Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Populus change their much criticised party ID weightings wh
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Populus change their much criticised party ID weightings which should see much bigger UKIP shares
Given the frequency of Populus online polls today’s change in methodlogy is an important event if only because the firm that traditionally had the lowest UKIP numbers will now be up there amongst the highest.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/02/06/what-your-tv-favourites-say-about-your-politics/
Only watch 1 Tory prog (Strickers), 3 Labour (Phoenix Nights, The Office & Frasier) and no LDs
The data isn't shown in the tables. What we do know is that of that of the 202 UKIP voters in this poll just 130 voted LAB/CON/LD at GE2010
My reading is that a very high proportion of UKIP supporters didn't vote at GE2010..
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
UKIP score 15 in a poll
45% are 2010 Conservatives, that's 6.75
14% are 2010 LDs, that's 2.1
8% are 2010 Labour that's 1.2
The remaining 33% are others and DNV, that's 5
That 33% includes 2010 UKIP voters I believe? So lets assume for arguments sake UKIP have retained this vote, that is 60% of the remaining score of 5 (3)
So
2010 Con 6.75
2010 LD 2.1
2010 Lab 1.2
2010 UKIP 3
Makes 13.05 of the UKIP score of 15, leaving 1.95/15 as others DNV
13% of UKIP voters were others or DNV in 2010. I said 10.7, apologies
I think Farage said it was 20% in "The Late Debate" on ITV last night, I will rewatch and check. Mike you should watch that programme if poss, ComeRes Director and Matthew Goodwin spent 15 mins analysing UKIPs effect on the polls.
Chris Smith — from flying the red flag at Islington Council in 1983 to touring the Somerset Levels in 2014:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRWvcdyQITs&
Other polling where this has been measured specifically has found that quite a large proportion of current UKIP supporters did not vote in 2010.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26082480
"An independent Scotland could delay the rise in the state pension age by 12 years, according to economic analysis.
It could benefit from a lower cost of providing pensions as Scots, on average, have shorter lives than the rest of the UK (rUK)."
Vote Yes - die young.
Plenty of leftys on here will tell you different!!
How dare you!
Next thing you'll be saying the PB tories are about as likely to persuade the scottish public as Chicken Cameron and then where would we be?
LOL
Given your earlier comments, when you sell your house for £200,000, only to see it on the market again a couple of months later for £350,000, you will no doubt consider yourself to have got a bargain. You will no doubt also think that the estate agent earned every penny of his hefty commission, and that it was fortunate that you accepted that offer from the friend of the agent who came around before it even went on the market even though you had to turn seven other viewers away the very next day.
Just bear in mind that your neighbours may not share that rosy view. And please don't lecture me on the success of the Royal Mail privatisation.
I find that those here who descend into name calling (in your case "economically illiterate" etc.) invariably do so in the absence of a coherent argument.
The boost from North Sea oil tax revenues would never be enough to plug the £7 billion-a-year gap left by the removal of top-ups from Westminster, it was claimed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10624305/Independent-Scotland-faces-spiralling-black-hole-in-finances.html
But if that is the case, why is less than a third of their current share UKIP+Others+DNV? It doesn't tally with a VI share of 15%.
Either the methodology is still out, or a sizable share of UKIP's 2010 vote has defected, or they've not picked up much DNV, or it's a rogue sample.
In 1975, the Government faced a dilemma: how to exploit the potential of its new oil fields without fuelling demands for Scottish independence. So it buried the evidence
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDZoVmdlVXBEQVNvcUNfR294UXo0S3c&usp=sheets_web
2010 election results on one page:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dHdWdzBpbEl6S29TUmVid3dPR1k4RXc&usp=sheets_web
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26084245
45% of UKIP (equivalent to 6.75%) are former tory voters. Approximately 10% (3.6%) of Labour are 2010 Lib Dems.
There may be reasons that Labour might not be too happy about this.
Good point. I don;t know how much autonomy Quango heads have in funding allocation etc, but it would be interesting to find out.
I'm going to go with this analysis is utter bull, with no predictive power.
All it shows (I presume) is that the Labour and Lib Dem vote is typically younger and more metropolitian in nature.
Greater London: (13)
Bermondsey & Old Southwark
Bethnal Green & Bow
Brent Central
Camberwell & Peckham
Ealing Southall
East Ham
Greenwich & Woolwich
Hackney North & Stoke Newington
Hayes & Harlington
Hornsey & Wood Green
Lewisham Deptford
Streatham
Vauxhall
Other areas: (30)
Aldridge-Brownhills — (Eurosceptic Tory MP)
Batley & Spen
Bexhill & Battle
Birkenhead
Blaydon
Bradford East
Castle Point
Clacton — (Eurosceptic Tory MP)
Corby
Dewsbury
Haltemprice & Howden
Hemsworth
Hexham
Huddersfield
Jarrow
Kettering — (Eurosceptic Tory MP)
Leeds Central
Leeds East
Makerfield
Manchester Gorton
Newcastle Upon Tyne East
Normanton, Pontefract & Castleford
Nuneaton
Richmond (YORKS)
Rochester & Strood
Shipley — (Eurosceptic Tory MP)
South Shields
Tatton
Wakefield
Warrington North
There was an analysis posted on here that showed the kipper vote at last May's locals translated to about 17% while the all polls average points to it being about 15%.
What you can also see if you look closely are the polls that overestimate the kipper vote as well as underestimate it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
So I doubt they'll all be wrong but there is definitely the potential for some pollsters to end up looking very silly indeed if they can't get a handle on the kipper vote by 2015.
Not so for the lib dems. Pretty hard to overestimate or underestimate their support by very much considering they've been flatlining on 10% since late 2010.
Why Chris Smith was thought a suitable appointment for such an organisation is another and deeper mystery. If you are going to have rule by technocrats surely you get a technocrat not another failed politician.
How many chancellors are qualified in economics?
However, from a seats perspective, I am struggling to see why it matters. To put this in perspective, let's assume a Tory/Labour marginal (*actual votes* in 2010):
Tory 25,000
Labour 23,000
LD 10,000
Other 2,000
DNV 10,000
Surely, even if all of the DNV move to UKIP, then it does not impact the result one bit.
Hence, for those trying to think about the impact of the UKIP vote on seats lost by the Tories, shouldn't you be basing your calculation on c. 70% of the poll score anyway? i.e. if they are polling 10% then the "impactful score" (ugly term) is only 7% - much closer to Cameron's target of 5%.
What am I missing (apart from the momentum argument)?
Implies that Chris Smith and the EA are a scapegoat. Isn't it the case that they *actually do* bear a significant portion of the responsiblity because of their policy on dredging?
A more comparable question might be is how many permanent secretaries of the Treasury have not been qualified in economics? Or would you have a head of the OBR that was not a qualified economist? Or a governor of the BoE? Surely not.
Don't get me wrong. Owen Paterson has hardly been one of the shining lights of this government and is very lucky to still be in post so there is no saying that an inhouse operation would have been better but at least he is accountable to the Commons and the PM. Lord Smith is not. Quangos are undemocratic and should be technical, not be the playthings of former politicians.
But if you'd told me that both of these were going to be the case, I'd have thought you were out with the fairies.
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/06/29/final-vote-tally-from-last-months-locals-shows-ukip-in-second-place-in-seats-contested/
The National Equivalent Vote was: Con 26%, Lab 29%, LD 13%, UKIP 22%.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP13-30/local-elections-2013
I think you may be thinking of the _current_ council by-elections analysis:
"Analysis by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher for The Sunday Times shows how strong UKIP has become. The professors at Plymouth University Elections Centre have recalibrated their celebrated analysis of more than 100,000 votes cast in council by-elections and now put UKIP in third place in their latest national forecast: Labour 34%, Tories 28%, UKIP 17%, Lib Dems 13%."
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/columns/adamboulton/article1370209.ece
"We're an Executive Non-departmental Public Body responsible to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs"
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/default.aspx
This looks to me very much like an attempt to shift blame.
https://twitter.com/jonathanchat
Basically Labour have picked up a miniscule amount of support (at least net) from anyone else other than the 2010 Lib Dems. Given their apparent losses to UKIP (6.75% on this poll) the tories have done as well in picking up other support as Labour has.
Quite remarkable as the late, great David Coleman used to say.
Dredging and installing additional pumping earlier may well have stopped it happening.
Fair enough, though I did mention this when you last posted that analysis.
22% would mean that no pollster overestimated the kipper vote and only a scant few got that level. In which case the kipper polling is skewed even more downwards than just the failure to prompt would have suggested. The trends would still hold though and those were a sharp kipper rise starting last Feb followed by a big drop after May.
Agreed. I think to apportion blame we need to ascertain who makes the policy decisions that have exacerbated the problems in Somerset.
2 Mitchell
4 Paterson
5 Cridland
8 Fallon
16 Clegg/Lilley/Willetts/Maude/Lansley
I'll reveal tomorrow my choice after I've got some money on
Our principal aims are to protect and improve the environment, and to promote sustainable development. We play a central role in delivering the environmental priorities of central government through our functions and roles.
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/default.aspx
At what cost? and based on an assumption of this year's rainfall totals? for a few hundred people? Sorry but people need to get real.
Yes and it does make one wonder what will be the effect if the UKIP bubble bursts - remember the LDs after the debates.....
Lol - totally unfair ... but lol.
They should be well used to that by now though.
Look at Thurrock 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurrock_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
All of the others go to UKIP and they have no chance by your reckoning
http://www.populus.co.uk/Our-Methodology/Polling/
The differences between the two methodologies [phone and online] relate to how best to secure a sample with an appropriate degree of political representativeness, which Populus regards as being crucial to replacing telephone-based voting intention polling with an online equivalent. Observing voting intention figures derived from phone and online samples over time it has become clear that simply “past vote” weighting both in similar ways does not produce sustained comparable results.
Populus has therefore sought a different way of ensuring that the political make-up of each of its online samples is more politically representative and leads to results that are more consistent with samples drawn randomly by phone. Over recent times we have noted a small but significant divergence in the post-weighted shares of the vote of UKIP and the Liberal Democrats compared with some other reputable polling companies. In light of this we have reviewed our use of a single source for deriving party identification at the last General Election and have decided to broaden the range of measures we use. The cumulative effect of these changes is to reduce slightly the number of people who identify with the Liberal Democrats and with Labour and to increase the proportion who identify with UKIP and with no party. The number identifying with the Tories remains broadly the same.
There isn't anything that exciting about it; its thesis is that oil is expensive, there's lots of it in the sea round Scotland, if Scotland gets all the money from that oil Scotland will be rich - all on the basis of public domain information from the DTI (there is a suggestion, pp.5-6 that the DTI has been a bit incompetent in presenting the figures and the SNP a bit dim about it all, but he adopts the DTI revenue forecasts anyway).
Lord Ashcrofts poll says UKIP are on 16% in W&SE...
Anyone want EVS that UKIP poll under 16%?
or 11/10?
or 5/4?
The point was, though, that any votes UKIP wins from DNV don't impact the overall result (assuming they are going to win zero seats).
The only impact they have will be if they disproportionately win votes from one party vs the other. Hence if everyone is saying UKIP is on 10% it's a disaster for the Tories they may be overstating the effect - the "real" impact is the same as if UKIP is on 7% and all the DNVs...well, don't vote.
Little Ed forced them to re-appoint him.
I accept that second order effects are influenced (I flagged momentum, but obviously there are others as well).
The point is, though, that the squeeze job the Tories have to do is from 7% -> 5% not from 10% -> 5% and presumably this will be easier to achieve (this may also address RN's confusion re the disconnect between UKIP's apparent share and the narrowness of Labour's lead)
Hopefully when all this dies down (and dries out) we will be able to have a sane debate on the state of our nation's flood defences.
Also hopefully, we'll be able to get rid of useless political placemen like Lord Smith, whatever their political persuasion.
Admittedly some of the "plus ca change" asides are quite funny: "...the SNP is already showing signs of making promises which could be an embarrassment to its economic management." Wouldn't happen now, would it?
Pretty shocking thing to do (by Labour).
My point is that DNV don't impact the relative position of the big 3 - and it is this relative position that impacts the result, not the vote share
However, the small rivers were dredged every summer and the farmers dredged the rhynes (the ditches that surrounded the fields) at the same time with the silt and water weeds being piled on the bank for the water to drain, to raise the bank and also to fertilise the field.
I used to catch sticklebacks and minnows in these rhynes and the wildlife certainly did not suffer from the dredging.
Hawaii 5-0 and the Wire are the only 2 of all those listed that I watch.
Which may mean than UKIP has a lot less impact on the result than people think.
The point is, though, that the squeeze job the Tories have to do is from 7% -> 5% not from 10% -> 5% and presumably this will be easier to achieve (this may also address RN's confusion re the disconnect between UKIP's apparent share and the narrowness of Labour's lead)
Under 5% and far closer to their 2010 3.1% Of which I see no sign whatsoever yet.
Sure, we have proof that the tory kipper vote is to an extent mirroring each other. There are soft tory kipper waverers who can come back to the fold which is why the kipper vote can indeed fall markedly after a set of elections like last May. That's not the question. The question is by how much it needs to fall after May going in to an actual election campaign.
If it rises for May and then falls back to where it is now by next Feb then there will be panic on a scale from some tory MPs that makes all that has gone before seem trivial.
8-10% is not an unreasonable estimate. If we don't see a HARD kipper crash after May ( I mean a real and very substantial drop) I'd be more inclined to put it at the upper 10% level.
Oh, is West Lothian in Scotland? I never understood what that WLQ stuff was all about.
There is nothing in the report that a competent economics A Level student could not have written in 1974. Executive summary of report: "SNP miss open goal a mile wide". Dalyell may be right that had they not done so things might have been different, but so what? If my aunt was a wagon she'd have wheels. I just don't see any interest this has in 2014.
http://news.sky.com/story/1208189/animal-testing-plan-branded-a-whitewash
I know that getting a politically balanced sample is difficult, but if any party sees a large surge in support you will also see people change the way they answer this question. The pollsters need to use other questions that change less rapidly, and are easier for people to answer honestly: housing tenure, public transport usage, employment status, maybe even preferred type of alcohol - anything that is broadly correlated with political affiliation without directly asking for it.
There is nothing in the report that a competent economics A Level student could not have written in 1974. Executive summary of report: "SNP miss open goal a mile wide". Dalyell may be right that had they not done so things might have been different, but so what? If my aunt was a wagon she'd have wheels. I just don't see any interest this has in 2014.
The point was that the document was suppressed, and not published, at the time ... so it is not so much that the goalposts were missed as the SNP and the public didn't even know they existed.
Sure, we have proof that the tory kipper vote is to an extent mirroring each other. There are soft tory kipper waverers who can come back to the fold which is why the kipper vote can indeed fall markedly after a set of elections like last May. That's not the question. The question is by how much it needs to fall after May going in to an actual election campaign.
If it rises for May and then falls back to where it is now by next Feb then there will be panic on a scale from some tory MPs that makes all that has gone before seem trivial.
8-10% is not an unreasonable estimate. If we don't see a HARD kipper crash after May ( I mean a real and very substantial drop) I'd be more inclined to put it at the upper 10% level.
My guess is more like 7-8%: I tend to be doubtful as to whether DNV's will vote. But probably only 5-6% of that will come from previous voters, of which half will be from UKIP10 and some from other minor parties. So let's say there is a total of 3% from the big 2(and perhaps, for the sake of argument, 2% from the Tories and 1% from Labour)
How many additional seats would Labour win if there was a relatively 1% shift in their favour?