Anthony Wells
@anthonyjwells.bsky.social
Head of European Political & Social Research at YouGov. Dartfordian. Hates agree-disagree statements.
Amateur sports club that my dad went to when he was a kid actually did have Sir Alf Ramsay as their football coach (albeit, it was before he became England manager)
November 27, 2025 at 2:51 PM
Amateur sports club that my dad went to when he was a kid actually did have Sir Alf Ramsay as their football coach (albeit, it was before he became England manager)
Yes - www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...
(How accurate the measure is is a different question, and the reason for the ONS's adjustment this month, but the ONS certainly do publish stats on the nationality of emigrants.
(How accurate the measure is is a different question, and the reason for the ONS's adjustment this month, but the ONS certainly do publish stats on the nationality of emigrants.
Long-term international migration, provisional - Office for National Statistics
Estimates of UK long-term international migration, year ending June 2012 to year ending December 2024.
www.ons.gov.uk
November 27, 2025 at 2:30 PM
Yes - www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...
(How accurate the measure is is a different question, and the reason for the ONS's adjustment this month, but the ONS certainly do publish stats on the nationality of emigrants.
(How accurate the measure is is a different question, and the reason for the ONS's adjustment this month, but the ONS certainly do publish stats on the nationality of emigrants.
I do like the dry OBR "this was cancelled the last 16 years, so represents a significant risk to projections".
It's very "this is bullshit, but we have to pretend it will happen. There are projections for what it looks like if it doesn't happen, which it won't, in chapter 7"
It's very "this is bullshit, but we have to pretend it will happen. There are projections for what it looks like if it doesn't happen, which it won't, in chapter 7"
November 26, 2025 at 12:56 PM
I do like the dry OBR "this was cancelled the last 16 years, so represents a significant risk to projections".
It's very "this is bullshit, but we have to pretend it will happen. There are projections for what it looks like if it doesn't happen, which it won't, in chapter 7"
It's very "this is bullshit, but we have to pretend it will happen. There are projections for what it looks like if it doesn't happen, which it won't, in chapter 7"
So they can cancel it in the Spring statement, rather than next year's budget?
November 26, 2025 at 12:54 PM
So they can cancel it in the Spring statement, rather than next year's budget?
We had the hyperemesis gravidarum train, so it was more a case of counting down to Mrs W being able to keep down any bloody food at all.
November 21, 2025 at 2:14 PM
We had the hyperemesis gravidarum train, so it was more a case of counting down to Mrs W being able to keep down any bloody food at all.
Well that's rubbish. At least you are almost at the destination. Good luck to you both next week (or, next week-ish, so I don't curse you to have to wait another fortnight).
November 21, 2025 at 2:12 PM
Well that's rubbish. At least you are almost at the destination. Good luck to you both next week (or, next week-ish, so I don't curse you to have to wait another fortnight).
I have no idea what happened here and Chris at Savanta probably wouldn't be able to say, but I'd be amazed if it's not a case of a client giving a misleading spin to a newspaper without actually checking with Savanta whether or not that would leave them open to massive embarrassment.
November 21, 2025 at 11:06 AM
I have no idea what happened here and Chris at Savanta probably wouldn't be able to say, but I'd be amazed if it's not a case of a client giving a misleading spin to a newspaper without actually checking with Savanta whether or not that would leave them open to massive embarrassment.
Warning clients up front that the rules mean you wouldn't be able to publish question B without us also publishing question A, checking PRs before publication and so on. It normally stops people trying it on because if they get caught out doing it, it does look very bad indeed.
November 21, 2025 at 11:06 AM
Warning clients up front that the rules mean you wouldn't be able to publish question B without us also publishing question A, checking PRs before publication and so on. It normally stops people trying it on because if they get caught out doing it, it does look very bad indeed.
Incidentally, the reason you don't see this happen more often isn't because it isn't working, it's because it works as a deterrent.
November 21, 2025 at 11:05 AM
Incidentally, the reason you don't see this happen more often isn't because it isn't working, it's because it works as a deterrent.
Hence Savanta have now published the full tables, and we can see that actually, despite the Times headline, the polls actual finding was that a solid majority of junior doctors backed the strike action. Victory for the BPC disclosure rules.
November 21, 2025 at 11:05 AM
Hence Savanta have now published the full tables, and we can see that actually, despite the Times headline, the polls actual finding was that a solid majority of junior doctors backed the strike action. Victory for the BPC disclosure rules.
Anyway, the BPC rules require pollsters to publish tables for questions that are published. We are ALSO required to publish other questions from the same poll if they cast doubt on the published findings. In effect, this is a rule against lying by omission, like in this case.
November 21, 2025 at 11:05 AM
Anyway, the BPC rules require pollsters to publish tables for questions that are published. We are ALSO required to publish other questions from the same poll if they cast doubt on the published findings. In effect, this is a rule against lying by omission, like in this case.
The Department of Health then appears to have only briefed the Times on the second question, claiming they had a poll showing doctors opposed the strike, when actually the poll showed 69% supported it, but might **hypothetically** change their mind if offered a deal.
November 21, 2025 at 11:02 AM
The Department of Health then appears to have only briefed the Times on the second question, claiming they had a poll showing doctors opposed the strike, when actually the poll showed 69% supported it, but might **hypothetically** change their mind if offered a deal.
The Department of Health commissioned a poll of junior doctors from Savanta, it asked if they supported the strike (69% did) and then later in the poll asked a hypothetical Q if they agreed or disagreed that the strike should be called off if the Govt offered them XYZ.
November 21, 2025 at 11:01 AM
The Department of Health commissioned a poll of junior doctors from Savanta, it asked if they supported the strike (69% did) and then later in the poll asked a hypothetical Q if they agreed or disagreed that the strike should be called off if the Govt offered them XYZ.
Got it and, as as expected, you are entirely correct. It was getting people to guess the number from multiple choice.
So it doesn't show ignorance of the slave trade or Britain's role in it, just ignorance of the specific number.
So it doesn't show ignorance of the slave trade or Britain's role in it, just ignorance of the specific number.
November 20, 2025 at 6:02 PM
Got it and, as as expected, you are entirely correct. It was getting people to guess the number from multiple choice.
So it doesn't show ignorance of the slave trade or Britain's role in it, just ignorance of the specific number.
So it doesn't show ignorance of the slave trade or Britain's role in it, just ignorance of the specific number.
Yes - if reform & con are more level in support i think it becomes *much* more plausible
November 20, 2025 at 12:11 PM
Yes - if reform & con are more level in support i think it becomes *much* more plausible
In the local elections in Kent earlier this year I was struck by what in many cases appeared to be the "generic right-of-centre" or "generic anti-Labour from the right" vote shifting almost seamlessly from Con > Ref.
November 20, 2025 at 10:52 AM
In the local elections in Kent earlier this year I was struck by what in many cases appeared to be the "generic right-of-centre" or "generic anti-Labour from the right" vote shifting almost seamlessly from Con > Ref.
Leaves about a quarter we don't really know what would happen.
November 20, 2025 at 10:50 AM
Leaves about a quarter we don't really know what would happen.
It isn't, but they would collectively still do better as a single party even having lost part of the Tory vote. About 1-in-5 Tories would vote tactically against Reform, so I think would likely baulk at any deal. About 45% of Tories would vote tactically FOR Reform, so would presumably be fine
November 20, 2025 at 10:49 AM
It isn't, but they would collectively still do better as a single party even having lost part of the Tory vote. About 1-in-5 Tories would vote tactically against Reform, so I think would likely baulk at any deal. About 45% of Tories would vote tactically FOR Reform, so would presumably be fine
That's either incredibly charitable from Farage towards a party he wants to extinguish, or almost impossible for a Tory leader to deliver
November 20, 2025 at 9:47 AM
That's either incredibly charitable from Farage towards a party he wants to extinguish, or almost impossible for a Tory leader to deliver
I still don't see how it can happen this time with 119 sitting Conservative MPs and Reform way ahead of the Tories in the polls. Farage will correctly expect to win many of those Tory seats. A deal either needs Farage to stand aside in seats he'd win, or the Tories to stand aside in seats they hold
November 20, 2025 at 9:45 AM
I still don't see how it can happen this time with 119 sitting Conservative MPs and Reform way ahead of the Tories in the polls. Farage will correctly expect to win many of those Tory seats. A deal either needs Farage to stand aside in seats he'd win, or the Tories to stand aside in seats they hold
Hello - the MRP that Peter is taking as his baseline was before the conference season (and hence, before Zack Polanski and before the recent increase in Green support). I'd expect them to do better if it was done again now.
November 19, 2025 at 1:36 PM
Hello - the MRP that Peter is taking as his baseline was before the conference season (and hence, before Zack Polanski and before the recent increase in Green support). I'd expect them to do better if it was done again now.
There is a huge caveat that peter has missed. Taking the mrp as the baseline assumes that no tactical voting is already baked into the mrp...that's wrong. Lots of people will already be giving a tactical voting intention. This risks double counting.
November 19, 2025 at 8:32 AM
There is a huge caveat that peter has missed. Taking the mrp as the baseline assumes that no tactical voting is already baked into the mrp...that's wrong. Lots of people will already be giving a tactical voting intention. This risks double counting.