Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling Round Up
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling Round Up
Those saying “May change my mind” 2 weeks before election: 18% (1992); now nearly half 45% (2010) #KingsIpsosMORI pic.twitter.com/vZoCGVpcNa
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The problem with the Ashcroft poll is that it adds up to 85%. Even with others there is a significant DK.
That is why both the Labour and Tory figure is misleading.
Nick Robinson @bbcnickrobinson 47m
I've covered quite a few leadership coups in my time but few as cack- handed as the attempt to unseat Nick Clegg
Who to believe?
What are you offering that Labour will be -8.4 behind the Conservatives in vote share for the
2015 GE ?
You were wrong regarding Labour if I remember correctly on euros results night.
From your analysis it is looking like Labour 31% Conservatives 39.4% ?
Normally, when there is a coup, there is a prize at stake. Something people actually desire.
So on that basis, Ashcroft is out of line with most of the other pollsters, as they have Con and Lab in the mid/early 30s
Because political disengagement is showing up in voters as well as non voters?
Because i would prefer to compare the Trend since 1992
Someone's got to do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0fk6syQ7iY
"Rod C
Maarsh said
Lord Ashcroft EP Exit Poll: 1st UKIP 29%, 2nd Conservatives 24%, 3rd Labour 21%, 4th Lib Dems 8%. Conservatives beat Labour to 2nd place
UNS
25/21/17/2
disastrous for Labour, if true. Quids in for me, also...
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/05/implications-of-the-euro-result-in-scotland/
....SNP support was apparently overestimated while that for the Conservatives was underestimated.......doubtless some will ask whether the discrepancy is a sign that some polls at least might be overestimating Yes support too.
UKIP is here to stay like the Monster Raving Loony Party. Many of the same supporters.
I was out by the humongous total of 1.5%.
My reputation is in tatters, I guess...
We should add dates to polling as the things you don't understand.
Last time you upset the righties ahead of the GE by giving them uncomfortable news. This time the lefties have you persona non grata.
Not persona non grata, but I am unconvinced that a mathematical model will necessarily stand up to this coming election.
And, btw, I'm a lender, not a borrower...
I think you're a welcome addition to the state, but can I suggest you try a new username? Even as someone that dislikes Cameron, I find it just diminishes your credibility. It comes across like the people that use "Bliar", but as it begins every one of your posts even well-written posts are affected by it.
Ok, the lead is a little smaller but Labour will win the elections
Ok, a poll shows neck and neck but this time it's as close as the Tories get and Lab will win
OK, we've had crossover but Lab will win and crossover won't establish itself....
Guess what comes next?
That's why the usual suspects are posting like Ed is already in number 10. The dream is nicer than the obvious trend.
I made that name up on the spur of the moment while trying to work out if I was banned, or the changeover to different board systems had fritzed my old account.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/pakistani-woman-stoned-death
Any ways back to your thread today.
I asked earlier what are you offering that Labour are -8.4 behind the Conservatives in vote share 2015 GE.
So for example it would be 31% Labour 39.4 Conservative?
What does "add dates to polling as the things you don't understand" actually mean?
Is it even a proper sentance?
When is OGH back by the way?
I am basing the feeling on an increase in the number of variables that have been added to the mix. Rod may well be right, it just happens that I disagree.
Just 11 and a half more months of monkey poo fights and we can start all over again.
Just read the Dan Hodges piece too. A bit rubbish tonight; sometimes he tries to hard to kick Ed Miliband, looking for angles where none really exist. Hodges is better when he gets juicy quotes off Shadow Cabinet members and gives his take on the intra-Labour rivalries and splits.
The BNP in blazers.
Stories have it Obama is due to publicly announce an increase in support for Syrian insurgents. Whilst he has a reputation for dithering of the first order on the subject this time he's apparently serious and certainly its a first that hes reportedly going to stand up and say it on Wednesday.
Question is, why now? In essence its years late, when things were a lot more clear cut on the insurgent structure. Certainly it could be cynically designed to keep things going in the chaotic country but the real focus, I suspect, is in the South.
Anyone who has followed my posts in recent months (no yawning at the back) may remember that I mentioned US & Jordanian supported insurgents in the South and, more significantly that tension on the Israeli/Jordanian borders with Syria was very high. In the South Assad has next to no radar air-defence screen, he hasn't for ages. It is perhaps no co-incidence that Obama's supposed announcement follows increasing Israeli airforce incursions across the border, flying without interference and, potentially creating a defacto no -fly for Assad's airforce.
The timing, could be critical in another way. Despite reports to the contrary, Assad isn't exactly winning but, significantly, has secured the strategic corridor which is central to his survival map. The insurgents, with the exception of the Southern border region, haven't made noticeable headway in a while so a timely intervention in the insurgent favour (we await to see if it is of any actual usefulness) creates a new threat.
Its also less of a distance from the Jordanian border to Damascus.
Thanks.
He was spot on on the LDs though. "Mr Blair praised the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg for his 'leadership' in recent years but said the Lib Dems' poor performance in the polls was 'nothing to do with Europe'. "I don't want to damage him by saying this, but over the past few years he has actually shown quite a lot of leadership and courage.
"But the problem they have is very simple. They fought the 2010 election on a platform significantly to the left of Labour and then ended up in a Conservative government with a platform significantly to the right of Labour... that is the problem the Lib Dems have and there is not really a cure that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27585260
Vince orchestrated it but got cold feet when he saw how everyone was rallying behind Clegg.
Oakeshott over-keen and went ahead without his master's express permission.
Vince's patronage of Oakeshott was always vastly exaggerated anyway - guy's a bit of a fantasist.
You really should be ashamed but I am guessing you are not. I wonder what that says about you?
Don't worry, I've got a few the Tories are doomed pieces to go up, but I've got one you'll definitely enjoy tomorrow afternoon.
Lib Dem wag: "Typical Oakeshott, pound shop Machiavelli."
"The liberal elite" has been around for a long time on the net, but is getting mainstream traction now that Farage is using at as a weapon. Very difficult for the politically correct at the top to counter. I expect a number will visit George's elocutionist for some reverse ferret training to appeal to blue collar and working class voters. Indeed I see Nick Palmer has started dropping his aitches as he types on here. Getting some practice in. But it's not going to work. Just looks inauthentic.
And "the left behind" is the expression that mainstream politicians seem to be adopting to describe UKIP voters. Again, it's a bit insulting. And insulting UKIP voters doesn't work. Just hardens the core. And besides, UKIP voters appear to me to be early adopters if anything. Not at all left behind. Out there in front in rejecting the "legacy parties" and winning.
I trust Cameron because he is an Old Etonian.
Etonians never lie.
Paulines are less reliable except when it comes to numbers. On anything to do with figures they can be trusted without question.
It's MancUNIans who are altogether a bit dodgy and unreliable.
LAB 36
TORIES 26
BNP in suits 16
We cannot account for who vote for the party, anymore than any other party, only who we allow in and unlike any of the other parties UKIP have a clear ban on anyone who has been a BNP member.
Bond would apparently rather vote for the ex-BNP members and the racists who were kicked out of UKIP.
Morrissey wrote a good song about the former when he still wrote decent songs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glrYDRz5BDs
UKIP have a policy - unchanged - that no former BNP member can join the party.
We cannot account for who vote for the party, anymore than any other party, only who we allow in and unlike any of the other parties UKIP have a clear ban on anyone who has been a BNP member.
Bond would apparently rather vote for the ex-BNP members and the racists who were kicked out of UKIP.
I didnt know about the ban on former BNP members. Definitely gone up in my estimation
If so then you can coax me out of my pb virginity by having a bet at 10p/basis point struck at 10% of GE2015 vote share for UKIP. so if they poll 11% I owe you £10 and if they poll 9% you owe me £10 etc.
I couldn't care less if there are better or worse odds out there for the same result it just seemed a fun bet for us. You know my view is for your lot (assuming you haven't followed your heart by then to join the Tories) to poll 3-5% so that is about right, payoff-wise.
Sorry Mike but that is a terrible slur on a great man.
That quote was never made by Monnet. It was made by the British Conservative academic Adrian Hilton who was ascribing those sentiments to Monnet.
I may disagree with the whole concept of a united Europe and much of what Monnet wanted but he was always utterly honest about his intentions and vision. At no time did he ever suggest that people should be tricked into union. That particular trait seems to be reserved mostly for British politicians who know how unpopular the concept of ever closer union is and so do their best to hide the true nature of the EU. European politicians have, on the whole, beeen far more honest about it.
I cant remember saying 14%, but I might have, its a bet!
I understand the frustration with account names. I just think that more people would read your posts if you changed to another one. It makes you come over as a chest thumping partisan, when actually you're not.
I think you two may be misunderstanding one another.
Mr Bond appears to have sent you a message via vanilla, this was forwarded to your email address, but the reply-to address would be dead.
If you click on the link below, it will take you to your user profile at vanilla forums.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/profile/44/MikeK
In the top right hand corner of the page there is a 'mail icon', your inbox, click on that to see any unread messages.
The ban on former BNP members derives from a carve up between the two parties when it was agreed that BNP should fight the urban constituencies and UKIP plough their furrow in the shires. With the collapse of the BNP this no longer applies.
And Professor Sked now seems to have found a 1997 vintage membership application form for UKIP and he has shown it to Stuart Jeffries of the Guardian:
Up until 1997 I [Alan Sked, then leader of UKIP] managed to keep UKIP a liberal – with a small 'l' – centre, moderate party. Our membership application form from the time – ah, here it is! [1997 application form he was looking for] – shows how much it has changed."
He hands me the form. It makes for fascinating reading. In 1993, along with backing British withdrawal from the EU, prospective members had to be sympathetic to the following: "It is a non-sectarian, non-racist party with no prejudices against foreigners or lawful minorities of any kind. It does not recognise the legitimacy of the European parliament and will send representatives only to the British parliament in Westminster."
"They got rid of all that after I left," says Sked, who resigned the leadership shortly after the 1997 general election.
Any comment?
I am as left wing as they come, but pragmatic.
I try my best to understand others point of view, as just firing off insults is seldom productive (though fun at times)
And now we wait....