J. L. Partners

[Jack]

Seems like a new pollster is here:

[manchesterman]

Buyer's remorse

Cue "If I could turn back time"...

[andrewp]

500 people across 45 seats. I wonder if they polled at least 1 person in each seat.

That 7.5% swing since the GE is about 2% higher than the national swing on the current polls, I’m surprised it’s not a bit more if one believes the narrative that Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn were the issues that caused the red wall to fall,

[michael2019]

The Channel 4 News report on it is at



and the figures for those not in the tweet are:

Plaid Cymru 1% (Delyn was one of the seats polled)
Another party (other than Lab, Con, LD, PC) 8%

A key finding is
Do think Johnson is doing well as PM?
Net well (Well or very well) 46%
Net badly (Badly or very badly) 49%
Don't know 5%

Do think Starmer is doing well as leader of the Labour party?
Net well 49%
Net badly 33%
Don't know 18%

As people people can see from their website JL Partners founders included Theresa May's polling advisor and started public polling in October 2019 but I am not aware of any of them including national voting intention figures.

They are members of the BPC.

[johng]

They've done a few polls. No national poll numbers though.

They seem to do a lot of issue polling.
The was one in September on the 2021 election and independence in Scotland. Figures were in line with other pollsters.
They also did a poll of the US for the presidential election. It's fair to say they embarrassed themselves a bit with their numbers. Biden was spot on, but Trump was +6 on their numbers.

[tonygreaves]

Rubbish poll. 500 is no good. 500 across ten seats is even more no good. But if it helps to stir up bother in the Tories, why should we complain?

[tonygreaves]

Is J L John Loony?

[hullenedge]

[Arthur Figgis]

Is that what they’re doing now they’re closing lots of department stores?

[iainbhx]

Mar 30, 2021 21:59:44 GMT Arthur Figgis said:

Is that what they’re doing now they’re closing lots of department stores?

Never knowingly underpolled.

[hullenedge]

[Pete Whitehead]

I was trying to find details of the MRP survey, the Daily Mail site as usual is unreadable. Actually in a way thats quite reassuring. That is a 1997/2001 level of Labour lead but results in only a 14 seat majority (and that can't be even nearly accounted for solely by the changed situation in Scotland) - more Conservative seats than in 2005 when they were only 2% behind in the popular vote.

[iainbhx]

Feb 27, 2022 7:41:41 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

I was trying to find details of the MRP survey, the Daily Mail site as usual is unreadable. Actually in a way thats quite reassuring. That is a 1997/2001 level of Labour lead but results in only a 14 seat majority (and that can't be even nearly accounted for solely by the changed situation in Scotland) - more Conservative seats than in 2005 when they were only 2% behind in the popular vote.

Seems like a small sample size for MRP.

Conservative vote is better distributed than the Labour vote, which wasn't the case in 1997/2001.

[Pete Whitehead]

Feb 27, 2022 8:01:55 GMT iainbhx said:

Feb 27, 2022 7:41:41 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

I was trying to find details of the MRP survey, the Daily Mail site as usual is unreadable. Actually in a way thats quite reassuring. That is a 1997/2001 level of Labour lead but results in only a 14 seat majority (and that can't be even nearly accounted for solely by the changed situation in Scotland) - more Conservative seats than in 2005 when they were only 2% behind in the popular vote.

Seems like a small sample size for MRP.

Conservative vote is better distributed than the Labour vote, which wasn't the case in 1997/2001.

Yes and especially 2005

[batman]

Feb 27, 2022 7:41:41 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

I was trying to find details of the MRP survey, the Daily Mail site as usual is unreadable. Actually in a way thats quite reassuring. That is a 1997/2001 level of Labour lead but results in only a 14 seat majority (and that can't be even nearly accounted for solely by the changed situation in Scotland) - more Conservative seats than in 2005 when they were only 2% behind in the popular vote.

Well if Labour were to win 352 seats that would be an overall majority of 54, not 14, officially. And if we assume that Sinn Fein have 7 seats  the effective majority would be 61. Either the number of Labour seats or the majority figure is wrong.

[The Bishop]

And as I have said before, a big Labour lead in the PV next time will almost certainly mean differential swing in their favour.

[andrewp]

Feb 27, 2022 8:55:36 GMT batman said:

Feb 27, 2022 7:41:41 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

I was trying to find details of the MRP survey, the Daily Mail site as usual is unreadable. Actually in a way thats quite reassuring. That is a 1997/2001 level of Labour lead but results in only a 14 seat majority (and that can't be even nearly accounted for solely by the changed situation in Scotland) - more Conservative seats than in 2005 when they were only 2% behind in the popular vote.

Well if Labour were to win 352 seats that would be an overall majority of 54, not 14, officially. And if we assume that Sinn Fein have 7 seats  the effective majority would be 61. Either the number of Labour seats or the majority figure is wrong.

Tim Shipman reports on the poll in the Sunday times today and repeats the 352 and majority of 14 mistake.

It also says Boris Johnson has a majority of 5000 in Uxbridge

It also says that Labour would gain Wyre and Preston North and Berwick Upon Tweed but that Esher and Walton would be a Conservative hold. A very odd combination.

[YL]

Here's a map posted by James Johnson of JL Partners on Twitter showing the seats they have as changing hands:



The thread starts with this:

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Some of those seat changes and Labour gains are nuts. Ribble Valley? Montgomeryshire? Hazel Grove?

[manchesterman]

I stopped looking after O & S!

Nonsense.