It depends on your definition of cost, I think it's wrong to assume everyone who voted AIFE made a mistake and were really Kippers.
Pollsters asked people others, if you look at that, both ICM and YouGov got the others (excluding the top 4 right) 16% vs 16.31%
They weren't just asking about the top 4, the greens, the nats and the bnp, they asked for others.
Additionally, the ICM final phone poll had UKIP on 26% (it was the online ICM poll that had them on 25%)
To understand polling (and it keeps on adapting) look at the overall trend, a while back pollsters were generally underestimating UKIP, now they're generally overestimating them (as we saw at the Euros and Newark)
I think Mike's other metric for judging accuracy isn't just to get the most accurate share for one party, but the spread.
Mike Smithson @LewisBotfield See chart showing final EP2014 polls gap between top 3 parties & what happened. ICM & YouGov best
The other thing I would say is, it was disappointing we only had one phone pollster doing any polls on the Euro.
Ok cheers
Would just say that it's not me that said AIFE voters cost ukip, it was Mike. That's why I don't think it is plausible to claim that while saying ICM or YG were the most accurate, as one belief disproves the other
Footy Betting I'm waiting patiently for the spread-betting firms to post up their season's points spreads for the s to finish as the bottom pair in the Premier League. These may be backed at best odds of 2/1 (various) and 3.2/1 (Ladbrokes) respectively for the drop. Although I'm inclined
I'm loathe to bet on QPR - I can see them having an interesting transfer window, they do have a tendency to spend silly money at the end of windows.
Personally I will be astonished if QPR don't get relegated - I expect
How does the expression go? If it sounds too good to be true ..........
Thanks
Can you answer this please? I think if will be useful in understanding GE polling
In the. Euros Ukip scored 27.5%
Mike believes AIFE cost them 1.5%
This would mean 29% intended to vote ukip
ICM had Ukip at 25%, YouGov at 27%
These numbers are used to rebuff claims by Kippers that ICM and YG understate UKIP "they were the most accurate at the euros"
But if Mike is correct, and Ukip were denied 1.5% by AIFE, then those pollsters were no more accurate than TNS(31%) or Opinium (32%)
So either Mike was wrong about the AIFE effect, or it is wrong to claim ICM. And YG were closest with the Euro results
So to believe ICM & YG. Are the most accurate in regards to ukip, and writing off Opinium and TNS, while forgetting about AIFE could lead to bad bets next GE
AIFE got 1.43% of the vote - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom) Presumably Mike is (if you represent his views correctly) rounding up and then saying that virtually every single vote for AIFE was by mistake for Ukip. A very bold assumption surely? The BNP got over 1% of the vote on their own merits as it were and without being mistaken for anyone else. Why shouldn't most, or at least half, of AIFE votes have been intended for AIFE? I think given that voters put the x on the ballot paper the onus is on Mike to show that they did not intend to vote for AIFE. Evidence for this might be e.g.that they were unknown to the public, did no canvassing, had no policies etc etc.
Gawain Towler of ukip was on the Sunday Politics a few weeks ago, and he said the fact that AIFE polled 1.5% while other parties of their stature polled about 0.5% showed that people were mistaken, but that's not my point.
But you would have to ask .mike not me why he thinks AIFE cost ukip votes, as it wasn't me that said they did.
I just don't think he can reasonably claim that they did and at the same time say ICM were anymore accurate that Opinium
Can you answer this please? I think if will be useful in understanding GE polling
In the. Euros Ukip scored 27.5%
Mike believes AIFE cost them 1.5%
This would mean 29% intended to vote ukip
ICM had Ukip at 25%, YouGov at 27%
These numbers are used to rebuff claims by Kippers that ICM and YG understate UKIP "they were the most accurate at the euros"
But if Mike is correct, and Ukip were denied 1.5% by AIFE, then those pollsters were no more accurate than TNS(31%) or Opinium (32%)
So either Mike was wrong about the AIFE effect, or it is wrong to claim ICM. And YG were closest with the Euro results
So to believe ICM & YG. Are the most accurate in regards to ukip, and writing off Opinium and TNS, while forgetting about AIFE could lead to bad bets next GE
At a minimum you are only adjusting one side of the equation: if you believe that all the AIFE votes should be "allocated" to UKIP then you should also allocated whatever ICM predicted for AIFE to their UKIP prediction.
Additionally, I think you are making a mistake allocating it all - for instance, I believe @Alanbrooke was considering voting AIFE because he didn't like UKIP or any of the major parties. So there are some voters for AIFE that were not mistaken votes for UKIP.
However, I'm always dubious about arguments that X votes for a party were in error, so I'd question the assumption of the 1.5% anyway.
I have no idea, and made no guess at what AIFE cost ukip, it was Mike that said it was 1.5%
What iam saying is, that if Mike, not me remember, is right with that 1.5%, it can't make sense to say ICM and YG were the most accurate, because you would have to add 1.5% to UKIPs score! and that would next they were not the most accurate
Mike makes both claims, but one contradicts th either so both can't be right
The 1.5% claim is the one that has to go, not least because it is more than the entire AIFE vote. There's at least 3 sorts of AIFE votes: mistake for Ukip votes, genuine AIFE supporter votes, and let's spite Ukip votes (because if you hate Ukip, which lots of people did the time, the most satisfactory to vote against them is one which gives the illusion they have tricked out of votes by a hated rival). Impossible to quantify, but I'd instinctively put the real loss under 0.5%.
Edit: "same stature" is very difficult to quantify and the argument takes no account of the spite vote. But I take your point that these are not your numbers anyway.
Cricket looking threatening - weather in East London of a similar disposition.
I've taken back my red off the draw - Cook really is shocking - he should have come out and played shots... instead he's got a piss slow 22, utterly negative. I'm not even sure this England team will try and get the 231 runs tommorow...
Whatever happens - need weather for the draw.
Fancy England to win this 4s tempting.
Despite myself, I do too. Starting with Moeen and Root gives me a bit of confidence - should be a good crowd in for the start of the school holidays. Who knows?
My grandsons don't break up until Wednesday otherwise I would take them.
Stokes needs some runs, just hope he and Broad play their natural gamr.
Yeah think some schools break up midweek for some bizarre reason. Shame.
I just hope the first two stick around for a bit to give Stokes et al a platform. Could be an interesting day.
It depends on your definition of cost, I think it's wrong to assume everyone who voted AIFE made a mistake and were really Kippers.
Pollsters asked people others, if you look at that, both ICM and YouGov got the others (excluding the top 4 right) 16% vs 16.31%
They weren't just asking about the top 4, the greens, the nats and the bnp, they asked for others.
Additionally, the ICM final phone poll had UKIP on 26% (it was the online ICM poll that had them on 25%)
To understand polling (and it keeps on adapting) look at the overall trend, a while back pollsters were generally underestimating UKIP, now they're generally overestimating them (as we saw at the Euros and Newark)
I think Mike's other metric for judging accuracy isn't just to get the most accurate share for one party, but the spread.
Mike Smithson @LewisBotfield See chart showing final EP2014 polls gap between top 3 parties & what happened. ICM & YouGov best
Sunil Maybe, but the 70th anniversary of a failed plot to kill Hitler which saw the plotters executed is hardly a great cause for celebration. It was an OK movie, but think I preferred to watch 'Love and Other Drugs' on Ch 4
A look at what he has achieved may lend a sense of perspective.
Only three men have won 3 majors by the age of 25 in the Masters era (post 1934) -
Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods - and Rory McIlroy.
Nobody else has ever won 2 majors wire to wire at age 25.
He is only the 7th man ever to win the Open wire to wire with no ties.
A fun fact - 5 of the last 18 majors have been won by men (Clarke, McDowell, McIlroy) from Ulster.
He is truly becoming a special player.
From now on, during the first full week of April each year, one of the major story lines will be - how long will it take Rory to win the Masters and complete the career grand slam.
- plus of course his dad and a few friends stand to collect a small fortune on a bet that Rory would win.
6th November 1981, Depeche Mode performing "Photographic" live:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMml0GylZfI
Probably the best track from their first album Speak & Spell, though everyone knows Just Can't Get Enough (used for three recent adverts, albeit including one cover version).
10 days later on the 16th Nov 81, Vince Clarke left the band forming Yazoo with Alison Moyet, The Assembly with Feargal Sharkey before ending up in Erasure with Andy Bell by 1985.
Sunil Maybe, but the 70th anniversary of a failed plot to kill Hitler which saw the plotters executed is hardly a great cause for celebration. It was an OK movie, but think I preferred to watch 'Love and Other Drugs' on Ch 4
The UK economy will grow faster in 2014 than any other G7 economy, while low wage rises will ensure interest rates do not rise until next year, an influential report has forecast.
UK GDP will hit 3.1% this year, spurred by strong capital investment by businesses, the EY Item Club said.
A look at what he has achieved may lend a sense of perspective.
Only three men have won 3 majors by the age of 25 in the Masters era (post 1934) -
Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods - and Rory McIlroy.
Nobody else has ever won 2 majors wire to wire at age 25.
He is only the 7th man ever to win the Open wire to wire with no ties.
A fun fact - 5 of the last 18 majors have been won by men (Clarke, McDowell, McIlroy) from Ulster.
He is truly becoming a special player.
From now on, during the first full week of April each year, one of the major story lines will be - how long will it take Rory to win the Masters and complete the career grand slam.
- plus of course his dad and a few friends stand to collect a small fortune on a bet that Rory would win.
Not to do down his achievements but a sense of realism here.
He still has a long way to go to be really have his name mentioned in the company of Nicklaus or Woods. Those players broke the mould (much that I am not a Woods fan), not just broke it, smashed it.
Woods in his pomp was so far ahead of the competition (which was fairly strong) in every single department, and it was week in week out. How many years did he go not missing a cut? He didn't just win majors, he annihilated the competition. 138 professional titles, 79 of which on the PGA Tour.
Rory is on his day (and he isn't consistent enough) is better that what is currently quite poor and equally inconsistent competition.
I'm afraid he isn't rocking up at Majors like Nicklaus was and finding he is playing against other greats of the game like Player, Palmer, Watson. Nor is he destroying them by 15 shots on the worlds toughest courses like Woods.
Rory has 13 career titles. That really isn't that special. Yes I know 3 of them are majors and that is a fantastic achievement, but he has to become a hell of a lot better and more consistent player to be really considered up there.
If Woods was 25 again and facing the fields Rory is it, it would be a blood bath.
Returning to Mike's point I agree (and think it would show a larger Labour lead in some cases - there are first-timers who are not proving voter-friendly). But it'll be easier to do next time by when I imagine all the significant parties will have selected - e.g. in Broxtowe we have as yet neither a LibDem nor a UKIP candidate, and if Ashcroft asked about a choice with "A.N. Other" for those two, it could distort the result a bit.
Comments
Would just say that it's not me that said AIFE voters cost ukip, it was Mike. That's why I don't think it is plausible to claim that while saying ICM or YG were the most accurate, as one belief disproves the other
But you would have to ask .mike not me why he thinks AIFE cost ukip votes, as it wasn't me that said they did.
I just don't think he can reasonably claim that they did and at the same time say ICM were anymore accurate that Opinium
Politics aside, it's just illogical
As I said if Iraqis want to get rid of Maliki, ultimately they will do that themselves, maybe once Iran abandons him
"AIFE took about 2% in most regions where they stood
Undoubtedly this cost Ukip votes. The 2% was exactly in line with my prediction."
Edit: "same stature" is very difficult to quantify and the argument takes no account of the spite vote. But I take your point that these are not your numbers anyway.
I just hope the first two stick around for a bit to give Stokes et al a platform. Could be an interesting day.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMml0GylZfI
A look at what he has achieved may lend a sense of perspective.
Only three men have won 3 majors by the age of 25 in the Masters era (post 1934) -
Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods - and Rory McIlroy.
Nobody else has ever won 2 majors wire to wire at age 25.
He is only the 7th man ever to win the Open wire to wire with no ties.
A fun fact - 5 of the last 18 majors have been won by men (Clarke, McDowell, McIlroy) from Ulster.
He is truly becoming a special player.
From now on, during the first full week of April each year, one of the major story lines will be - how long will it take Rory to win the Masters and complete the career grand slam.
- plus of course his dad and a few friends stand to collect a small fortune on a bet that Rory would win.
10 days later on the 16th Nov 81, Vince Clarke left the band forming Yazoo with Alison Moyet, The Assembly with Feargal Sharkey before ending up in Erasure with Andy Bell by 1985.
UK GDP will hit 3.1% this year, spurred by strong capital investment by businesses, the EY Item Club said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28393377
He still has a long way to go to be really have his name mentioned in the company of Nicklaus or Woods. Those players broke the mould (much that I am not a Woods fan), not just broke it, smashed it.
Woods in his pomp was so far ahead of the competition (which was fairly strong) in every single department, and it was week in week out. How many years did he go not missing a cut? He didn't just win majors, he annihilated the competition. 138 professional titles, 79 of which on the PGA Tour.
Rory is on his day (and he isn't consistent enough) is better that what is currently quite poor and equally inconsistent competition.
I'm afraid he isn't rocking up at Majors like Nicklaus was and finding he is playing against other greats of the game like Player, Palmer, Watson. Nor is he destroying them by 15 shots on the worlds toughest courses like Woods.
Rory has 13 career titles. That really isn't that special. Yes I know 3 of them are majors and that is a fantastic achievement, but he has to become a hell of a lot better and more consistent player to be really considered up there.
If Woods was 25 again and facing the fields Rory is it, it would be a blood bath.