UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem

[Leftbehind]

Seems well suited for UKIP.

I think it's much more likely that leaders get BETTER approval among their own supporters than leadership rivals.

Asking Conservatives about Theresa v Boris is like asking whether they prefer Mummy or the wicked stepmother who wants to take Mummy away.

If Boris Johnson were PM and Theresa May his main rival, I should expect those ratings to be reversed.

Boris' approval deficit between himself and May amongst Tory voters has doubled in the space of two months (even when her own support was also declining). His own incompetence has undoubtedly been the cause of it.

No doubt, but I remember not too long ago Theresa May was polling over 50 per cent in party vote intention.

Life moves pretty fast.

Largely because she was able to portray herself as the safe pair of hands in turbulent times (and that quickly evaporated once voters got to know her). Good luck convincing the public BoJo is that amidst Brexit.

But wasn't the 2017 campaign the most significant event in recent UK psephology? 10-15 point changes in vote intention during an election campaign telling us that opinion polls are mud as forecasting devices in anything but the shortest term imaginable, i.e. a week. So at the time of the next election, none of those numbers will matter.

Nothing can be ruled out, as previously said, but going into an election with the mindset that you'd need a turnaround like we seen in 2017 (helped by a unexpectedly strong Labour campaign and a largely disastrous Conservative one) will be advised by no-one.

It's probably a mistake to trust the polls much given their track record in previous UK elections.

YouGov's polling for their model was pretty damn accurate - the pollsters were rendered wildly out mostly due to their assumed turnout (didn't turnout in 2015 like people said they would; did turnout in 2017 when they were discounting the possibility of it). None of that impacts straight 'approve/disapprove' question, either.

[EPG]

In April, Corbyn polled poorly in Labour voters' approval, sometimes even net negative, while Theresa May led in overall net approval by over 50 points. So I'd trust no indicator over a horizon of more than three months.

[parochial boy]

In April, Corbyn polled poorly in Labour voters' approval, sometimes even net negative, while Theresa May led in overall net approval by over 50 points. So I'd trust no indicator over a horizon of more than three months.

That change happened because of the major disrupting factor of the General Election. There aren't really any significant events on the horizon that could even have such an impact. Arguably the ongoing Brexit negotiations, but we already know that the general public aren't interested or concerned enough about these for them to have much on an impact on anybody's view of anybody.

Another GE could pop up: but knowing what we know about Corbyn and May's respective abilities at campaigning, I don't see why either of those would have a major impact.

What happened last year happened precisely because May and Corbyn were both largely unknowns for the General Public (as in, the impression that the public had been through the prism of media reporting, and people hadn't been in a position where they had had an opportunity to judge either May or Corbyn on their actions). Whereas now; Corbyn, May and Bojo are all now well known figures, and people generally know what they are about.

Arguably, a David Davis or Jacob Rees Mogg are both more of an unknown factor, but, I would tend to say that both would only sink in terms of public approval. When May became PM, people who followed politics already knew of her track record of incompetence and general weakness, David Davis is that taken to the extreme.

[EPG]

If polls are reliable except for forecasting general elections, then they are not reliable.

Theresa May or Corbyn were not unknown to the public. They are, after all, the most high-profile politicians in a country where politics has been loud and vituperative since the Brexit campaign. Millions of people had opinions about them, then changed their minds. They may do so again, or not.

The last three elections since 2010 delivered governments that surprised most people, the last two even did so relative to beliefs on election night. For most of that time, Labour has been convinced it would form the next government, including now. Perhaps a more profound scepticism about forecasting confidence is in order.

[Blair]

If polls are reliable except for forecasting general elections, then they are not reliable.

Theresa May or Corbyn were not unknown to the public. They are, after all, the most high-profile politicians in a country where politics has been loud and vituperative since the Brexit campaign. Millions of people had opinions about them, then changed their minds. They may do so again, or not.

The last three elections since 2010 delivered governments that surprised most people, the last two even did so relative to beliefs on election night. For most of that time, Labour has been convinced it would form the next government, including now. Perhaps a more profound scepticism about forecasting confidence is in order.

Well actually they were. Theresa May had never even fought a leadership campaign; and Corbyn had spend his two leadership elections running against the press. It's certainly true that voters had perceptions of the leaders; but Labour's success was the ability to use a general election to announce tons of popular policies.

When I worked in May in the kitchen at the cafe, every hour on Radio 6 (a music focused station) you'd hear a policy announcement from Labour; free school meals, taxing private schools, abolishing NHS parking fees etc. Basically good, populist stuff. It's hard to explain; but during elections the Broadcast channels have to give fair, and equal coverage; which allowed Labour to get attacked every day by the Daily Mail, the Sun etc but still good coverage on the BBC.

However... Corbyn and May are both still unpopular leaders. Although at the start Corbyn was at something like -40, and May was at +45; they've just managed to meet in the middle. As people will know I'm about as anti-corbyn as is possible whilst still staying a member; but I still voted Labour in the election.

The problem with polling is that people expect it to predict results; it's simply a snapshot of current public opinion, scaled on different turnout levels, and models. Labours own internal polling had it Tories: 45, Labour: 33... whilst YouGov had it 42-40 on the last day of the campaign. There was a clear trend in the polling data that it was narrowing; there was just a lot of debate about what turnout was going to be, and who was going to turnout.

When you add a Referendum that changes all previous voting intentions, which adds a top new salient issue to the agenda, and combine it with both the Liberal Democrats and UKIP dropping off (Meaning that there's about 20% of the electorate floating around) combined with voters affected by either the Scottish or EU referendum; you get a complicated mess.

There's a reason why say seat polling was much much easier in 2005

[IceAgeComing]

There's a difference between topline voting intention and the opinions of the public though.  The issue with the voting intention thing is that, well, people tend to say that they are more likely to vote than they actually are and that tends to make polling elections very difficult.  To use the last two elections as an example: in 2015 they thought that a lot more younger people would vote than actually did while in 2017 the polls that missed by miles assumed a 2015 turnout pattern while those that didn't miss (Survation was the big one again; if only because they hadn't changed their methodology a whole lot since 2015 after they got close then as well which meant they weren't doing dodgy things like weighting the votes of younger people down arbitrarily) picked up on the fact that young people were more likely to vote in 2017.  It does leave a lot of questions on the table for the polling industry about how they should do the topline intentions stuff - yougov's model was very good and perhaps that's the future for election-time polling, I don't know.

For questions that aren't voting related though that's less of a factor since the likelihood of a person to turnout doesn't affect their opinion of the government.  Those questions aren't seeking only the opinions of those who vote but also the public at large who might be less likely to vote as that's the more useful data.

You're overestimating the amount that normal people follow politics.  Like I'll use the example of my Mum: she pays attention to the news a little bit and knows what's going on in the world but doesn't exactly follow it overly closely and had a rather negative view of Corbyn - although not a strong dislike; I think that she was just hearing the negative stuff on the BBC and parroting it a bit.  However when the election was called she paid a lot more attention to the news and what the people were saying and now she's a lot more positive on Corbyn: indeed she's very much a fan now.  Part of this is the fact that during election time the broadcast media rules on news and impartiality are a lot stricter so she was getting a much more balanced position when she was paying attention closer and that changed her mind significantly.  From my experience that's the way that these things go: people who might swing around a bit (my Mum was Labour forever but voting Lib Dem in 2005 and SNP in 2015) might say in midterm periods that they'll vote a certain way but that is solidified during a campaign because people aren't really thinking about it until an election comes around.  So might people swing around a bit more?  In terms of voting intentions sure; although considering where we are in the life of the government the historical trend is that they'll go down pretty hard in the next few years.  In terms of how people perceive the leaders I don't think so: I think that people's opinions of the leaders were solidified greatly during the campaign and it'll take something significant happening to swing those figures dramatically.  I certainly don't see May's figures ever improving significantly: she was found out during the campaign and it'd take a lot to dramatically improve the public's opinion of her.  I think that Corbyn is a divisive figure and so I don't think that he'll ever be beloved, but nor do I see his numbers falling dramatically.

[Blair]

British Politics is basically very messy at the moment.

[EPG]

You don't get to +45 or -40 approval while being unknown. It's more credible that May and Corbyn were known, but people's opinions changed.

The uncomfortable implication for some people is that people's opinions might change again. That might mean all the cheering of Corbyn will be for a two-time loser to the Tories, who useless though we keep hearing they are, beat Corbyn by more than Cameron beat Brown.

[Leftbehind]

You don't get to +45 or -40 approval while being unknown. It's more credible that May and Corbyn were known, but people's opinions changed.

Yes you do - for low information voters media reporting and some carefully crafted soundbites are enough to get you those without those voters ever stopping to watch an interview. As stated before, May was at her most popular when she'd assumed the leadership and using soundbytes was effectively dodging how she'd deliver Brexit, so as a former Remainer who looked like a safe pair of hands she'd got the blessing of both camps. Coupled with lionising from the press (who often set the agenda for broadcast media) she received a better-than-expected honeymoon period (again - it's quite normal for unknown, 'change' candidates to get positive approval before the voters get to know them).

Similarly the print and broadcast media were overwhelmingly hostile to Corbyn, with most voters being able to tell you that he didn't sing the national anthem and that even his own MPs hate him, before they could tell you anything about the actual man or his views. Once voters got to see him via law-enforced impartial coverage during the election period, voters reappraised what they thought of him.

The uncomfortable implication for some people is that people's opinions might change again. That might mean all the cheering of Corbyn will be for a two-time loser to the Tories, who useless though we keep hearing they are, beat Corbyn by more than Cameron beat Brown.

Or rather you persist with this line because you've yet to be persuaded that Corbyn could win.  

By the way, Cameron beat Brown by just shy of 2.1m votes. Corbyn lost to May by little over 750K.  

[MaxQue]

By-election in West Tyrone as the SF MP resigned over a video where he's balancing a bread loaf on his head, which is apparently a reference to an IRA attack.

[Leftbehind]

Corbynites sweep the newly created NEC seats. 62%, much like the 2:1 they won the earlier lot.

[Tintrlvr]

Corbynites sweep the newly created NEC seats. 62%, much like the 2:1 they won the earlier lot.

I assume that's the Eddie Izzard? Running seriously (if not successfully)?

[Leftbehind]

Corbynites sweep the newly created NEC seats. 62%, much like the 2:1 they won the earlier lot.

I assume that's the Eddie Izzard? Running seriously (if not successfully)?

Correct on both.

[ViaActiva]

Izzard can never catch a break can he? He's turning into the Harold Stassen of UK politics.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Corbynites sweep the newly created NEC seats. 62%, much like the 2:1 they won the earlier lot.

Splendid news!

[EPG]

The uncomfortable implication for some people is that people's opinions might change again. That might mean all the cheering of Corbyn will be for a two-time loser to the Tories, who useless though we keep hearing they are, beat Corbyn by more than Cameron beat Brown.

Or rather you persist with this line because you've yet to be persuaded that Corbyn could win.  

Of course Corbyn could win. Voters change their minds quickly. The only actual data point is his record so far, 0-1 against the worst Conservative campaign since universal suffrage.

[Leftbehind]

The uncomfortable implication for some people is that people's opinions might change again. That might mean all the cheering of Corbyn will be for a two-time loser to the Tories, who useless though we keep hearing they are, beat Corbyn by more than Cameron beat Brown.

Or rather you persist with this line because you've yet to be persuaded that Corbyn could win.  

Of course Corbyn could win. Voters change their minds quickly. The only actual data point is his record so far, 0-1 against the worst Conservative campaign since universal suffrage.

Well in a general election offering a once-in-a-generation Brexit, her poor campaign wasn't punished as it would've in an ordinary election, and it was a different campaign - her Scottish counterpart - that saved her bacon on the night.

Incidentally let's see how Ruth Davidson's campaign on a soft Brexit plays out - the SCons may have lost all credibility by the next election. If not, her UKIP wing will likely have deserted her instead.

[NewYorkExpress]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42767657

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Bolton is removed, who takes over as UKIP Party Leader?

[Leftbehind]

If Bolton is removed, who takes over as UKIP Party Leader?

I suspect the administrators. They're not long for losing their only income source (their remaining MEPs and councillors).

[mileslunn]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42767657

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Bolton is removed, who takes over as UKIP Party Leader?

This is probably bad news for them as much of the rest of the party are right wing crazies, whereas he was one of the more moderate ones (formerly a Liberal Democrat himself).  Somewhat good news for the Tories although as we saw last election lots of UKIP votes swung over to Labour too.  If brexit happens and the free mobility of labour is ended, UKIP will have lots all relevancy or there only alternative would be to appeal to the racists like the BNP and NF did in the past.  Now if Brexit is cancelled or UK stays in the single market thus maintaining free mobility of labour they may have some potential.  Off course if there is a second referendum and the public votes to stay in the EU or votes in favour of a deal remaining in the single market they will lose all ammo as going against the public wishes never tends to go over well even for those who agree with the position.

[Antonio the Sixth]

lolukip

[ViaActiva]

Looks like UKIP has run out of chances - local elections may be their death knell.

Makes you wonder how they would have turned out with a narrow Remain vote.

[TheSaint250]

Was this whole thing because of his girlfriend?

Either way, this internal crisis of possibly having 5 leaders in less than 2 years will probably accelerate an already-declining UKIP.

Also, I never could find the answer; why did Diane James resign?

[Leftbehind]

Was this whole thing because of his girlfriend?

Pretty much. His abrupt ending of his marriage for her focused the attention onto his personal life, and than when those texts leaked he was given an ultimatum by the party, simply to fight fire, that he needed to either resign or dump her. He 'chose' the latter, despite numerous reports of him being spotted having dinner and being intimate with her since, and today when interviewed he said he'd remain in contact with her. So fulfilling neither of the options, the party are mutinous. 

Also, I never could find the answer; why did Diane James resign?

Diane James resigned because she stood as leader on the mistaken belief she could turf out the old guard and turn it into a semi-respectable party, and was promptly disabused of that notion upon election. Rather, I suspect, she was told she'd be the change of face and agreeable representative for the party, but she'd be 'leading' in the manner she was told to.

[ViaActiva]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5418556/tory-backbench-boss-sir-graham-brady-begs-angry-mps-not-to-call-leadership-contest/

With this and Boris' manoeuvres, is it finally happening I wonder?