Are the opinion polls wrong again???

[Tony Otim]

Can I suggest another alternative - there is a surge, but the starting point in the polls was probably wrong, so the polls are probably still wrong.

All the polls are really showing the same direction of travel, so I think it's highly likely there has been an increase in the Laboutr support and for understandable reasons (May's having a disastrous campaign from any objective viewpoint). Whether any of the polls has the level of Labour and Tory support right (and there's still a bit of a range on the Tory lead) is another question. And whether that will still be the case when people actually vote next week, we shall see.

[Sibboleth]

Anyone bleating about UNSKEWING the polls and muttering darkly about conspiracies is a brainless ultra-partisan idiot. There's also absolutely no question, none whatsoever, that Labour support has ticked up sharply during the campaign (and this very obviously isn't just due to young people either). The question is how much? And to this we don't really know and won't for another week.

[greenchristian]

Jun 1, 2017 15:41:14 GMT ntyuk1707 said:

Is the recent surge in support for Labour recorded in the opinion polls real, or are the pollsters wrong again?

It's being tossed around that a significant proportion of young people have registered with polling companies since the announcement of Labour's manifesto, and that this is skewing polling figures. Any truth to these claims? 

It's also being tossed around that a significant proportion of young people have registered to vote at the last minute, so if this was affecting the polls it could plausibly be seen as a reflection of changes to the electorate. However, if the pollsters are getting more young responders than they normally do, then those responders will almost certainly be weighted down, rather than making a big difference to the headline figure.

All we can say with any degree of confidence right now is that the campaign has significantly boosted Labour's support. Whether the pollsters are overstating it or understating it ultimately depends on who actually turns out to vote, and how well the pollsters have guessed the demographic of actual voters.

[Sibboleth]

Even the polling firms who are aggressively weighting down higher responses from young voters show a substantial Labour increase during the campaign.

[cogload]

Come back next Thursday at around 22:15.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

Labour's least positive polls are ones in which turnout by age group is weighted based on 2015 figures. That is the pollsters assume 2017 turnout will copy 2015 turnout. Perhaps that might happen, but what happens if you do the same exercise but weigh based on the referendum. How does that change things?

[thetop]

Informative article from YouGov. Chopped down to say:-

For once, however, the difference in the polls in this election is easy to understand – it is almost wholly to do with how pollsters treat turnout.

The reason the polls got the 2015 election wrong was down to sampling, particularly among young people. The sort of young people who took part in polls were too engaged and too likely to vote, meaning polls ended up with too many young people voting. Polling companies have taken different approaches to solving this, but they broadly fall into two categories. Some have tried to improve their samples to reduce the number of people who are very interested in politics. Others have changed their turnout models so that they assume the same low level of turnout among young people as happened in 2015.

[...]

Take our most recent poll. After we had weighted our sample, taken account of how likely people say they are to vote, and weighted down the answers of those people who didn’t vote last time, we were left with a sample that implies turnout of 51% among people under 25 and 75% among people aged 65+; a turnout gap of 24 points between young and old.

Looking at estimates from past elections from the House of Commons library, in 2015 the turnout gap between young and old was 35 points, in 2010 it was 23 points, in 2005 it was 36 points. In other words, we’re showing a smaller gap than in 2015, but similar to 2010 and not one that we think is totally unrealistic if Jeremy Corbyn has enthused younger people.

[jamie]

I think there has been a surge in Labour support and a smaller decline in Comservative support. However, I think the polling average will be a couple points too friendly to Labour as I think turnout, while better for Labour than 2015, won't be as high as many are predicting.

[Adrian]

Perhaps the title of this thread should be "Are *some* of the polls wrong again?" There's a lot of variation and some of the polls will be very close. As shown in the quote from Yougov, the weighting for young voters does seem to have been taken into account. I think the variation is more down to the Don't Knows. ICM, I believe, assumes a lot of them will vote Tory (if they vote at all). So do I. Voting Corbyn is perceived as risky. May may have stopped saying "strong and stable" but that's still the message behind the scenes, as Tories phone up waverers in marginals and pepper people with Facebook/Youtube ads.

[Sibboleth]

I think we can be quite, quite sure that Facebook/Youtube ads are an egregious waste of money. You'd have to have approximately zero understanding of how advertising works to assume otherwise, frankly. So it makes perfect sense that politicians think they're an excellent idea.

[albion]

Jun 1, 2017 17:18:03 GMT Sibboleth said:

I think we can be quite, quite sure that Facebook/Youtube ads are an egregious waste of money. You'd have to have approximately zero understanding of how advertising works to assume otherwise, frankly. So it makes perfect sense that politicians think they're an excellent idea.

You have just caused considerable confusion in the Rees Mogg household. Apart from their need to ask the 3rd under butler to explain Facebook, egregious has reversed its meaning since Tudor times.

[Adrian]

Jun 1, 2017 17:18:03 GMT Sibboleth said:

I think we can be quite, quite sure that Facebook/Youtube ads are an egregious waste of money. You'd have to have approximately zero understanding of how advertising works to assume otherwise, frankly. So it makes perfect sense that politicians think they're an excellent idea.

It's not politicians per se who are doing the advertising, it's their campaign gurus, who, I think we can be quite sure, understand how advertising works. Perhaps you'd care to explain why you know better than they do.

[Sibboleth]

I'm not convinced we can be sure that 'campaign gurus' know much about anything other than how to collect exorbitant salaries and commissions from politicians.

[Adrian]

Jun 1, 2017 18:18:59 GMT Sibboleth said:

I'm not convinced we can be sure that 'campaign gurus' know much about anything other than how to collect exorbitant salaries and commissions from politicians.

Good grief. The salaries may be huge, but I'm not having it that the Tories didn't get anything in return for the £3 million they paid to Crosby and Messina in 2015. Or perhaps you were predicting a Tory majority?

Here's a piece on the Tories' advertising this time: www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/conservative-election-adverts?utm_term=.sf7wBnkAe2#.dpev2MolwO

[Devil Wincarnate]

I wonder if the story of this election that will be lost beneath the main narrative will be the electorate's defragmentation.

[carlton43]

Jun 1, 2017 15:47:46 GMT Tony Otim said:

Can I suggest another alternative - there is a surge, but the starting point in the polls was probably wrong, so the polls are probably still wrong.

All the polls are really showing the same direction of travel, so I think it's highly likely there has been an increase in the Laboutr support and for understandable reasons (May's having a disastrous campaign from any objective viewpoint). Whether any of the polls has the level of Labour and Tory support right (and there's still a bit of a range on the Tory lead) is another question. And whether that will still be the case when people actually vote next week, we shall see.

No.

One can never suggest 'another' alternative.

There is only one alternative to anything at all.

[carlton43]

Jun 1, 2017 19:10:32 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

I wonder if the story of this election that will be lost beneath the main narrative will be the electorate's defragmentation.

I know that really from my computer. So I need a tad more explanation please.

[Devil Wincarnate]

Jun 1, 2017 20:49:49 GMT carlton43 said:

Jun 1, 2017 19:10:32 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

I wonder if the story of this election that will be lost beneath the main narrative will be the electorate's defragmentation.

I know that really from my computer. So I need a tad more explanation please.

A regression to the electorate voting for two parties with a small liberal grouping, a few nats, Ulster loons, pork barrelers and thugs, and little else of note.

[jamie]

Jun 1, 2017 21:28:32 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

A regression to the electorate voting for two parties with a small liberal grouping, a few nats, Ulster loons, pork barrelers and thugs, and little else of note.

Why have you listed the DUP twice? 

[Deleted]

Jun 1, 2017 22:51:37 GMT jamie said:

Jun 1, 2017 21:28:32 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

A regression to the electorate voting for two parties with a small liberal grouping, a few nats, Ulster loons, pork barrelers and thugs, and little else of note.

Why have you listed the DUP twice? 

I count three lots