jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,858
|
YouGov
Jun 10, 2022 0:46:30 GMT
Post by jamie on Jun 10, 2022 0:46:30 GMT
A ‘clarification’ has been posted:
|
|
aargauer
Forum Regular
Posts: 4,733
Member is Online
|
YouGov
Jun 10, 2022 2:31:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by aargauer on Jun 10, 2022 2:31:28 GMT
I think the bigger question here isn't Zahawi per se related (I buy his story), but rather whether having politicos like Shakespeare and previously Zahawi rather than apolitical business people at the top of a polling company is healthy in terms of political polling - I suspect not and that theres always an element of conflict of interest in terms of attempting to craft a narrative with polling in a campaign rather than the narrative informing the polling. Even if it's not fully intentional.
On a side note, I will never understand the 2017 vs 2019 election. I just can't understand why (moderate) people ran with Corbyn in 2017 and only saw him as an unelectably hard left candidate in 2019. After all, the man hasn't changed in 40 years. Mays trouble with brexit also hadn't really began by that point.
I have numerous non political friends who aren't particularly left wing who went labour in 2017 and liberal or Tory in 2019 - and I just don't get it. Perhaps I'm making the same mistake yougov bosses made in pulling polling by projecting my own prejudices onto the electorate, but it was a genuinely weird election. Corbyn was seen as extreme only weeks earlier, and was again seen as extreme by the 2018 locals where he was an obvious drag on the labour vote in London. He wasn't miles off labours vote tally in 1997, which I just can't understand.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jun 10, 2022 2:54:23 GMT
I think the bigger question here isn't Zahawi per se related (I buy his story), but rather whether having politicos like Shakespeare and previously Zahawi rather than apolitical business people at the top of a polling company is healthy in terms of political polling - I suspect not and that theres always an element of conflict of interest in terms of attempting to craft a narrative with polling in a campaign rather than the narrative informing the polling. Even if it's not fully intentional. On a side note, I will never understand the 2017 vs 2019 election. I just can't understand why (moderate) people ran with Corbyn in 2017 and only saw him as an unelectably hard left candidate in 2019. After all, the man hasn't changed in 40 years. Mays trouble with brexit also hadn't really began by that point. I have numerous non political friends who aren't particularly left wing who went labour in 2017 and liberal or Tory in 2019 - and I just don't get it. Perhaps I'm making the same mistake yougov bosses made in pulling polling by projecting my own prejudices onto the electorate, but it was a weird election. I agree with your point about political people atop of polling companies; I guess that’s why the British Polling Council exists - I note after their 2019 debacle Australian polling companies founded their equivalent, and one company (Angus Reid?) has refused to join, so independent aggregators like William Bowe refused to include their polls in his data tables. 2017 - I think you maybe give people a little too much credit for knowing Corbyn’s backstory, and he appeared the slightly eccentric but harmless old uncle who rocks up at Christmas, and a little like Major in 1892, people were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, but by 2019 the antisemitism etc had taken the gloss off, and people just saw him as nasty - he may have benefited from the short Parliament in that most of the 2017 policies were Ed M’s which, in hindsight were not looking so terrible and got an easier ride off the media. Although things relating to Brexit were going to get much worse for May after 2017, there was still little to no chance she was going to reverse course, and I think Remain voters took a chance that Corbyn, possibly needing LD/SNP support, would, but by 2019 they had lumped him in the same Leave basket as Johnson. And don’t forget just what a godawful campaign May ran, especially the “dementia tax”, which drove even some normally loyal Tories to tactical voting/staying at home, a mistake Johnson didn’t repeat.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jun 10, 2022 6:06:23 GMT
Post by matureleft on Jun 10, 2022 6:06:23 GMT
I think the bigger question here isn't Zahawi per se related (I buy his story), but rather whether having politicos like Shakespeare and previously Zahawi rather than apolitical business people at the top of a polling company is healthy in terms of political polling - I suspect not and that theres always an element of conflict of interest in terms of attempting to craft a narrative with polling in a campaign rather than the narrative informing the polling. Even if it's not fully intentional. On a side note, I will never understand the 2017 vs 2019 election. I just can't understand why (moderate) people ran with Corbyn in 2017 and only saw him as an unelectably hard left candidate in 2019. After all, the man hasn't changed in 40 years. Mays trouble with brexit also hadn't really began by that point. I have numerous non political friends who aren't particularly left wing who went labour in 2017 and liberal or Tory in 2019 - and I just don't get it. Perhaps I'm making the same mistake yougov bosses made in pulling polling by projecting my own prejudices onto the electorate, but it was a genuinely weird election. Corbyn was seen as extreme only weeks earlier, and was again seen as extreme by the 2018 locals where he was an obvious drag on the labour vote in London. He wasn't miles off labours vote tally in 1997, which I just can't understand. The Tories ran a really poor campaign. It was anyway, in many voters' minds, an unnecessary election - May had a working majority and the 2015 election was fairly recent. I don't put as much weight as many on the quasi-presidential obsession with leaders. But even so Corbyn ran a decent campaign. He came across as a reasonably intelligent, calm individual who coped well with the pressures of the campaign. His Paxman appearance was a model of how to deflate a self-important, aggressive interviewer. And he maxed on the gentle rebel image on Iraq and Ireland. The Tory media campaign hadn't found its gears and appeared hysterical to many. (So he talked to Sinn Fein? So did everyone else eventually.) The anti-Semitism critique was largely absent. The Labour manifesto was fairly mild and credible. Brexit remained a commitment (of a kind). The better question is how did Labour (and Corbyn played a major part) manage so thoroughly to mess up the opportunities granted by 2017? Better party management and co-working should have produced a softer Brexit even with May's partisan stupidity. And the self-inflicted intra-party wounding (that appeared to be the main purpose of a large part of the party) was appalling.
|
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 8,871
Member is Online
|
YouGov
Jun 10, 2022 6:33:05 GMT
Post by batman on Jun 10, 2022 6:33:05 GMT
I think the bigger question here isn't Zahawi per se related (I buy his story), but rather whether having politicos like Shakespeare and previously Zahawi rather than apolitical business people at the top of a polling company is healthy in terms of political polling - I suspect not and that theres always an element of conflict of interest in terms of attempting to craft a narrative with polling in a campaign rather than the narrative informing the polling. Even if it's not fully intentional. On a side note, I will never understand the 2017 vs 2019 election. I just can't understand why (moderate) people ran with Corbyn in 2017 and only saw him as an unelectably hard left candidate in 2019. After all, the man hasn't changed in 40 years. Mays trouble with brexit also hadn't really began by that point. I have numerous non political friends who aren't particularly left wing who went labour in 2017 and liberal or Tory in 2019 - and I just don't get it. Perhaps I'm making the same mistake yougov bosses made in pulling polling by projecting my own prejudices onto the electorate, but it was a genuinely weird election. Corbyn was seen as extreme only weeks earlier, and was again seen as extreme by the 2018 locals where he was an obvious drag on the labour vote in London. He wasn't miles off labours vote tally in 1997, which I just can't understand. The Tories ran a really poor campaign. It was anyway, in many voters' minds, an unnecessary election - May had a working majority and the 2015 election was fairly recent. I don't put as much weight as many on the quasi-presidential obsession with leaders. But even so Corbyn ran a decent campaign. He came across as a reasonably intelligent, calm individual who coped well with the pressures of the campaign. His Paxman appearance was a model of how to deflate a self-important, aggressive interviewer. And he maxed on the gentle rebel image on Iraq and Ireland. The Tory media campaign hadn't found its gears and appeared hysterical to many. (So he talked to Sinn Fein? So did everyone else eventually.) The anti-Semitism critique was largely absent. The Labour manifesto was fairly mild and credible. Brexit remained a commitment (of a kind). The better question is how did Labour (and Corbyn played a major part) manage so thoroughly to mess up the opportunities granted by 2017? Better party management and co-working should have produced a softer Brexit even with May's partisan stupidity. And the self-inflicted intra-party wounding (that appeared to be the main purpose of a large part of the party) was appalling. antisemitism was not seen as anything like as major a Labour problem in 2017 as it was in 2019. Even the JLM leadership were relatively accepting of Corbyn's leadership in 2017, for example both Jeremy Newmark & Mike Katz stood in winnable seats (both narrowly losing), and Corbyn had of course also decisively seen off Owen Smith's challenge the year before which led to a period of relative peace in the party; the apple cart was upset more or less only by John Woodcock, and to a lesser extent Joan Ryan, with other right-wing figures generally saying that the leadership question was settled. I myself didn't find antisemitism anything like as serious a problem in 2017 as it had become two years later, and campaigned very hard indeed, which I didn't feel able to do at all in 2019. Even Chris Williamson had only just started to cause concern, with other left-wing figures generally being regarded as nothing like beyond the pale by any but a very small minority of Party members.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jun 10, 2022 7:46:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by mattbewilson on Jun 10, 2022 7:46:07 GMT
I think I've said this before but I've never bought the argument that people's views of Corbyn were any different from 2017 to 2019. Certainly no evidence in polling of that. In both elections almost everyone had an opinion on Corbyn. In both elections it was a negative opinion. With at most 20% approval and at least 60% disapproval. In both elections his approval ratings improved during the campaign.
If you were pick any differences in the data between both elections, it's worth mentioning in some polls Corbyns disapproval in 2019 was above 70% which it wasn't in 2017. In 2017 there was a swing in approval of about 20% during the campaign. Whereas at best there was maybe at 10% swing in 2019. So you could possibly say there were more people who disapproved of Corbyn and he won fewer of them over.
There were certainly a number of MPs and staffers who believed 2017 would be the end of Corbyn and just needed to hold their seats so kept their head down. Anti semitism appeared, much like a lot of issues, to be better dealt with. Wreathgate was first mentioned during 2017 but it didn't become a story like it did a year later.
As for the manifestos. There's this line. Left wing policies poll well but people won't vote for them. 2017 became the exception because we gained 30 seats and 2019 became the rule because we lost 60. But 2017 wasn't an amazing manifesto and 2019 wasn't an awful one. Worth mentioning that the government keep pinching policies from 2019 one like free broadband
|
|
gibbon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 221
Member is Online
|
Post by gibbon on Jun 10, 2022 9:12:47 GMT
In 2017 the Conservatives ran an appalling campaign and lost votes on the issue of funding social care. As Brenda from Bristol commented 'What another one'. Very few people were keen on an election for no purpose.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,607
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 10, 2022 10:04:57 GMT
The better question is how did Labour (and Corbyn played a major part) manage so thoroughly to mess up the opportunities granted by 2017? Better party management and co-working should have produced a softer Brexit even with May's partisan stupidity. And the self-inflicted intra-party wounding (that appeared to be the main purpose of a large part of the party) was appalling Its an incredibly easy thing to say with hindsight (though a few people, including some on the Labour left, did do so at at the time) but after his *relative* triumph in 2017 Corbyn should have been looking to hand over the leadership in the following few years. However to most on his wing that was "verboten" due to the fear (sometimes expressed explicitly) that the right would "take the party back" in any leadership campaign. That so many of them ended up backing the not just unsuitable in other respects, but far too young and untested, Laura Pidcock as his successor really did say it all.
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jun 10, 2022 10:20:41 GMT
I think people underestimate the "horse race" effect in 2017, with "plucky underdog" Corbyn coming up on the rails. Labour were really the only alternative to the Tories, and many Remainers (including both my children) reckoned Labour were the only hope of stopping May's hard Brexit with her red line on the Single Market.
In 2019 the Lib Dems had a lot more credibility, the Tory vote was not so very different from 2019, but the opposition voters had more choice. (of course our hapless leader threw our campaign in the bin.. But still we got a lot more votes than 2017)
|
|
|
Post by wysall on Jun 10, 2022 11:27:51 GMT
I think people underestimate the "horse race" effect in 2017, with "plucky underdog" Corbyn coming up on the rails. Labour were really the only alternative to the Tories, and many Remainers (including both my children) reckoned Labour were the only hope of stopping May's hard Brexit with her red line on the Single Market. In 2019 the Lib Dems had a lot more credibility, the Tory vote was not so very different from 2019, but the opposition voters had more choice. (of course our hapless leader threw our campaign in the bin.. But still we got a lot more votes than 2017) I've heard this a lot, but particularly in its form as the explanation for why Labour did so well in no-hope Southern seats I can't say I've ever bought it.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jun 10, 2022 11:56:33 GMT
via mobile
Post by mattbewilson on Jun 10, 2022 11:56:33 GMT
The better question is how did Labour (and Corbyn played a major part) manage so thoroughly to mess up the opportunities granted by 2017? Better party management and co-working should have produced a softer Brexit even with May's partisan stupidity. And the self-inflicted intra-party wounding (that appeared to be the main purpose of a large part of the party) was appalling Its an incredibly easy thing to say with hindsight (though a few people, including some on the Labour left, did do so at at the time) but after his *relative* triumph in 2017 Corbyn should have been looking to hand over the leadership in the following few years. However to most on his wing that was "verboten" due to the fear (sometimes expressed explicitly) that the right would "take the party back" in any leadership campaign. That so many of them ended up backing the not just unsuitable in other respects, but far too young and untested, Laura Pidcock as his successor really did say it all. the thing is like you say it's easy to say with hindsight. I remember reading an article by Polly Toynbee in 2017 that Corbyn had won the right to do things his way. I think I remember Mandelson or someone saying that while he disagreed with Corbyn on policy, Corbyn proved he could win from the left. Blair said something similar about the argument no longer being could the left win but should they. McTernan even joined momentum. It was a different world where even the moderates has ceded to Corbyn. I do actually think Corbyn would have stood down before the next election but was hoping for more time for a successor like you mention. I believe there were internal polls and focus groups on shadow cabinet members who might take over
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jun 10, 2022 17:05:09 GMT
I think people underestimate the "horse race" effect in 2017, with "plucky underdog" Corbyn coming up on the rails. Labour were really the only alternative to the Tories, and many Remainers (including both my children) reckoned Labour were the only hope of stopping May's hard Brexit with her red line on the Single Market. In 2019 the Lib Dems had a lot more credibility, the Tory vote was not so very different from 2019, but the opposition voters had more choice. (of course our hapless leader threw our campaign in the bin.. But still we got a lot more votes than 2017) I've heard this a lot, but particularly in its form as the explanation for why Labour did so well in no-hope Southern seats I can't say I've ever bought it. I call it "national tactical voting" People ignore the local situation and just vote on national issues. Lib Dem members in Huddersfield told me they were doing it to "stop May". Part of it was the assumption that all ukip votes would go Tory, which did look like it was happening in the first week of the campaign.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jun 10, 2022 20:35:31 GMT
Post by redtony on Jun 10, 2022 20:35:31 GMT
THe fifference betwen 20m17 and 2019 was the EU In 2017 Labour acceptong that we had to leave AS SOON ASP cORBYN WAS CAME OVER AS ANTI eu iN 2019 lABOUR WAS TOTALLY SPLIT ON the EU including the Left and the leadership with corbyn aupporting another referemdum
|
|
clyde1998
SNP
Green (E&W) member; SNP supporter
Posts: 1,765
|
Post by clyde1998 on Jun 18, 2022 7:11:00 GMT
|
|
aargauer
Forum Regular
Posts: 4,733
Member is Online
|
Post by aargauer on Jun 18, 2022 8:19:13 GMT
Its an incredibly easy thing to say with hindsight (though a few people, including some on the Labour left, did do so at at the time) but after his *relative* triumph in 2017 Corbyn should have been looking to hand over the leadership in the following few years. However to most on his wing that was "verboten" due to the fear (sometimes expressed explicitly) that the right would "take the party back" in any leadership campaign. That so many of them ended up backing the not just unsuitable in other respects, but far too young and untested, Laura Pidcock as his successor really did say it all. the thing is like you say it's easy to say with hindsight. I remember reading an article by Polly Toynbee in 2017 that Corbyn had won the right to do things his way. I think I remember Mandelson or someone saying that while he disagreed with Corbyn on policy, Corbyn proved he could win from the left. Blair said something similar about the argument no longer being could the left win but should they. McTernan even joined momentum. It was a different world where even the moderates has ceded to Corbyn. I do actually think Corbyn would have stood down before the next election but was hoping for more time for a successor like you mention. I believe there were internal polls and focus groups on shadow cabinet members who might take over I wonder if Labour have learnt their lesson about not keeping a leader after they have lost an election.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,607
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 18, 2022 8:53:12 GMT
But of course Miliband resigned the day after losing one, and we got told that was bad as well.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jun 18, 2022 8:59:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by mattbewilson on Jun 18, 2022 8:59:53 GMT
I agree with Bishop. Leaders should stay after they lost. If we changed leader after every election we lost it be revolving door like Scottish Labour. People wouldn't know who are leader is most the time.
Ramsey McDonald didn't resign, Attlee didn't resign, nor did Churchill, Gaitskill, Wilson, Heath, etc.
|
|
aargauer
Forum Regular
Posts: 4,733
Member is Online
|
YouGov
Jun 18, 2022 9:05:58 GMT
via mobile
Post by aargauer on Jun 18, 2022 9:05:58 GMT
But of course Miliband resigned the day after losing one, and we got told that was bad as well. That wasn't his mistake! Changing the internal selection system was. I commend it in theory, but it cost you two elections (and helped get brexit through).
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,607
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 18, 2022 9:12:02 GMT
But of course Miliband resigned the day after losing one, and we got told that was bad as well. That wasn't his mistake! Changing the internal selection system was. I commend it in theory, but it cost you two elections (and helped get brexit through). Basically imposed on him by Blairites after the Falkirk controversy, they have now written this out of history but some of us haven't forgotten.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jun 18, 2022 9:23:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by mattbewilson on Jun 18, 2022 9:23:02 GMT
That wasn't his mistake! Changing the internal selection system was. I commend it in theory, but it cost you two elections (and helped get brexit through). Basically imposed on him by Blairites after the Falkirk controversy, they have now written this out of history but some of us haven't forgotten. the irony is in pretending it never happened that way has meant the 20% threshold that Labour right opposed in 2013 because they'd never get a candidate on the ballot has now passed.
|
|