There Is No Ceiling - The 'Corbyn Surge' Isn't Over

There are striking similarities in the way the British commentariat missed Corbyn's surge, and the way the American commentariat missed Trump's. 

Both candidates were, at first, a great source of ridicule. They were underestimated both in their appeal to voters and their campaigning abilities, and both outperformed expectations whenever they were challenged.

Then, after Trump saw a modest rise in his popularity in the Republican primaries, he was given a "ceiling" - a point above which his support could no longer rise; and one which a gaggle of pundits comically raised every ten days once he surpassed this arbitrary limit.

Trump himself was aware of this ceiling, and addressed the point in February 2016 speaking to Fox & Friends.

I watch these pundits, I've been watching them for a year. But I've been watching these pundits. They've been saying, well, they just add up numbers they forget when somebody drops out I get a lot of those votes. 

But Rubio would point to your favourable/unfavourable ratings. He did that last night. He says you've reached your ceiling, Mr Trump. 

Well they've been saying that Anna now for approximately six months - I've reached my ceiling. I started at 12 and I reached my ceiling, I went to 16 and they said "that is the ceiling - it's the most he's gonna get" and then the national polls are even higher, you know, in the national polls I'm at 44. And that's with five people. That's a lot of people, and I'm at 44. 

Since April something similar has been happening with Jeremy Corbyn

Seven days after the general election, polling from YouGov gave Jeremy Corbyn record favourability ratings.

This compounds a good week for the Labour leader as he pegged level with Theresa May on the question of 'best prime minister', and a weekend survey from the election's most accurate pollster, Survation, gave Labour a six-point lead.

I didn't think Corbyn's Labour was capable of this. pic.twitter.com/bgVaD01omu

— Keumars Afifi-Sabet (@Keumars) June 11, 2017

YouGov's graphical representation of these ratings since August 2016 puts Corbyn's dramatic surge into context - with the turnaround happening over the course of eight weeks.

Corbyn too was given several ceilings during the election campaign, above which his 'surge' should not have exceeded.

What an amazing trip it's been this campaign pic.twitter.com/MtavwwngKS

— Nick Srnicek (@n_srnck) May 31, 2017

Moreover, the pollsters, minus Survation, to some extent herded in the final stretch as the last clutch of polls, including YouGov's tweaked final projection, wrongly reported a substantial Conservative lead.

Like Trump, Corbyn defied received wisdom, and has now emerged as one of Britain's most favoured politicians, having once been its most disliked.

What sparked the surge, and why it seems to be spreading at an unprecedented pace, has not yet been fully explored by the commentariat, but as things stand his meteoric rise shows no signs of slowing.

#GE2017 Analysis: Are We In For A Youth Turnout Shock?

According to received wisdom the majority of young people in Britain are apathetic.

Based on historic trends, it's difficult to argue against the idea that youth apathy will strike again this Thursday, but in a tumultuous political climate in which received wisdom is being consistently undermined, even this taken-for-granted assumption may be turned on its head.

    

Youth Engagement Has Been In Steady Decline Since 1992 

The downward trend in young people turning out to vote over the previous six general elections is stark.

Data via BBC News.

      

   

But The EU Referendum Has Re-engaged The British Public

Evidence suggests the EU referendum had a hand in raising levels of engagement in the country, with overall turnout rising to 72%, the highest since 1997.

This effect was particularly strong with young voters, with turnout among 18-24 year-olds rising once again to levels not seen since 1992.

Data via Opinium.

 

We Saw A Similar Effect In Scotland After The Indy Ref

Scotland experienced a similar re-engagement in 2014, with an unusually high turnout of 85%.

Turnout dropped in the next two election years, but remained relatively high compared to previous elections to suggest the referendum had a semi-lasting impact on political engagement, although it is now starting to taper off.

Data via BBC News.

     

The Polls Are Wildly Different - Because Pollsters Can't Agree On How Many Young Voters Will Show Up

Pollsters have estimated party support in different ways, with the main discrepancy appearing to lie in how they weigh likely turnout among younger voters.

These modelling differences generate outcomes ranging from a record-breaking Tory landslide to a hung parliament.

Generally speaking, polls predicting a low youth turnout tend to show larger Conservative leads, while polls predicting relatively higher youth turnout shrinks the gap considerably.

Data via listed polling companies.

   

    

... But This Election Campaign Has Excited Young People

This campaign is remarkable not only for the Corbyn surge - something which hasn't been fully explained - but for data showing increased excitement among young people.

Pollsters normally ask people they survey how certain they are to vote (from 1 - 10) in order to measure likely turnout and accurately weigh their raw data samples.

The number of young voters voters answering "10 - absolutely certain to vote" has dramatically risen over the course of the campaign.

Data via listed polling companies. Survation phone age brackets measured 18-34 for April 2017. Survation online age brackets measured 18-34 for April 2017 and June 2017. YouGov age brackets measured 18-24 and 25-49.

 
 

... And This Is Reflected In 2017's Last-Minute Voter Registration Surge

Compared with 2015, an unusually high number of voters registered to vote in the final 21 days before the registration deadline - broadly reflecting the numbers from 2016.

Data via Gov.uk

The number of applications from young people - both as a proportion of all applications and in absolute numbers - was unusually high.

Data via Gov.uk

  

   

What Does All Of This Mean?

Quite possibly, absolutely nothing. Firstly, all of this evidence is circumstantial. Secondly, since polls largely only measure vote share across the country - and not levels of support in individual seats - even a 50:50 split between Labour and the Conservatives could lead to dramatically different seat tallies depending on where the votes fall across the country.

While pollsters have reached a consensus on both the Corbyn surge and increased engagement among under 40s, they have been unable to pin down to what extent this will make a difference.

But based on all the data I would commit to predicting young voters will turn out in 2017 at a significantly higher level than in 2015, broadly reflecting turnout across the age brackets recorded after the EU referendum.

***

Update 25/06/17 - 'The first election since 1992 in which a majority of young people have come out to vote'

Speaking on BBC Radio Five Live in the early hours of Friday morning, Professor Jon Tonge, an academic with Liverpool University, told listeners: "The early data suggests this is the first election since 1992 in which a majority of young people, by which I mean 18-24 year-olds, have come out to vote."

"Data suggests this is the first election since 1992 that the majority of young people (18-24's) have voted" - Prof Jon Tonge#bbcelection pic.twitter.com/uKpFM64WYj

— BBC Radio 5 live (@bbc5live) June 9, 2017

Post-election demographic analysis from pollster Ipsos Mori proves this claim holds true, with 64% of 18-24 year-olds and 64% of 25-34 year-olds having taken part.

Writing on the impact of the shift in demographics, Thiemo Fetzer, assistant professor in economics at the University of Warwick, said: "The results suggest that the major reshuffles in turnout were predominantly due to the (soon to be) grey voters not turning up to vote in 2017 relative to younger voters.

"The Labour party was the big winner, catching almost as significant share of the increase among young voters."

Representatives from both Ipsos Mori and YouGov were approached to comment on the significance of the turnout among young people, and whether this can be sustained in the future, but neither were able to respond to my requests at the time of writing.

#GE2017 Meme Storm: The Best 2017 Election Memes in One Place

Below is a collection of the hottest meme pages and #content to emerge from this unexpected general election - with only seven days to go. 

This list will be updated regularly as we edge towards June 8.

Enjoy!

Licentious Liberal Democrat Memes

"A page of juicy and spicy centrist memes with more likes than MPs." 

      

      

   

Snap Election Memes with a Nihilist Theme

"Democracy is a hollow lie. Like this page for the chance to win my vote on June 8th."

     

   

   

Jeremy Corbyn Photoshopped into Appropriate Situations

"Corbz memes for the good of the world. I will be taking requests up until the General Election on June 8th. Where will Corbz be next? You decide." 

   

    

Strong and Stable Memes for Sharply Spoken Teens

"Welcome to strong and stable memes for sharply spoken teens. We're the home of the strongest, stablest memes for this UK election cycle." 

   

      

     

Depressed Vegetarians for Corbyn

"This is a pro-Corbyn page for memes, news, awareness, and support for those who need it." 

     

 

June 8 Shitposting Social Club

"Like the sound of original June 8 election memes fresh out of the furnace of socialistic fury? Then hit that mf like button."  

     

General Election Peep Show Memes

"People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people." 

Is ‘Brand May’ a Show of Confidence, or CCHQ’s Insurance Policy?

In light of Theresa May’s historically high approval ratings, the Tory push for power has taken the form of a conventional US presidential campaign putting the prime minister front-and-centre.

It is so central to the campaign, that where you would normally expect to find ‘Conservative’ or ‘Conservative Party’ on official party branding, you will find instead ‘Theresa May’s Team’ - with party identity relatively obscured.

In the lead up to the local elections, CCHQ bought wraparound adverts with a host of local newspapers to promote not the Conservative Party, but Theresa May, a feature also found on leaflets, and in candidates’ messaging. The Conservative battle bus too is emblazoned with 'Theresa May for Britain'.

The thinking behind this is clear. Not only is Theresa May more popular than her party, but at the start of the campaign she boasted historically high approval ratings - higher than Thatcher or Blair at their peaks - with Jeremy Corbyn languishing far behind.

There are many theories behind her record-breaking popularity, from being a “basic prime minister for basic times” to having the luxury of being directly contrasted with her opponent - somebody widely regarded as being not up to the job.

This tactic isn't in itself unusual, with her predecessor running a similar campaign centred on 'competence over chaos under Ed Miliband'. Yet ‘Brand Dave’ did not replace the Tory identity; the two complemented each other to good effect. But this idea - in its current manifestation - is being pushed to the point of absurdity.

For instance, Theresa May is name-checked 16 times in the conservative party manifesto. By contrast, David Cameron was mentioned six times in 2015, and three times in 2010. In 1997, the Labour manifesto mentioned Tony Blair by name once.

Beyond serving as a handy electoral device, exploiting the unforeseen popularity of ‘Brand May’, perhaps this positioning allows the party to shield ‘Brand Tory’ from May’s most devastating flaws, should they manifest in the coming years.

Her indecisiveness, cautiousness, hypercentralised management style, and an over-reliance on a closely-knit team of special advisers (who carry torrid reputations) are examples of traits not adequately scrutinised; given most of the printing press are considered ‘on side’, and the opposition leader is seen as relatively hapless in the eyes of the public.

***

‘Theresa Maybe’, the Economist’s leader column on ‘Britain’s indecisive premiere’, was a frank assessment of the prime minister’s record six months after she took office, noting “it is hard to name a single signature policy, and easy to cite U-turns.”

This damning list, yet growing, includes backing down from a promise to put workers on company boards, reversing plans to compel firms to list foreign employees, scrapping Budget proposals to raise National Insurance, and changing her widely-berated ‘Dementia Tax’.

Moreover, the entire social care saga has exposed Theresa May’s greatest weaknesses in the unforgiving spotlight of a general election campaign; which leads CCHQ’s almost absurdist decision to make her the sole face of the next five years seem something of a masterstroke.

Moving forwards, the manner in which her flaws have been exposed with such ease may affect the outcome of the Brexit negotiations.

As the FT’s Janan Ganesh has noted: “If Mrs May did not know that old people feel attached to their asset base, she was derelict. If she did and (admirably) resolved to face them down, then her resolve does not amount to much. Colleagues who defended her proposal in public, lobby interests who fought it and any EU negotiators tuning in from the continent will infer the same lesson: this prime minister is strong and stable, until you test her.”

With Britain facing its greatest juncture in modern history the risk of wrecking our future prospects in trade, diplomacy, and prosperity, has never been greater. And, courtesy of leaks, we know preliminary discussions between Theresa May and her European counterparts have been disastrous.

By associating the next government with 'Brand May’, almost exclusively, CCHQ has given the party the breathing space it needs should May’s tenure end in catastrophe, with the foundations set for a clean rebuilding process - but not before first throwing the prime minister under the bus.

What Next for Labour Dissidents? Examining the Nuclear Option

There's no sugarcoating this; Friday morning's results, in the Copeland and Stoke by-elections, were disastrous for Labour. 

I've written in the past about how melodramatic cries of 'disaster' have been overblown, but this feels much different.While the party met its minimum expectation in defeating Paul Nuttall, losing a safe seat to a governing party is, frankly, unforgivable. The reasons for the Copeland defeat are numerous, and complex but, ultimately, the buck must stop with the leadership. 

This may serve as ammunition for a faction of MPs whose raison d'être has been to dethrone Jeremy Corbyn from the day he was elected. But following a coup that was organised with the grace of a drowning rhinoceros, and a messy leadership contest still fresh in the memory, their arsenal is thin.

One thing is certain: Jeremy Corbyn is going nowhere. He has refused to take any blame for the result and, moreover, his fate is in his own hands. Despite not having full control of the party's machinery, his strength is derived from the weakness of his opponents; first in the confused and erratic manner in which they tried to topple him; and second, in their relative unpopularity among party members.

But, besides biding waiting until after 2020, there is a nuclear option, which, if they are desperate enough to invoke, may force Corbyn's hand.

***

In normal times, Jamie Reed and Tristram Hunt, who both resigned their seats in quick succession, would have been replaced without much fuss, and most of Westminster would have had a good night's sleep on Thursday. 

Instead, Labour is a bloodied party, whose internal, irrevocable divisions, exposed by two leadership elections, have been compounded by a messy Article 50 process. The bulk of the press coverage, therefore, centered on the possibility of Labour losing both seats.

Jamie Reed and Tristram Hunt had clearly run out of patience; perhaps realising that instead of lingering in backbench anonymity for the next three-and-a-half years, their talents would be put to better use elsewhere.

The question now is; how many MPs have had a similar epiphany, and, furthermore, are they willing to weaponise this for the 'greater good'?

***

It's clear the anti-Corbyn faction within the PLP have little option but to wait; wait for wipeout in 2020; wait for the third leadership contest in five years; and then wait for the 2025 general election until they can mount a strong challenge against the Conservatives.

Alternatively, by threatening to resign en masse from their seats, Jeremy Corbyn would be forced into making a huge decision; call their bluff and face more than a dozen risky by-elections, or submit.

A wave of by-elections triggered in such a way could be a death sentence; not only for Cobyn, given he would have no choice but step down in the face of yet further evidence of Labour's electoral decline, presuming the current trend continues, but for the party itself; as previously loyal voters decide once and for all they've had enough of a party engulfed in perpetual civil war.

Knowing that doing nothing would almost certainly lead to defeat in 2020, will this anti-Corbyn faction be desperate enough to invoke the nuclear option, and risk it all?

Why Hasn't The Labour Party Died Already?

Barely a week has passed since the EU referendum and the Labour Party has already been plunged itself another civil war; adding to the government's collapse, and the United Kingdom's very own existential crisis.

The Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is facing a full-blown coup, triggered following the sacking of the now-former shadow foreign secretary Hilary Ben last Sunday. As coups go, however, this is nothing short of a disaster.

Labour MPs, MEPs, consultants and associates have openly revolted against the leadership, resigning en masse from the shadow cabinet and from other roles, while a no-confidence ballot of MPs rendered a 172-to-40 result against Jeremy Corbyn.

Although the vote was definitive and the subsequent events have caused irreparable damage to Jeremy Corbyn's authority, the MPs who triggered this challenge, it now emerges, did so without a firm candidate to replace him, and without even knowing whether Corbyn may or may not be allowed to stand in a fresh leadership contest.

This detail is absolutely crucial, as he may yet win the support of the wider party membership if allowed to stand again. And what then if, as is extremely likely, he wins? The Parliamentary Labour Party will have failed to appeal to their own party members - for a second time - and they will have failed to put forward a credible alternative to a man so incredibly incompetent. Surely they will be finished.

All this, without the added dynamic of the long-awaited Chilcot Report on the Iraq War which is being published on July 6. What could possibly go wrong?

***

Jeremy Corbyn will not resign. Labour members may back him indefinitely. Those in power - the PLP, MEPs, etc - have abandoned him, and are actively working against him. Corbyn's survival, as many suggest, could well lead to the death of the Labour Party itself as MPs are forced to break away. 

But perhaps this was only a matter of time.

For better or for worse, social democratic parties, or the 'Establishment Left', have been falling across Europe. Yet this pattern is one the British Labour party has somehow avoided. Yes, Labour has not won an election since 2005 - but its support among the public remains far greater than the support of its counterparts across the continent.

The electoral success of Syriza in Greece marked the first major success of such a populist movement. POSAK, the established centre-left party, meanwhile has been sidelined. In the January 2015 legislative election, POSAK finished seventh with 4.7% of the vote share, a monumental collapse following their victory in October 2009 with 43.9%; its fall mirroring Syriza's rise in the intermediate six years.

Spain's June 2016 general election, the second within six months, saw PSOE, the traditional centre-left party win only 22.7% of the vote share - only a shade higher than the 22.0% it scored in December. Its collapse has been facilitated by the rise of Podemos, which received 21.1% in June 2016, and 20.7% in December, the first general election it had ever contested.

The Democratic Party of Italy led by Matteo Renzi occupies a more stable position having narrowly won the February 2013 general election with 29.5% to Silvio Berlusconi's centre-right People of Freedom with 29.1%. But the Five-Star Movement, a non-partisan anti-establishment Eurosceptic party, received 25.5% of the vote, like Podemos, in the first general election it had ever contested. Although the Democratic Party remains popular, polls show its support is falling while the Five Star Movement gains momentum, pointing to a defeat in 2018 for Italy's Establishment Left.

In France, the popularity of president Francois Hollande's Socialist Party is at its lowest it has been in some time (14%), and he is widely-expected to face defeat in 2017. In the first round of the 2015 regional elections, Hollande's party finished third on vote share with 23.12%, behind Nicolas Sarkozy's centre-right Republicans on 26.65%, and Marine Le Pen's far-right National Front on 27.73%.

***

While the fall of the Establishment Left has given way to a host of younger, more energetic insurgency-based movements, as Marine Le Pen's success in France has shown, this shift has ushered in the return of the far-right across Europe.

This New York Times interactive chart shows a recent rise in the support of far-right parties across Europe including Hungary, Denmark, Switzerland, Poland, and Austria.

The Austrian presidential elections in May 2016 saw the fascistic Freedom Party candidate Norbert Hofer narrowly defeated by the former Green Party candidate Alexander Van Der Bellen by only 30,863 votes.

But the election - won by 50.3% to 49.7% - will have to be re-run after the result was overturned on the basis that election rules were broken in a way that could influence the result. The prospect of Europe electing its first fascist leader since the end of World War II is once again a very real one.

While fascism is yet to enter mainstream politics in Britain, barring as an occasional source of comedy, there are a few worrying signs.

Let alone the death of Jo Cox at the hand of an alleged far-right political extremist, since the referendum result there has been a massive rise in the number of hate crimes. Latest police figures reveal the rate has risen five fold in the previous week alone, with 331 incidents reported to the national police records website against the average of 63. But the true figure may be far higher.

***

What would it mean if, as is increasingly likely, the Labour Party splits, or even collapses altogether? Europe shows that it could usher in a more radical movement in the mould of Podemos or Syriza. Or it could happen in conjunction with the rise of the far-right. Or both. Or neither.

If, after the 2015 general election, conventional wisdom suffered a blow, the referendum was its death knell. Where unexpected events, such as the Tory majority, the rise of the SNP, Jeremy Corbyn's Labour success, were frequent pre-Brexit, we may now begin to see wild, uncontrollable, unpredictable events hit us one after another in quick succession.

For instance, we could well see the actual death of the Labour Party. But, for better or for worse, perhaps this was long overdue.

Keep Calm and Carry On?

In the lasts few days our nation has been gripped by an unquenchable madness. Nobody knows what is happening. Pandora's Box has been opened and its contents are being traded away in a fire sale. How has it come to this?

The British public have voted to leave the European Union. This decision, which has already had a disastrous effect on the economy, was made by an older, wealthier generation of voters who haven't got very long left to live, in direct contradiction with the will of their relatively penniless children and grandchildren, who will have to live with these consequences the longest.

The Prime Minister has resigned, while both the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were not seen for 72 hours after the result was declared. George Osborne finally reared his head on Monday morning to make a reassuring statement before the markets opened, only for the markets to subsequently crash as investors panicked even further.

The pound has fallen to its lowest value against the dollar in 35 years. Approximately $2.08 trillion was wiped from the global markets in one day. Credit agency Moody's downgraded the UK's outlook from "stable" to "negative" while S&P said the UK would likely lose its AAA rating. So far on Monday, at the time of writing, the FTSE 100 has fallen by 2% and FTSE 250 has fallen by 4.5%.

David Cameron, who stepped down after leading a campaign he had hoped to narrowly win, will most likely be replaced with Boris Johnson, the former Mayor of London and the Prime Minister's old Etonian schoolmate, who led an opposition campaign he had hoped to narrowly lose, and who is subsequently trying to run the country from his newspaper column.

Boris Johnson, who won his campaign and signalled Britain's intent to leave the European Union, is having second thoughts over triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, presuming he becomes the next Prime Minister, while those who comprise the EU establishment want us to get out as soon as possible. Number 10 has announced the unit to lead Brexit issues will be led by Oliver Letwin, whose 'Controversies' section is as long as the 'Political Career' section of his Wikipedia page.

On what comes next, those leading the campaign have no Brexit plan, as they were never in a position to fulfil any pledges they made. The ruling Conservative party has no Brexit plan, as they were expecting those in Number 10 to have drafted any contingency. And Number 10 has no Brexit plan, as David Cameron was not expecting to lose what ultimately proved to be his last political gamble after he had won all of his previous ones.

"It sounds like I’m making that up" - @FaisalIslam was told the Leave campaign did not have a post #Brexit plan https://t.co/yAT1IOaG5v

— Sky News (@SkyNews) June 27, 2016

In the first meeting of his cabinet since the result was declared, the Pm told his colleagues "this government will not accept intolerance" in light of a sharp rise in the number of xenophobic and racially-motivated hate crimes across the country.

Meanwhile, a coup has been triggered within the Labour party. Its leader Jeremy Corbyn, who does not hold the confidence of his MPs, may yet retain the confidence of the party membership. While the shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Ben was sacked over the phone for expressing his lack of confidence in the leader and triggering said coup in the early hours of Sunday morning, the deputy party leader Tom Watson, it emerged, was on a bender in Glastonbury; a detail we have only gleaned from his latest Snapchat story. Corbyn allies accused would-be plotters of planning this ongoing coup on a "Snapchat group".

The new shadow defence secretary Clive Lewis was also at Glastonbury when he was appointed to his new role, and may be late for his first Defence Questions in parliament due to the traffic. His predecessor Maria Eagle resigned in a wave of mass resignations from the shadow cabinet, a walkout which yet continues, not to mention the dozens of MPs and party figures who are resigning from non-cabinet and relatively junior positions. The list of 37 resignations as of 2:00pm BST includes 18 shadow cabinet members, ten shadow ministers, and nine private parliamentary secretaries.

Jeremy Corbyn has refused to step down, and may yet be entitled to continue until a leadership challenge is triggered. But because the party rarely topples its own leaders in such a regicidal fashion, the exact rules as to whether Corbyn may have to regain 35 nominations to appear on the ballot paper are unclear, and may have to be determined by the National Executive Committee, of which Corbyn has a slight majority. There are also rumours that the majority of the PLP will follow a 'Libya model' of sorts and form a second shadow cabinet within the party led by an unofficial leader. One may feel this all needs to be sorted out before Prime Minister's Questions, which will take place on Wednesday morning.

Meanwhile our actual head of state, a woman 25 years past the retirement age, is constitutionally bound to keep shtum in times of political division by merit of a constitution we have yet to write down. She is taking a trip to Northern Ireland on Monday - a nation which may leave the UK along with Scotland in order to continue EU membership, which itself may not be possible.

Given this is only day four of Brexit Britain, what else could possibly go wrong?

***

In other news: International tensions have cooled as it has emerged Israel and Turkey struck a deal to end the six-year rift over the Gaza flotilla killings, while Iraq has taken back control of Fallujah from Islamic State in a massive blow to the terrorist group's ambitions.

EU Referendum: The Brexit Blame Game - Who Will Take The Rap For A Leave Vote?

During Jeremy Corbyn's Sky News Q&A on Monday, arguably among his stronger performances since becoming Labour leader, audience members challenged him on immigration, the refugee crisis, and his 'damascene conversion'.

The most interesting question, however, came from Sky News' political editor Faisal Islam. He asked the Labour leader whether he would "take the blame" for Brexit. The speculative question rather stood out from the substantive issues being discussed, but hinted at a potential post-Brexit media narrative.

Of course, whatever happens on Thursday, it will have been by the will of the British people. Using the term 'fault' or 'blame' implies the people will have made the wrong choice. The fault, if any, will collectively be all of ours. That is how democracy works, after all.

But the 'status quo' option is undoubtedly favoured by whatever it is you may term the 'establishment'. Groups including the government, the majority of business, the majority of economists, the majority of trade unions and even all 20 clubs which make up the Barclay's Premier League are in favour of a Remain victory.

As post-Brexit anger and bitterness brews, agents in the media may then begin the process of apportioning blame as a convenient way of bashing their political opponents.

Bearing that in mind, who will be the likely players in this Brexit Blame Game?

***

Jeremy Corbyn

There lives and breathes a rather large faction of Corbyn catastrophicists who fervently believe everything the Labour leader does, says, or even touches turns into a brown, mucky substance. But, on this, they may have a point.

The man who admitted his enthusiasm in this campaign has only been "seven or seven and a half" out of ten, and that he has "no great love for the European Union" has only made a handful of major set-piece speeches, and has allegedly done little to convince undecided and demotivated Labour supporters to turn out.

Notwithstanding the danger of emulating The Boy Who Cried Wolf, Corbyn's lacklustre role in this campaign will almost certainly attract scorn from many - particularly in the Labour Party - who will feel his heart wasn't in it, and that he didn't do enough.

Alan Johnson

Hopes were high for the Labour grandee and perpetual party leader-in-waiting, who took the reigns of the Labour In for Britain campaign in December. But over the course of the official referendum campaign his presence has been almost non-existent.

When researchers measured the frequency of media appearances during a four week period between May to June, the alleged leader of the Labour campaign was ranked 18th overall, with 14 appearances in what has been a very Conservative-dominated sphere.

But even from all the Labour figures in the top 20, Johnson was ranked 5th. He fell behind Harriet Harman (14th with 17 appearances), Gordon Brown (13th with 18 appearances), Gisela Stuart (11th with 20 appearances), and Jeremy Corbyn (7th with 52 appearances).

Labour Voters

Will Labour voters be motivated to turn out? It is a question many have been asking during this campaign. Generally, Labour voters are fairly united; only split 75/25 in favour of Remain while, for reference, Conservative voters are split 56/44 in favour of Leave.

But, come Friday, the 'lazy Labour' trope may resurface. One theory floating around is that the overwhelming Tory domination in the media, and the failure of the Labour party to make its position clear, will lead to a low Labour turnout, and a Leave victory. 

Young People 

Younger voters have gained a notorious reputation for developing a stubborn political apathy; with only 43% of 18-24 year-olds turning out to vote in the 2015 General Election compared with 78% of those aged 65+.

Meanwhile, data that has emerged during the referendum campaign shows that 18-24 year-olds are overwhelmingly in favour of remaining (69%), and voters aged 65+ are overwhelmingly in favour of leaving (62%). If the turnout by age group mirrors that from last year, which is incredibly likely, withdrawal from the EU could well be pinned on young people's apathy.

The Political Class

The Mayor of London only this week described the tone of the EU debate as "poisonous". In fact, I've written previously about how politicians are failing to cut through with the public and engage in this campaign.

Also read:

• EU Referendum: Neither Side In This Scrappy Debate Is Cutting Through
• EU Referendum: Young Voices Are Being Sidelined In This Campaign

A combination of hysterical economic claims based on dubious models, scaremongering about immigration, and personal in-fighting between party colleagues may lead to a climate that ultimately turns off members of the public and leads to a low turnout.

When asked who they trusted the least, people under the age of 30 answered "politicians" with a net -66 rating, while a recent survey of both Remain and Leave voters showed a general disdain for the opinion of "experts".

It could well be the case that after this referendum, our MPs, who overwhelmingly back Britain's continued membership of the EU by 459 to 150, use their summer break to take a long, hard at themselves in the mirror, and think about what they've done. Unlikely, yes, but stranger things than MPs taking responsibility have happened.

David Cameron 

The Prime Minister may ultimately have to resign in the event of a Brexit, and his opponents within Labour and the Conservative Party will be spoilt for choice if they wish to pin it on his back.

For example, the widely-accepted view is that he bungled his months'-long EU renegotiation, failing to return with the sufficient changes to convince his Eurosceptic back-benchers and undecided voters across the UK to follow his lead in this campaign.

There are smaller factors too, such as the government's voter registration reform which disproportionately disenfranchised young, and overwhelmingly more pro-European voters, as well as his staunch resistance to widening the voting age to 16- and 17-year-olds.

Blame may also arise, of course, from his decision to hold this referendum in the first place.

Media Spotlight - Jeremy Corbyn: the Outsider

For all their differences, Jeremy Corbyn and the British press have something in common; an unforgiving contempt for each another.

Last week VICE released a fly-on-the-wall film documenting the inner-workings of the Labour leader's operation, and the reviews were mixed; not for the quality of the documentary (nobody particularly cared how good the film was) but for how Jeremy Corbyn presented himself.

In light of the fascinating relationship between Corbyn and the media, I figured that instead of reviewing it myself it would be more appropriate to collate what his biggest fans - those inside, and camping on the fringes of, the Westminster bubble - made of it.

***

Will Self, Vice: 'Bathetic and pathetic': Corbyn's normcore shtick is utterly ineffectual

What I mostly felt watching the documentary was anger − an anger which, as bathetic and pathetic scenes alternated, muted into annoyance, before finally curdling to become mere... pity, which is hardly a vote-winner.

Gaby Hinsliff, the Guardian: The media don't hate Jeremy Corbyn. It's more complicated than that 

Having been a lobby reporter for 12 years, followed by observing Westminster from a safer distance for the past six, I do think bias is part of the answer. But not the bias you think. Journalists are not out to destroy Corbyn because he threatens to bring down the neoliberal elite, or because they’re all Tories, or because they live in a bubble of groupthink.

Iain Martin, CapX: Corbyn is getting worse. The man is a total twit

If you think personal abuse is uncalled for then please don’t read on. Personally, I want there to be a proper opposition. I think the leader of the opposition should be a serious person. Prime Minister is still a pretty important job. People putting themselves up for the post had better be good. That Corbyn is so useless but persists is an act of supreme selfishness and self-indulgence. He deserves everything that is coming to him from the electorate.

Matt Chorley, the Times (£): Corbyn cameras capture a new David Brent. Fact!

The beard, the self-delusion, the pseudo-proverbs used to convey great insight. Jeremy Corbyn is the David Brent of our day... Seems easy: invite in a journalist who is a paid-up Labour member from a website from outside the hated “mainstream media” to secure positive coverage. This is no stitch-up. It’s worse than that. Like Ricky Gervais’s spoof, it just holds the camera up to Mr Corbyn and shows viewers what he says and does.

Peter Edwards, LabourList: Corbyn film underlines risk of letting cameras in to the leader's office

There was no clear message from the film beyond Corbyn’s hostile attitude towards the BBC and a Guardiancolumnist who wrote about anti-Semitism – but this would not be what you want the public to take away from 30 minutes up close with the Labour leader. It was confirmation, if any were needed, that Corbyn and his staff do not attempt to stage manage his interventions in the microscopic manner that initially proved so successful under New Labour.

Mark Wallace, Conservative Home: A rare and troubling glimpse inside Corbyn's command bunker

There are some moments of humour worthy of The Thick Of It, provided apparently unintentionally by the interviewees. At one point Corbyn, who is signing photographs at the time, explains that in the autumn he will be signing the fruit from his allotment: "I’m gonna sign the apples. We’ll have signed apples."

Catherine Bennett, the Guardian: Jeremy Corbyn's male-only retinue will never tell him he has no clothes

Like Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown before him, he shows a firm preference for a male-dominated team, its mission to sustain the fantasy that the chosen oddball can prevail: a skilled operation that would evidently be jeopardised if any woman were allowed a speaking role. Women’s freedom to sit silently, even to clap, is, however, one of the key respects in which life inside Corbyn’s office can be seen to differ from arrangements on all-male Mount Athos.

John McTernan, the Telegraph: Why Jeremy Corbyn despises the liberal media even more than the Right

Luckily for Cameron, Corbyn only brought his trademark tone of sanctimonious petulance to the Chamber. Unluckily for Corbyn, documentary filmmakers from Vice TV were in the room when he told his team that he was going to give the day to Cameron. The brief shot of Seumas Milne’s face shows two thoughts fighting for dominance: "Did he really just say that? Again?" just loses out to "Why did I agree to the camera crew?"

Tom Peck, the Independent: Why won't they just let me fail on my own?

Vice’s "fly-on-the-wall" documentary took months to make. Flies are attracted to one thing, and whenever the smell coming off that thing turned so overwhelming as to be unmaskable even by the aggressively perfumed Seumas Milne, Vice was sent packing til the whiff had subsided.

*** 

I've embedded the divisive documentary below. It's definitely worth a watch. You can, and should, make up your mind over it.

Disaster for Corbyn and the Art of Analytical Spin

We have seen it time and again, and in the midst of last week's local elections we saw it once more.

It was a disaster for Corbyn before anyone had voted on May 5, as the votes were being counted, and after results had been declared. There was, and still seems to be, little room for an alternative point of view in this suffocating narrative.

Initially, pollsters and pundits were predicting that Labour was set to lose 100-150 seats. 'Labour set for worst council defeat in opposition in 34 years' screamed the Telegraph headline. They also provided a helpful infographic so you could picture how much of a disaster it would be.

Based on a model by polling expert John Curtice, the infographic suggested:

• If Labour was level in the polls the party would lose 120 council seats.
• If Labour was two points behind the party would lose 170 council seats.
• If Labour was four points behind the party would lose 220 council seats.

Well, a poll commissioned in late April showed that Labour was eight points behind. Yikes.

Then, Corbyn sputtered petrol onto the fire by claiming 'Labour won't lose any council seats'. Instead of managing expectations, he was beating the drum. The stage was set for a Labour meltdown.

***

Given this ongoing narrative most pundits used election night as an attractive opportunity to peer into an inevitable disaster - and who wouldn't?

Coverage was dominated by Labour's performance, and at the heart of this was the 'high bar' Miliband had set in the 2012 local elections. In what was referred to as Miliband's "best electoral performance" he won over 2000 seats and made hundreds of gains while scoring a projected national share (PNS) of 38% compared with the Tories' 31%. 

Indeed, Miliband hailed Labour's performance as a sign that Labour are "back throughout the country." 

LABOUR    | 2159 councillors (+823) | 75 councils (+32) | 38% PNS  

TORIES      | 1006 councillors (-405) | 42 councils (-12)  | 31% PNS

The media narrative at the time greatly favoured the Labour leader. It was seen as a bad night for the Tories, and according to the BBC report: "Conservative ministers shrugged off the results as typical for a mid-term government." 

While 2012 is a fair bar to set, as it was the last time these seats were contested, there are several clear flaws. First, as Steve Richards argued on last week's Sunday Politics, the electoral map is more fractured than it was four years ago. Second, we are only one year into Corbyn's stint while in 2012 we were two years into Miliband's tenure.

Third, the two questions journalists asked throughout the night, and subsequently used to pass judgement on Corbyn once answered, are logically inconsistent. The two questions they asked were:

Q1) How did Corbyn do in 2016 compared with Miliband's 'peak' in 2012?
Q2) What does Corbyn's performance in 2016 tell us about Labour's chances in 2020?

If we are using local elections to project the outcome of a general election (Q2), then using Labour's 2012 'peak' as a bar against which to Judge Corbyn (Q1) is completely pointless, as Labour lost in 2015 anyway.

Nevertheless, of the seats being contested, the results were more or less exactly the same.

LABOUR    | 1326 councillors (-18) | 75 councils (n/c) | 31% PNS  

TORIES      | 842 councillors (-48)  | 38 councils (-1)   | 30% PNS

The meltdown never came.

***

Another way of judging Labour's performance is by comparing the PNS against the vote share in May 2015, and polling from when Jeremy Cobyn was elected leader in September.

LABOUR    | 30% in May 2015 | 30% in September 2015 | 31% PNS in May 2016

TORIES      | 37% in May 2015 | 42% in September 2015 | 30% PNS in May 2016

Labour's support has more or less remained the same over the last 12 months, while the Tories' support has wildly fluctuated; from a good high of 42% in September to 30% in these local elections.

Incidentally, I'm unsure how the official PNS is calculated (though I have no doubt it is accurate), but if you reverse engineer the John Curtice model the Telegraph so gleefully used to project hundreds of seat losses, Labour would be 4.08 points ahead nationally following these results.

***

Conventional wisdom may suggest Corbyn is in for a hammering in 2020, but I'm not so we can trust conventional wisdom at a time conventional wisdom also suggested Jeremy Corbyn was in for a hammering in the leadership contest.

Steve Fisher, election expert at Oxford University, was consulted for this article which asks what we can learn from these results, if anything. It strikes a balanced tone in a sea of hysteria. On whether you can use local election results to project a general election, Fisher says: "There is absolutely no discernible, sensible correlation." The article was written on May 1. 

Which is where I'd like to bring this back to analytical spin. If you commit to pushing a narrative based on particular assumptions, it's very easy to simply maintain that narrative by cherry-picking data, even after finding your initial assumptions were completely wrong.

Of course, it's possible to interpret these set of results to suit your pre-conceived political bias or pre-formed narrative, regardless of which measure you use, regardless of whether you're sitting in your bedroom in your pants, or in a television studio in your glistening suit.

For example, on vote share, Corbyn's critics can look to a reduction in the PNS in 2016 compared with 2012, 38% versus 31%. Corbyn's supporters, meanwhile, can look to a 12-point deficit in September being swung into a one point lead in May.

***

This is why, in my opinion, our political analysis can do with a little less of a reliance on constructing narratives. 

In focussing so obsessively on the  narrative of an inevitable Labour meltdown (which, by the way, never came), I feel they missed out on some interesting talking points:

• Turnout is consistently dire, and in some areas was much lower than in 2012.
• The Liberal Democrats are fighting back, with some success, having gained the most seats (+ 42) of any party.
• Roughly as many people support the Lib Dems and Ukip combined (27%) as Labour (31%) and the Tories (30%).

You can see the full local election results on BBC News. Congrats to the Britain Elects Twitter account for its fantastic reporting. Their ward-by-ward results can be found here. 

Steve Richards, who I cited earlier, has written a great piece via Total Politics on the two figures who will determine the fate of Jeremy Corbyn.