in YouGov's model that favours Labour, but I really don't think it's assuming 100% turnout 

[EasyUserName]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

one where there was an electable leader, rather than a leader who holds too many marginal views.

If May is the dreadful that Corbynistas say she is, why can't Corbyn beat her?

I think this is the main issue that I see for Labour.  You can see it some of the comments in this thread.  Corbynistas tend to come over as rather ... keen.

 

I was talking to someone at work the other day.  A true “Tory” sort of person.  He was saying that this was the worst Tory campaign he could ever recall, and that he really didn't like May.  He was saying that he was considering not voting Tory this time round.  I was very surprised, as to my knowledge he has always voted Tory.  I asked if he was voting Labour - he found that very funny, said Corbyn was too "red army" and that he meant he was considering not voting at all.

 

It's voters like this who Labour needed to convince to change.

 

Just an anecdotal observation anyway.

[stuartbert two hats]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

the NI tory-supporting seats is about 10 in number (there's 18 in total).

Ah, ok.  Ta.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:

here's what Metro have just published as predictions:

 

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/05/seat-by-seat-poll-predicts-which-candidate-will-become-your-next-mp-6682123/

yep ... and that has them predicting the Labour vote about doubling in my own safe-labour constituency - which is worth fuck all for getting more seats.

It also predicts a tory wipe-out in London ... which is a huge number of extra votes but few extra seats. Same with other metropolitan places too.

Yougov are likely to one of the most-wrong pollsters this time round.

[5co77ie]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

you said...

how's that not a stonking big win for the tories?

That's a bigger win for the tories than they managed against Miliband.

That's what the punters are betting right now. So presumably if you go to a bookies site that's what their odds would favour (but you said never trust a bookie ). The website's pundit Mike Smithson has stated he expects if the polls are right that it will be hung parliament. So the polls suggest May not getting a majority, the bookies suggest a big win for the Tories.

I said I put more faith in the bookies being right they called the last election results, and the Brexit vote (but not Trump). However I started this in today's thread based on you saying the polls predicted a bigger loss for Milliband, they don't they hint at May achieving up to a small majority, on the other hand the bookies suggest a Tory landslide greater than Milliband - is all I was pointing out

 

 

Edited June 5, 2017 by 5co77ie

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

What gives you the impression they're assuming 100% turnout?  That would be a ridiculous assumption.  Survation who predicated only one point difference assumed a 82% turnout (source Polling Matters podcast Ep 105, 5:00).  We're discussing YouGov's model, not any unweighted poll.  Quote from YouGov:

There are certainly many factors in YouGov's model that favours Labour, but I really don't think it's assuming 100% turnout 

Yougov has two different methodologies and two different sets of results. I was talking about the new-new system (the one Scottie has just referenced and which goes down to constituency level).

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, eFestivals said:

Yougov has two different methodologies and two different sets of results. I was talking about the new-new system (the one Scottie has just referenced and which goes down to constituency level).

This is the link @5co77ie shared: https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2017/

And to explain it's methodology, it links here:  https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/31/yougovs-election-model/ where I found the quote above.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, 5co77ie said:

That's what the punters are betting right now. So presumably if you go to a bookies site that's what their odds would favour (but you said never trust a bookie ). The website's pundit Mike Smithson has stated he expects if the polls are right that it will be hung parliament. So the polls suggest May not getting a majority, the bookies suggest a big win for the Tories.

The website's puntit is trying to get punters to place a bet via suggesting they'll win .

C'mon, think.

 

1 minute ago, 5co77ie said:

I said I put more faith in the bookies being right they called the last election results, and the Brexit vote (but not Trump)

The bookies do NOT try to predict the result.

They *ONLY* try to cover the bets on one side with the bets on the other side, to ensure they will make a profit no matter who wins.

(if they don't make the odds attractive enough to cause bets on each side that about-even each other out they lose).

 

[5co77ie]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The website's puntit is trying to get punters to place a bet via suggesting they'll win .

C'mon, think.

 

The bookies do NOT try to predict the result.

They *ONLY* try to cover the bets on one side with the bets on the other side, to ensure they will make a profit no matter who wins.

(if they don't make the odds attractive enough to cause bets on each side that about-even each other out they lose).

 

True the pundits betting *try to predict the result, and then hope they make their money (and this isn't last minute betting without a clue, this is i suspect measured betting) though and the odds adjust accordingly - it seems to me they do a better job TRYING than the pollsters. Today most betting is going on a Tory landslide (368-374 seats) - i suspect it'll be on the money (wonder where that expression comes from)? You can bet the odds on the election on Thursday will be wildly different, and *attractive* as they will be based on Joe Bloggs having a flutter on the way back from the polling station).

The graphic had all the polls together in one handy chart, all of them put Corbyn above Milliblands 32% (giving him a better if unrealistic percentage), all of them are, as we both suspect and so do those punters, wildly wrong.

I went on to state the site the graphic had come from, as you say a bookies site, predicted a whitewash (up to 393 seats) rather than *ALL* the recent polls putting Labour as having between 34 and 40 (forty! :lol:) percent share of the vote.

EDIT TO ADD: How the hell as everything I use in the world suddenly decided to spell correct everything for me - phone, PC, etc) when I don't ask it to

Edited June 5, 2017 by 5co77ie

[eFestivals]

Just now, stuartbert two hats said:

This is the link @5co77ie shared: https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2017/

And to explain it's methodology, it links here:  https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/31/yougovs-election-model/ where I found the quote above.

It mentions demographics - but not specifically age as that demographic.

I could be wrong (not least because of the confusion of 2 different yougov polls & methods), but I'm pretty sure it's crediting youngsters with turning out at the rate they say themselves.

If it's not giving full credit, it's very definitely giving greater credit than other pollsters. I've seen that stated in more than one commentary based around "why do the polls vary so much?"

 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:

The graphic had all the polls together in one handy chart, all of them put Corbyn above Milliblands 32% (giving him a better if unrealistic percentage), all of them are, as we both suspect and so do those punters, wildly wrong.

Corbyn being above Miliband's 32% is because of other, different factors. The collapse of UKIP, mostly. The tories have a higher percentage via that too.

The gap between Corbyn and the tories is much the same as Miliband lost by. That gap only really gets closed if Labour can attract people who voted tory last time to vote labour this time.

(last polling breakdown I saw for that - tho a few weeks ago now - said Labour had attracted 10% of those who voted tory last time, while the tories had attracted 11% of those who voted Labour last time - and while i'm not sure, I suspect that's a normal-ish cross-over just on a basis of each election being based around different factors to the last one, and people's views changing with age and circumstances, etc).

Edited June 5, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:

I went on to state the site the graphic had come from, as you say a bookies site, predicted a whitewash rather than *ALL* the recent polls putting Labour as having between 34 and 40 (forty! :lol:) percent share of the vote.

plenty of those polls that have Labour between 34% and 40% of the vote are predicting a whitewash.

A greater percentage for labour doesn't give an advantage for labour if the tories also have a greater percentage of about the same (and they do, in rough terms).

[5co77ie]

ah i see, it wasn't share of vote you were referring to, sorry slow and soaked today, what % did Milliband lose by?

[eFestivals]

Just now, 5co77ie said:

ah i see, it wasn't share of vote you were referring to, sorry slow and soaked today, what % did Milliband lose by?

he lost by 6.5%.

A decline of 24 seats.

And 98 fewer seats than the tories.

Realistically, if Labour get fewer than 232 seats this time, they've gone backwards.

[DeanoL]

22 minutes ago, EasyUserName said:

It's voters like this who Labour needed to convince to change.

Ideally. But if they've been convinced not to vote at all or for a third party it's worth half as much as a full conversion. It's not nothing.

Quote

 

That only makes sense if there's is no better campaigner in the world than Corbyn. It's clearly a crock of shit.

And if there was a better campaigner than Corbyn we probably wouldn't be having brexit to then be having this election anyway.

 

This is my point. Name me someone who would have come across as bad enough that May felt safe calling an election and turn out to be good enough she might lose seats?

That's a very specific skill set! If it was done on purpose it'd be election-sharking.

40 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I keep reading here about how May is the worst ever. If that's true anyone else would beat here. Anyone but Corbyn, by the look of things.

Probably. But in such a case May wouldn't be fighting the election.

34 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the youth vote may well be up compared to the norm.

Will it be 100% of those who say they'll vote, which yougov is using? Not a fucking chance.

Oh come on. You're always calling out bullshit on this thread and then say something like that which you know is rubbish. The youth vote doesn't need to be 100% of those who say they'll vote. It just needs to be the same percentage as it is for middle-aged and older people. 

[5co77ie]

Just now, eFestivals said:

plenty of those polls that have Labour between 34% and 40% of the vote are predicting a whitewash.

A greater percentage for labour doesn't give an advantage for labour if the tories also have a greater percentage of about the same (and they do, in rough terms).

I realise this, but the Mail On Sunday poll predicts a 1% lead, and the Mirror a 12% lead both for the Tories, those suggesting a lead under 4% are, by my calculation, are predicting a hung parliament going by the graphic that's 8 different published polls over the weekend.

[arcade fireman]

The end success or failure of Corbyn's leadership should be judged on winning or losing first, then followed by the amount of seats. Vote % shouldn't really come into it anywhere near as much - smart election campaigns target seats rather than racking up pointless votes in safe seats. 

Worth pointing out Miliband actually increased vote share in the North East, Merseyside etc only to lose vote share in more important areas eg the Midlands swing seats. That was a failure on the part of his leadership. 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

This is my point. Name me someone who would have come across as bad enough that May felt safe calling an election and turn out to be good enough she might lose seats?

There's too many variables around that, where it might have happened in a similar but different way with a leader that wasn't Corbyn.

May still needed to marginalise the headbangers, so she'd have been looking to have an election no matter who was Labour leader.

And the whole brexit thing had swung things to the tories by waaaaay more than just the Corbyn effect, so it's likely she'd have felt in a strong position whatever.

She'd have perhaps felt the need to present a better manifesto, and that might have been enough for her to feel safe about an election.

I don't think any of those points above are stretching things particularly. Where i think I would have been hugely different with another Labour leader is with views towards brexit. Labour might have still been fighting for remain, which would have given May that huge lead and quite possibly one that didn't get closed by much.

We can only guess at such things, and i don't think they're of much importance. What i'm wanting to avoid are narratives that are used to to try and keep Corbyn in position if he loses seats; and you mention the 'bad' but in a way that is used to claim Corbyn as great. Starting bad and finishing bad is bad, not good.

 

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Oh come on. You're always calling out bullshit on this thread and then say something like that which you know is rubbish. The youth vote doesn't need to be 100% of those who say they'll vote. It just needs to be the same percentage as it is for middle-aged and older people. 

That wasn't a reference to 100% turnout, it was a reference to "100% of those who said they'd vote" turnout.

It was comment back on something about yougov polling - which is taking the word of youngsters about whether they'll vote as much more true than other pollsters.

That claim puts it about the same as for older voters, as it has done in the past - tho where the turnout has been about 2/3rds of that claim.

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:

I realise this, but the Mail On Sunday poll predicts a 1% lead, and the Mirror a 12% lead both for the Tories, those suggesting a lead under 4% are, by my calculation, are predicting a hung parliament going by the graphic that's 8 different published polls over the weekend.

I read some comment somewhere about that MoS poll - and which said it had been mis-used to scare Mail readership into voting tory. Not sure if that's true or not, but might be.

But even the yougov one at 4% is claiming a huge range of possible outcomes (with the main one that's displayed the middle number) - which only really shows how little they trust their own constituency polling. If it was half decent they wouldn't have such a big range in possible outcomes.

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

We can only guess at such things, and i don't think they're of much importance. What i'm wanting to avoid are narratives that are used to to try and keep Corbyn in position if he loses seats.

One way to have avoided that was not to make out that was utterly unelectable and in any general election would see an inevitable Tory landslide. Which you were clearly wrong about. He's done far, far better than you ever thought possible. I accept it's my vote and my responsibility that Corbyn is running for election right now. And my vote will be to replace him if there's anything less than a hung Parliament (and still even then most likely). But if that narrative you suggest is picked up, it'll also be the responsibility of people like you, who set the bar so damn low for him that failure starts to look like victory. 

(I'm of the fairly fundamental belief that a leader who loses seats in an election needs to go and have said that from the start, although I am now starting to wonder if that's even the right move. If Corbyn were to carry on following a similar performance to Milliband, The ongoing "unelectable" media coverage of him as a joke would seemingly have to end. He'd have demonstrated credibility and in general the electorate seemed to have warmed to him a little over the past month. Which is going to be a fairly strong position compared to anyone else who might replace him - we've not exactly seen any other rising lights in Labour in this election, from either side of the party. I worry whoever replaces him will have to go through their two years of press drubbings and leadership challenges regardless of which side of the party they come from... and maybe Corbyn would be not-shit if he had a party that was behind him and a shadow cabinet that could have representation from across the party without a desire to go after him... but then a leader just shouldn't stay on after a loss...)

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

The end success or failure of Corbyn's leadership should be judged on winning or losing first, then followed by the amount of seats. Vote % shouldn't really come into it anywhere near as much - smart election campaigns target seats rather than racking up pointless votes in safe seats. 

Yup.

And despite all I've said, if he wins he deserves the chance to follow thru - but only if people are prepared to hold him to account. If he's still backed by free passers who'll excuse anything it's no good for anyone.

[DeanoL]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That wasn't a reference to 100% turnout, it was a reference to "100% of those who said they'd vote" turnout.

It was comment back on something about yougov polling - which is taking the word of youngsters about whether they'll vote as much more true than other pollsters.

Yes. They're also taking the word of old people about whether they'll vote as true too. And of middle-aged people. And of gay people. And of black people. They're taking everyone at their work about how likely they are to vote.

Those figures are always higher than actual voting numbers. For every demographic. But it didn't used to matter because (for example) 80% of old people who said they'd vote would and 80% of young people who said they'd vote would too. The last few votes, that figure has been noticeably lower for young people. Whether that's specific circumstances or a trend is something the pollsters disagree on. But the YouGov polls don't need 100% of young people who said they would vote to turnout. They just need it to be in broadly in the same proportion as everyone else. That's a much smaller hill to climb, and is indeed what used to happen (hence why the "take everyone at their word" methodology was adopted by everyone in the first place - until recently it worked).

(Note that this is proportion of people who say they will vote that do - not overall proportion of a demographic that votes, which has historically been lower for young people. It's just only recently they've started lying about it)

Also as far as I'm aware, YouGov are the only company even still asking the question on voter intent. Actually saying "How likely are you to vote on a scale of 1-5?". The other companies are not asking the question and then adjusting, but instead using demographic models to weight how likely a person is to vote based on the last few votes. They're not measuring intent at all, they're assuming it will line-up with 2015 and Brexit. So if there is a fundamental difference in youth voting intentions this campaign, they'll have missed it.

[arcade fireman]

The current YouGov seat projection has for the first time suggested a hung Parliament where the Tories couldn't form a working majority - they have them on 305 seats.

I don't believe it at all but it's extraordinary to see a reputable polling company invest so much into something which looks so far off. Still, we could be proven wrong...