Westminstenders: "They are ahead in the polls"

[RedToothBrush]

The nominations are in!

A reminder about polling...

... And its significance in this election.

In 2017 YouGov got it right. They did two types of poll. One was a general poll which was done on regional polling. Early versions of this during the campaign discounted the don't knows. Later ones guesstimated how the don't knows would vote. This polling turned out to be close to the result but not exact.

The other poll you Gov did was on a constituency level. It was right before the election and it proved to be the most accurate of all, until we saw John Curtice's exit poll (which was spot on).

This time around YouGov have just switched to a constituency version of their polling because its much more complex this time with various pacts in action. They will be promoting respondents on the basis of who is standing in their constituency.

I'm not aware of other pollsters and their methodology but YouGov is interesting because of how close they were to the result last time.

This time around we are also seeing the active use of polling to lead voters, rather than necessarily reflect it. The Lib Dems and Remain have done a lot in what they see as key marginals to aid their credibility as realistic challengers. It's a more sophisticated version of their infamous, 'Only the LDs can beat X here' barcharts of shame. But it's unlikely they will be the only ones to try and use the technique. They probably will just be a little more transparent about it.

John Curtice has gone on record as saying there are only two realistic outcomes for the election: A Tory Majority or a Hung Parliament.

For the Tories to win they need a significant lead in the polls. To be sure probably 10% lead because of the regionality and constituency anomalies. Anything less than 6 or 7 percentage ahead and it tips to a hung parliament. YouGov currently have them on 13pt lead... BUT that's without fully accounting for the 1/5 of voters who are currently undecided. Last time around those who decided at the last moment tipped heavily in favour of Labour rather than the Conservatives.

Who stays at home, or who spoils a ballot could have particular significance this time around as disenchanted voters are made up of a higher number of voters who do usually vote than usual and a broken tribalism. Thus making it more difficult to predict than ever before.

So be a bit wary of polls and what they show - and what they don't show...

Very disappointing reply to my e mail from the local independant
Hey ho

I have absolutely no plans to vote either Conservative or Labour so I shouldn’t really get caught up in their lies promises but it’s really taking its toll

The Conservatives plan to roll out their minimum wage proposals over 5 years, Labour from next year, including 16-17 year olds - I think I remember Jeremy Corbyn saying; "From Day One" if Labour are elected:

"A briefing note by the Institute of Fiscal Studies looked at Conservatives’ plans to raise the national living wage (NLW) to two-thirds of median earnings by 2024 and Labour’s proposals for a £10 minimum wage for everyone aged 16 and over from next year."

"Under Conservative plans, the NLW would increase to an estimated £10.39.This is around 7% higher than expected under current policy (60% of median earnings) for those aged 25 and over and 16% higher for 21- to 24-year-olds."

"Labour’s £10-for-all proposition represents a 17% increase on current plans for those aged 25 and over, a 26% increase for 21-to 24-year-olds, a 58% increase for 18- to 20-year-olds and, for 16-and 17-year-olds, a mammoth 123% hike."

They put it more eloquently than me - but that’s the point, the huge hike in the pay for teenagers, the vast majority of whom will be living at home. Following that through there will be fewer jobs available for that age group and I doubt there are going to be magically more college / university places to take them all in

Laura Pidcock
@LauraPidcockMP
·
2m
Those who raise the cost of bringing our vital services & assets into public ownership, often miss completely the cost of them staying in private hands - both in terms of the inefficiency of the market & the way much of the country is left behind.

Sudden hikes for teenagers are liable to result in less opportunities for you people tbh.

The lower rates as a teenage allow for getting experience when you have none.

The change makes it better for people like me going back to work for some reason who do have some experience and then aren't getting under cut by teenagers.

But overall there will be less jobs simply because businesses particularly smaller ones will struggle to adjust over night without also hiking prices suddenly.

Whilst in principle I think putting up the minimum wage for everyone isn't a bad thing, I do question the wisdom of sudden large hikes because they are liable to cause a shock to the system.

I got the ONS figures originally from the Sun's Tom Newton Dunn, which is certainly NOT a Labour source

The ONS figures are clearly incorrect (no idea to what extent though) - Johnathan Portes wrote this in the Guardian yesterday;

"The Conservatives’ migration numbers can easily be dismissed–in fact, they couldn’t even be bothered to get the current levels of migration right, ignoring the latest official Office for National Statistics projections."

Johnathan Portes is very much in favour of EU immigration, but he obviously disagrees with the stats.

Aug 2019:
"The Office for National Statistics said that in the year to March 2016 -the most recent data it had looked at-it believed net EU immigration was 16% higher than it had previously published, while non-EU immigration was 13% lower."

"Similar errors had occurred in previous years, it added."

"The main body regulating British statistics said the ONS’s quarterly immigration data no longer met the highest standards, and backed its decision to reclassify the numbers as ‘experimental’ until they were improved."

“ONS now believes net migration from the EU over the 2009-16 period was about 240,000 higher than originally estimated, while non-EU migration was over-estimated by about 170,000, Jonathan Portes, a professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London, said."

www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-immigration/uk-miscounted-eu-other-immigrants-before-brexit-vote-idUSKCN1VB20Z

EU approves state aid for €3bn National Broadband Plan jrnl.ie/4892952 see what can happen when your government is sensible?

The 'immigrant' video if you havent seen it yet

Jeremy Corbyn
@jeremycorbyn
· 23h
When politicians resort to blaming immigrants, you know they've run out of ideas.

twitter.com/i/status/1195042683565301761

Dont think youd see Johnson doing this sort of thing

twitter.com/i/status/1195324686265200642

Just catching up.

Can anyone explain how British Broadband is remotely viable?

This is what I despise about Labour - they constantly come out with headline grabbing ideas which cannot possibly happen in practice.

Like "get brexit done"??

You "despise" Labour?? Because of a broadband idea?

What do you feel about the soaring levels of young homelessness?

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/15/thousands-of-young-people-face-homeless-christmas-charity-says

The immigrant video is funny. It made me laugh out loud and I don’t often do that sadly.

I’m surprised and impressed. Simple (much funnier than BJ’s tea advert) explanation for all those who’ve somehow not spotted the Tory tactics.

Are Clarinova and Cendrillon dueting now? I used to think you never saw them together on the same timeline.
Scroll scroll scroll...

You "despise" Labour?? Because of a broadband idea?

No, I despise Labour for their ridiculous headline grabbing gimmicks, one of which is the broadband idea.

What is the point?

It’s simply not viable

And the soaring levels of young homelessness? How do you feel about that / what do you want to do about that?

‘What is the point’

No you’re right. Much better to not bother with any ideas at all and just let the country go to shit. That’s far more preferable.

Going back to the homelessness point - Why would you be happy to provide everyone with free broadband, even those who can more than afford to pay for it?

Where on earth people think the money for this comes from?

Why don’t they see that paying for everyone’s broadband means there’s less money for homeless people etc?

No you’re right. Much better to not bother with any ideas at all and just let the country go to shit. That’s far more preferable.

FFS - free broadband is not a priority

Trussell trust state of hunger report 2019

Foodbank use has gone up

3082%

Yes you read that correctly...

3082% since 2010.

Why don’t they see that paying for everyone’s broadband means there’s less money for homeless people etc?

Economies dont work like that

I'm far too angry for this thread tonight - I assume the poster above is not a real person, I won't engage any more
Work is absolute carnage
Lots of deaths
Two doctors crying on me today, one young female one older male
Here's the email for A&E vacancies first week of december, please could I work some ?

Economies dont work like that

I think you’ll find they do - it’s no different in reality to a household income.

It’s pretty simple - what governments spend on one thing can’t be spent on another.

Free broadband is available in thousands of places - that is being paid for by the private providers - it’s simply not a priority.