Rather than their usual poll for the Times, this week YouGov have a full MRP model of voting intention (that is, the same method that YouGov used for their seat projection at the general election). Topline voting intention figures from the YouGov MRP model are CON 39%, LAB 34%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 5%. The fieldwork was Sun-Thursday last week, with just over 40,000 respondents.

The aim of an MRP model is not really the vote shares though, the whole point of the technique is project shares down to seat level, and project who would win each seat. The model currently has the Conservatives winning 321 seats, Labour 250, the Liberal Democrats 16 and the SNP 39. Compared to the 2017 election the Conservatives would make a net gain of just 4 seats, Labour would lose 12 seats, the Liberal Democrats would gain 4 and the SNP would gain 4. It would leave the Conservatives just shy of an overall majority (though in practice, given Sinn Fein do not take their seats and the Speaker and Deputies don’t vote, they would have a majority of MPs who actually vote in the Commons). Whether an extra four seats would really help that much is a different question.

The five point lead it shows for the Conservatives is a swing of 1.4% to the Conservatives – very small, but on a pure uniform swing it would be enough for the Tories to get a proper overall majority. The reason they don’t here is largely because the model shows Labour outperforming in the ultra-marginal seats they won off the Conservatives at the last election (a well known phenomenon – they gain the personal vote of the new Labour MP, lose any incumbency bonus from the former Tory MP. It is the same reason the Conservatives failed to gain a meaningful number of seats in 2001, despite a small swing in their favour).

For those interested in what MRP actually is, YouGov’s detailed explanation from the 2017 election is here (Ben Lauderdale & Jack Blumenau, who created the model for the 2017 election, also carried out this one). The short version is that it is a technique designed to allow projection of results at smaller geographical levels (in this case, individual constituencies). It works by modelling respondents’ voting intention based on their demographics and the political circumstances in each seat, and then applying the model to the demographics of each of the 632 seats in Great Britain. Crucially, of course, it also called the 2017 election correctly, when most of the traditional polls ended up getting it wrong.

Compared to more conventional polling the Conservative lead is similar to that in YouGov’s recent traditional polls (which have shown Tory leads of between 5-7 points of late), but has both main parties at a lower level. Partly this is because it’s modelling UKIP & Green support in all seats, rather than in just the constituencies they contested in 2017 (when the MRP was done at the last election it was after nominations had closed, so it only modelled the actual parties standing in each seat) – in practice their total level of support would likely be lower.

The Times’s write up of the poll is here, details from YouGov are here and technical details are here

1,157 Responses to “YouGov MRP seat projection – CON 321, LAB 250, LDEM 16, SNP 39”

1 22 23 24
  1. @LAZLO

    Actually my point was not the six sigma part of the equation it was the rapid transference from idea to manufacturing on a reasonable to large scale.

    We are all niche now was one of the things that has changed in the semiconductor industry as a good example. Think indeed cars before you could would not have the level of choice you now have when going and purchasing a car hell the cheapest smallest car you can buy has numerous options because the delivery and the process of manufacture has actually changed. JIT has changed that. The issue of quality was the big push for 6 sigma how can you maintain good quality with low rejection (JIT and six sigma are solving very different problems so lumping them makes no sense)

    In the semiconductor industry we moved form verticality because of competition to giving up fabrication to the taiwanese because they could manage debt and capital expenditure to them replacing us with their verticality because verticality makes sense if you can manage debt and capital expenditure.

    That has been my point with respect to TREVOR WARNE our comparative advantage is that we we believe in niche but mass manufacturers do niche just as well and as you see in the semiconductor industry as in the car industry to compete take capital, skills and long term thinking, we do niche because we don’t do those things which is why our car industry is foreign owned, we have no semiconductor manufacturing industry and we are constantly going niche and running to stay ahead of the big boys.

    What is interesting is that we apply much of the learning that the non niche do to our sports thinking, think Sky Team Cycling (they use the marginal gain and flexibility, they tailor training to each individual but can do so because of the capital investment. What I also find fascinating is that we can seemingly do that successfully in cycling and rowing because well the competition is not as stiff as say Football or the sport I coach basketball

  2. As a no deal outcome would seem that it would rip the Tories apart, how will TM respond if her deal cannot be changed sufficiently to satisfy her party and DUP.( little point picking up a fewLabour votes if Tories split as well.

    I think that we are approaching endgame perhaps even before EU think about blinking( I just do not see how the EU will blink).

    I am starting to think that another GE might be on the cards to avoid no deal crash out at end of March

  3. @ THE OTHER HOWARD – What nonsense.

    If you knew how much tax i pay now and have payed since i retired you would know that I have paid, and am still paying for my pension and a lot of others.

    The State Pension started in deficit – something that has increased every year since inception, caused by the fact that the initial recipients hadn’t actually paid anything in – they had already retired.. Therefore you pay for the previous generation and the next generation will pay for you.

    Pensions are paid for from National Insurance, which reduces the more you earn. What you pay in tax is utterly and totally irrelevant.


  4. Marina Hyde in the Guardian on Corbyn’s response to Austin etc. :

    “In terms of statesmanlike outreach, Corbyn’s pitch was a video in which he came off as peevish and irritated.”

    From his first contact with the media on becoming leader that has been his default position.

  5. test

  6. test

  7. @Paul

    If you make mine a gin and tonic

    I might write you a sonnet

    Or an ode to Rosie and Daisy

    The trouble is

    I’m so very, very lazy

    :-) :-):-)

1 22 23 24