1/ How YouGov's dodgy MRP poll treated Birmingham.
Headlines:
- It classified every seat as 'safe Labour'
- It forecasted Labour's vote share to rise across the city, despite it falling in the W Midlands mayoral election
- Its treatment of 'others' suggests political/ethnic bias
2/ YouGov's forecast that every seat in Birmingham is safe for Labour suggests MRP's prediction of a Labour landslide is based on rocky foundations.
In my view, though Starmer's likely to win, his majority will be reduced by some losses in 'safe' seats.
3/ In the West Midlands mayoral election, Labour's vote share in Birmingham itself fell substantially from 48.2% (102,276 votes) in 2021 to 37.3% (80,251) in 2024.
And yet YouGov is forecasting General Election vote shares ranging from 54% to 78%. These seems highly improbable.
4/ The mayoral contest saw independent Akhmed Yakoob win 42,923 votes (20%) in Birmingham alone.
In the GE, he's standing in Ladywood - but YouGov allocates only 1% to 'others'.
In Hall Green, meanwhile, it allocates 10% - presumably assuming Roger Godsiff will again do well.
5/ The 10% YouGov awards to 'others' in Hall Green is at odds with its claim that its first MRP poll for the General Election doesn't "reflect that variable (independents) in this particular model".
In fact, it seems to 'reflect' some independents but is blind to others. Bias?
6/ It didn't take much research to establish that (in addition to Godsiff/Hall Green) six of the nine Birmingham constituencies have independent or Workers Party candidates backed by @themuslimvoteuk. This includes Yakoob.
YouGov allocates them a vote share of 2.33pts each!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ The big vote for Labour in 2017 posed a real headache for centrists.
The truth is that they oppose left policies - however popular. But they usually hide behind the argument that Labour can't win from the left.
So how do they reconcile this to Corbyn gaining 12.88m votes?
2/ Enter Peter Mandelson - last year he told Kings College students that 2017 was "a re-run of the referendum" with 2015 LibDems "swinging behind" Labour.
But was it that simple? True, 600,000 LibDems DID switch - but so did 700,000 UKIP voters (British Electoral Study).
Why?
3/ Labour won voters from across the Brexit divide in 2017 because we neutralised the issue by promising to honour the referendum result.
This meant voters made their decision on other issues - and, as this YouGov poll shows, our left-wing manifesto was foremost among them.
My book on the 2017 campaign, Game Changer, is in short supply. The paperback's sold out. There's a Kindle at £5.49 (price set by the publisher). And I have 22 copies of the hardback left - on sale via my website at half price (£8.00 inc postage). See: steve-howell.com/game-changer-e…
I'm still trying to get the rights back from Hachette and hope to re-publish it with an introduction on what we've discovered since, but that could take a while!
There've been ten orders this morning, which means only 12 left. I'll update as they go, but PayPal does allow for refunds if we run out.
1/ On this day in 2017, Jeremy Corbyn stunned his enemies by denying the Tories a majority when they'd been expected to win by landslide.
Labour's 12.88m votes/40% vote share was the party's best result for 20 years. We gained seats (30 net) for the first time since 1997 too.
2/ When Theresa May called the election, the Sun predicted 'Blue Murder' and said she would 'kill off Labour'.
May wanted Brexit to be the central issue - but Corbyn said Labour accepted the referendum result and made it about transforming Britain 'for the many not the few'.
3/ Corbyn was fiercely attacked in the media - with some Labour MPs to the fore.
But he focused on a manifesto - read by millions - that contained a plan to rebuild public services, scrap tuition fees, build houses and bring rail, energy and water back into public ownership.
On March 30, the Guardian reported the UN human rights chief saying Russia may be committing war crimes. But I checked: she didn't specify Russia (see text). Why? Because the UN HR Commission is also investigating Ukrainian government war crimes.
2/ War propaganda by omission.
The Guardian also quotes her as saying her office had received credible allegations of Russia using cluster bombs. But its report omits her next sentence: "We are also investigating allegations that Ukrainian armed forces have used such weapons."
3/ Why is this important? Because our horror at the effects of this terrible war is being exploited to push for an escalation of it. Warmongers always use humanitarian arguments (protecting civilians/women, notoriously 'babies in incubators') that prove to be over-stated/untrue.
2/ When it comes to destruction, Deverell knows a thing or two: he helped plan the invasion of Iraq.
In his tweets on Ukraine, he's honest enough to admit (others don't) that if you support a No Fly Zone you must also be willing to deploy ground troops.
2/ Western leaders and their commentariat have been saying for months that the response to a Russian invasion would be limited to sanctions. In The Times (15.1.22), Roger Boyes put it bluntly: "No current member of NATO would be willing to die in a ditch defending Ukraine."
3/ In all the talk about Ukraine's sovereign right to join NATO, it's been overlooked that NATO powers aren't going to sub-contract decisions to go to war to other countries. In the US, Congress is trying to take that power from POTUS. It's not going to give it to a third party.